In Reply to: I use three rates of flair over the course of the horn. posted by Bill Fitzmaurice on July 28, 2003 at 16:54:31:
I was just trying to take you up on your suggestion to model your horn. If you'd like to provide more details, I can do that and then maybe an intelligent discussion can take place where both sides know the specifics of what you're talking about.Otherwise, I can speculate that you are using the driver way into cone breakup which Leach and McBean's HR don't account for. This would lead to a deterioration in sound quality.
Or, perhaps I could speculate that McBean's HR and Leach's model are not appropriate for modeling your construction - they do not allow modeling what you hint at. So it's no suprise that their predictions do not fit with what you measure. If this is the case, you basically put garbage into the equations. This does not make either approach to modeling a horn wrong, just too restricted for what you need. I have a similar situation where neither approach comes close enough to modeling what I'm building. This has led me to try writing my own simulation program.
So are you basically building something like Olson describes in sec 5.30 of Acoustical Engineering?
John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I use three rates of flair over the course of the horn. - John Sheerin 07/28/0317:13:54 07/28/03 (5)
- Olsen - Bill Fitzmaurice 05:29:40 07/29/03 (4)
- Re: Olsen - JLH 19:32:07 07/29/03 (3)
- Olsen did what he did - Bill Fitzmaurice 13:34:26 07/30/03 (2)
- Re: Olson, Newton, Einstein and physics (long ramble). - Paul Eizik 21:55:43 07/30/03 (1)
- Hey Paul - Bill Fitzmaurice 05:41:04 07/31/03 (0)