Why not a round Tractrix horn

[Chris A]

This definition by Olson and others is not always used in its strict sense.

 

If you happened to press the links to Wikipedia, above, then you would see an entirely different definition from the RF domain - one that says the horn looks like a cone, and that the term "pyramidal horn" is the most proper definition of what we all are talking about.

 

Olson (1957) and Beranek (1954/1994) both used the term in the sense that you say, but apparently without attribution to its original author(s).  I find it interesting that the RF folks, who have historically done a lot more theoretical and experimental work on the subject of horns and horn antennas chose to define it differently. 

 

YMMV - it's a word definition game only. No harm, no foul...and most importantly--very little real information gained by arguing the definitions. 

 

Perhaps an ISO body will (or has) cleared it up: one definition for RF, and another for acoustics...which is intellectually dissatisfying, actually, when one definition would suffice even better.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Chris A

[Chief bonehead]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Getting back to the original question. Why not a round tractrix horn? I say sure. Probably the biggest obejction would be that the coverage pattern of the horn in the vertical would put a lot of energy on the floor and ceiling.

[DrWho]

Using this definition, then the straight wall horn would have a constant angle of a little over 25 degrees (if I remember correctly). Other shapes can look like cones (constant angle, like a cheerleader's cone) but have different angle.

 

 

The conical equation has two free variables:

xo - distance from throat to vertex

St - area of throat

 

S(x) = St * ( (x + xo)/xo )^2

 

...this allows the conical horn to have any constant angle.

 

https://www.grc.com/acoustics/an-introduction-to-horn-theory.pdf

 

 

 

 

Going a step further, there is a range of frequencies where a straight-walled square cross-section horn will have the same radiation properties as the circular cross-section with the same flare angle. This is because the wavefront (not the horn) stays circular. The calculated area of the horn as a function of X will be different, but the wavefront area will be the same. If that is the case, then can the square horn be considered conical in this instance?

[Chief bonehead]

Believe it or not I have done my share of horns. You have to set parameters in order to compare responses. But I am done with this.

I went back to the original question for this thread and I have tried to answer it best I could.

[ClaudeJ1]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Getting back to the original question. Why not a round tractrix horn? I say sure. Probably the biggest obejction would be that the coverage pattern of the horn in the vertical would put a lot of energy on the floor and ceiling.H

Hate to be the one to tell you this, DJK, but Chief may just very well may be the one who designed the horn you speak of. I would bet on it. Time to downshift the transmission a bit on that road!

[ClaudeJ1]

Believe it or not I have done my share of horns. You have to set parameters in order to compare responses. But I am done with this.

I went back to the original question for this thread and I have tried to answer it best I could.

I enjoyed your answers. Hope you stick around and give us more of those!

[Chris A]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

 

Yes - I noticed it, too, but there also seemed to be a piling-on on the subject of definitions, too. 

 

There seems to be far too much attention on things that don't matter (with regard to audio and acoustics), and too little attention paid to the things that do matter--sort of a "pearls before swine" thing or even "biting the hand that feeds"...

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Chris

Edited September 24, 2014 by Chris A

[ClaudeJ1]

 

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

 

Yes - I noticed it, too, but there also seemed to be a piling-on on the subject of definitions, too. 

 

There seems to be far too much attention on things that don't matter (with regard to audio and acoustics), and too little attention paid to the things that do matter--sort of a "pearls before swine" thing or even "biting the hand that feeds"...

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Chris

 

Yes the listening ROOM and the PROGRAM MATERIAL are far more important than just the speakers.

[The Dude]

Believe it or not I have done my share of horns. You have to set parameters in order to compare responses. But I am done with this.

I went back to the original question for this thread and I have tried to answer it best I could.

I enjoyed your answers. Hope you stick around and give us more of those!

I agree, and I feel it was the answer I was looking for. Edited September 24, 2014 by duder1982

[The Dude]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Yes - I noticed it, too, but there also seemed to be a piling-on on the subject of definitions, too.

There seems to be far too much attention on things that don't matter (with regard to audio and acoustics), and too little attention paid to the things that do matter--sort of a "pearls before swine" thing or even "biting the hand that feeds"...

Thanks for your comments.

Chris

Yes the listening ROOM and the PROGRAM MATERIAL are far more important than just the speakers.

Now this statement makes me want to drift off topic.

Is this one of the reasons we try so many different horns. I figured we could eq any horn to make it work, but wouldn't the ultimate goal be to find the best sounding horns, with lease amount of eq'ing needed to sound sound great. If I and am sure others keep this in mind we won't drift off the wrong path(unless your out to reinvent something).

I think there was some great explanations, or discussions about horns here. One topic I am glad I started, and want to thank everyone for their participation.

[seti]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Getting back to the original question. Why not a round tractrix horn? I say sure. Probably the biggest obejction would be that the coverage pattern of the horn in the vertical would put a lot of energy on the floor and ceiling.

 

 

I'd like to see actual Klipsch engineers engaged on the forum to shoot down the odd BS that gets thrown around.

 

 

Many discount things on the forums before actually hearing them for themselves. That is too bad. I've been guilt of this as well.

[Deang]

Klipsch engineers can only go so far. Take "Chief"' for example, how much can Roy really say without giving up closely guarded intellectual property?

Roy, I do wish you would try to be more patient with people, especially someone like Dennis (DJK). If he comes off "arrogant", it's only because he knows this subject matter very well. He's a great guy, and it's not exactly fair to force everyone into a guessing game, and then criticize them for being confident in what they know. To the casual observer, how do you think you might look in all of this?

"If the area expansion is not following the equation then you can call it anything ... "

Lol, well, if that's the case - then the words are meaningless. Words are vehicles of thought - if you can no longer accurately convey with words what the math is doing - then maybe you should have just called it something else (The Bonehead Expansion).

[mikebse2a3]

"If he comes off "Arrogant", it's only because he knows this subject matter very well"

Come on Dean, since when is having knowledge an excuse for being arrogant?

I'll take your word for it that djk is a "great guy" and if that's true then he should want to work on how he responds to people in his post. Anyone who has spent much time on this forum knows that many of his responses can be condensending.

"not exactly fair to force everyone into a guessing game and then critize them for being confident in what they know."

Again Dean I know you know Roy well enough to know that the "guessing game" is a teaching method Roy uses to not just simply give an answer but instead a method of letting people learn and by following the path of reason and logic to the answer they seek and then their understanding will be much deeper for it.

It's a part of Roy's personality that I hope never changes.

One last thing, I know without a doubt that if you show Roy respect(same as we all deserve) he will certainly return that and more by helping you anyway he can.

miketn

Edited September 25, 2014 by mikebse2a3

[ClaudeJ1]

 

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Getting back to the original question. Why not a round tractrix horn? I say sure. Probably the biggest obejction would be that the coverage pattern of the horn in the vertical would put a lot of energy on the floor and ceiling.

 

 

I'd like to see actual Klipsch engineers engaged on the forum to shoot down the odd BS that gets thrown around.

 

 

Many discount things on the forums before actually hearing them for themselves. That is too bad. I've been guilt of this as well.

 

What makes you think he's not already here?

[ClaudeJ1]

"If he comes off "Arrogant", it's only because he knows this subject matter very well"

Come on Dean, since when is having knowledge an excuse for being arrogant?

I'll take your word for it that djk is a "great guy" and if that's true then he should want to work on how he responds to people in his post. Anyone who has spent much time on this forum knows that many of his responses can be condensending.

"not exactly fair to force everyone into a guessing game and then critize them for being confident in what they know."

Again Dean I know you know Roy well enough to know that the "guessing game" is a teaching method Roy uses to not just simply give an answer but instead a method of letting people learn and by following the path of reason and logic to the answer they seek and then their understanding will be much deeper for it.

It's a part of Roy's personality that I hope never changes.

One last thing, I know without a doubt that if you show Roy respect(same as we all deserve) he will certainly return that and more by helping you anyway he can.

miketn

"A horn is just a reasonably rigid air column, all you have to is figure out what shape to make it."----PWK

 

So there is the difficult part, what shape to make it. I would add also what length to make it (and maybe where to tap holes in it with more drivers, if I were Tom Danley).

 

On the most simplistic level that IS all that horns have in common. But it is still an extremely difficult task. Those who actually design and PRODUCE the best of midrange/treble horns deserve our respect because iterating them to excellence is a very complex, time consuming,  and expensive task.

 

Everyone else, including me, is just a proverbial "armchair quarterback with a keyboard."

Edited September 25, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[Chief bonehead]

Can we just get back the subject of the thread? If you want I can start a chief bonehead sucks thread.

[ClaudeJ1]

Can we just get back the subject of the thread? If you want I can start a chief bonehead sucks thread.

Go ahead, I double dog dare you!

 

And here I was trying to be complimentary.

Edited September 26, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[DrWho]

Going a step further, there is a range of frequencies where a straight-walled square cross-section horn will have the same radiation properties as the circular cross-section with the same flare angle. This is because the wavefront (not the horn) stays circular. The calculated area of the horn as a function of X will be different, but the wavefront area will be the same. If that is the case, then can the square horn be considered conical in this instance?

 

 

Does nobody want to bite on this one? Maybe I can ask it another way: Is it the shape of the horn, or the shape of the wavefront that dictates its definition?

[Chris A]

 

A lot of that is just semantics.

The AH! and 18 Sound are conical (like the K402 (except for the jast couple of inches), the Faital Pro is tractrix all the way..

Really?? And just how would you know that? Or is it just the last 1.8769375". Lol!

 

The K-402 really is modified tractrix, not conical.  If you've got one to measure, you'd see that.

 

Mr. Chief Bonehead, how did you decide how to constrain the design...if I might might ask?  Is there something special about the width, height, and/or depth of typical applications in pro cinemas, or was it the lowest freq. where its polars begin to shift increasingly outwards?

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[ClaudeJ1]

The definition is not the problem. It is the arrogance of one the "experts" on this forum to totally decide they "know" how the horn was designed. That is a problem on this forum.

Getting back to the original question. Why not a round tractrix horn? I say sure. Probably the biggest obejction would be that the coverage pattern of the horn in the vertical would put a lot of energy on the floor and ceiling.

Agreed. This is especially true when they don't realize they are talking to the guy who DID design it.

 

I belong to an advanced pro photography group, except for mine, all top names in the industry. One of the most respected guys in my photo group went on an Adobe Photoshop forum to get some new tips.

 

He came back and told us about some a turkey guy there telling a certain individual he didn't know what was he talking about and argued with him about Photoshop. The idiot guy was arguing with that certain individual by the name of Tom Knoll, the guy who WROTE Photoshop!!

 

I happen to prefer rectangular horns for the asyymetcal horizontal/vertical control they provide vs. circular horns, which do not. But I guess if you raise and aim them right and sit at the proper distance, they can work. It all depends on where you want the sound to go. I'm happy with my 60x40 Horns after having K-402's with a 90x60 pattern. I think 80x40 or 50 might be ideal for many situations.

Edited December 16, 2014 by ClaudeJ1