Hornresp

[David McBean]

Originally Posted by a77cj7

That said, cylindrical expansion option would be cool just to eliminate entering the area a second time.

It's not going to happen :-).

Switching to Cyl becomes problematic when editing an existing record, which tends to be what most users do. To illustrate, assume that for the first segment S1 = 100, S2 = 2000 and L12 (Exp) = 100. If Exp is switched to Cyl, does S1 change to 2000 or does S2 change to 100?

Rather than setting a rule I prefer to leave it up to the user to decide which way to go, depending upon the circumstances (ie. whether the segments are stepped, and if not, what area value is required for the throat of segment 2). Besides, there is no real requirement to have a Cyl option as Con, Exp and Par have all been intentionally coded to support S1 = S2.

[David McBean]

Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic

I was trying to stay within the current parameters of how all the HR fields work to lessen the coding.

It doesn't help. The amount of work that would be required is utterly out of the question. It's not going to happen.

Consider yourself lucky if the Paraflex option is ultimately added (by no means a certainty at this early stage).

[thomgiles]

Originally Posted by David McBean

It's not going to happen :-).

Switching to Cyl becomes problematic when editing an existing record, which tends to be what most users do. To illustrate, assume that for the first segment S1 = 100, S2 = 2000 and L12 (Exp) = 100. If Exp is switched to Cyl, does S1 change to 2000 or does S2 change to 100?

Rather than setting a rule I prefer to leave it up to the user to decide which way to go, depending upon the circumstances (ie. whether the segments are stepped, and if not, what area value is required for the throat of segment 2). Besides, there is no real requirement to have a Cyl option as Con, Exp and Par have all been intentionally coded to support S1 = S2.

I totally agree with you here. Its not exactly difficult to set the same CSA in both fields and the way its already implemented with S2S, S3S and S4S is way cooler.

I was thinking about the "throat chamber" conundrum in the putative PA system model and was wondering if the existing "Driver front Volume" calculator be used to define this?

[thomgiles]

Also trying to work out if SD Vas etc can get us somewhere close to predicting the vtc of a driver flush mounted perpendicular to the path a horn....?

[David McBean]

Originally Posted by thomgiles

I was thinking about the "throat chamber" conundrum in the putative PA system model and was wondering if the existing "Driver front Volume" calculator be used to define this?

Originally Posted by thomgiles

Also trying to work out if SD Vas etc can get us somewhere close to predicting the vtc of a driver flush mounted perpendicular to the path a horn....?

For all sorts of reasons, it's not going to happen.

Is it still worth trying to implement the Paraflex model if driver front volume is not taken into account, bearing in mind that the rear volume occupied by the chassis and magnet assembly is currently disregarded in most cases?