Why should that be a problem?
Again, why is that an issue?
In that case, presumably they will choose the Par flare option in any simulations done using Hornresp.
Not sure that I understand. Do you mean that a circle can be converted to a square:
Having its side length equal to the circle diameter,
Having its diagonal length equal to the circle diameter,
Having an equivalent perimeter length,
or
Having an equivalent area?
Again, I am not sure what you mean. As mentioned previously, it is how the cross-sectional area changes with axial length that determines the horn type, not what it may physically look like.
Consider the following very simple example of a conical horn having:
S1 = 2500 cm^2
S2 = 10000 cm^2
L12 (Con) = 100 cm
Axisymmetric conical horn:
Diameter profile:
Equivalent square cross-section conical horn with throat 50 cm x 50 cm and mouth 100 cm x 100cm:
Height profile:
Width profile:
Equivalent rectangular cross-section conical horn with throat 50 cm x 50 cm and mouth 50 cm x 200 cm:
Height profile:
Width profile:
In all three cases the cross-sectional area expands at the same rate from 2500 cm^2 to 10000 cm^2 along the 100 cm length of the conical horn.
You stated HR is based on cylindrical segments. That can be converted to rectangular segments.
A model that SHOULD have ALL expanding sides cannot be BUILT into a 2 parallel sided enclosure and expect the built PAR enclosure to measure the same as the modeled CON or EXP enclosure.
Now, a PAR enclosure can have an exponential expansion rate, but is not an EXP enclosure.
The purpose of HR defaulting to PAR is to prevent bad habits. Folks are using CON because it's already there. Like I said before, 99% of people are NOT building an enclosure with ALL expanding sides.
CON = ALL straight expanding sides.
NO PARALLEL SIDES.
EXP = ALL curved expanding sides.
NO PARALLEL SIDES.
PAR = 2 expanding, 2 non-expanding, or 2 negative expanding sides.
TWO PARALLEL SIDES.
Good luck trying to fold a CON or EXP enclosure in reality. You would need the same technology they use to make brass horn instruments. I suppose you could 3D print a CON or EXP enclosure.
99% of the people in this SUBwoofer thread BUILT PAR enclosures.
A model that SHOULD have ALL expanding sides cannot be BUILT into a 2 parallel sided enclosure and expect the built PAR enclosure to measure the same as the modeled CON or EXP enclosure.
Now, a PAR enclosure can have an exponential expansion rate, but is not an EXP enclosure.
The purpose of HR defaulting to PAR is to prevent bad habits. Folks are using CON because it's already there. Like I said before, 99% of people are NOT building an enclosure with ALL expanding sides.
CON = ALL straight expanding sides.
NO PARALLEL SIDES.
EXP = ALL curved expanding sides.
NO PARALLEL SIDES.
PAR = 2 expanding, 2 non-expanding, or 2 negative expanding sides.
TWO PARALLEL SIDES.
Good luck trying to fold a CON or EXP enclosure in reality. You would need the same technology they use to make brass horn instruments. I suppose you could 3D print a CON or EXP enclosure.
99% of the people in this SUBwoofer thread BUILT PAR enclosures.
Last edited:
You can sum a few PAR segments that gradually expand (horn shapes) as an EXP and get a measured result that’s very similar to the HR simulation. (Especially if you looked at the volume/length of each section and described them appropriately)?
this has already been shown with various illustrations of stepped expansions, etc
this has already been shown with various illustrations of stepped expansions, etc
I already stated that PAR segments can have exponential expansion rate. It's still not an exponential horn. ALL SIDES HAVE TO EXPAND, not just 2.
Check out car horns. They are exponential whether straight or folded.
Parabolic enclosures are not as efficient as conical or exponential enclosures.
Parabolic enclosures are easier to build for us DIYers.
All 3 pics are EXP enclosures.
If you are not BUILDING these types of enclosures, then you SHOULD model with PAR.
Parabolic enclosures are not as efficient as conical or exponential enclosures.
Parabolic enclosures are easier to build for us DIYers.
All 3 pics are EXP enclosures.
If you are not BUILDING these types of enclosures, then you SHOULD model with PAR.
Have you built 3 enclosures for the same driver, 1 CON HR model, 1 EXP HR model, and 1 PAR HR model, with the same throat, mouth, and length, and all the measured data were the exact same?
I see it all the time, "my measurements don't match my model." 1st thing I noticed is they modeled with CON, EXP, or my favorite...CON & EXP.
I'd love to see an enclosure where the 1st segment has 4 straight expanding sides and then the 2nd segment has 4 curved expanding sides.
i Need to manipulate LE more often then not to get the measured freq response shape to resemble the horn response simulation.
the actual TS parameters and real Cms/VAS are often culprit . The dats isn’t ’perfect‘ ever either….
Fb and the rest of the pipe resonaces are incredibly close to the landmarks in hornresponse. Because of the shape/geometry/volume and length of the qw resonators described.
line the driver up to cancel out a pipe resonace in horn response and then change the ‘exp/con/par’.. if it’s barely misaligning that location with driver position then it’s probably not going to be a big deal in the actual subwoofer ? What metric can you use to evaluate this inaccuracy your troubled with?
the actual TS parameters and real Cms/VAS are often culprit . The dats isn’t ’perfect‘ ever either….
Fb and the rest of the pipe resonaces are incredibly close to the landmarks in hornresponse. Because of the shape/geometry/volume and length of the qw resonators described.
line the driver up to cancel out a pipe resonace in horn response and then change the ‘exp/con/par’.. if it’s barely misaligning that location with driver position then it’s probably not going to be a big deal in the actual subwoofer ? What metric can you use to evaluate this inaccuracy your troubled with?
Last edited: