simonr wrote: Ihad to do some checking on the wsx sims due to some comments on another post. I found that the plots were made using a version earlier than 17.xx, and did not include the low frequency enhancements in later versions, so were very low. Also, I thought that the model used for the plots didn't look right. After checking back with the plans, I found that this wascorrect, and that there were some errors in the model. The first section of horn directly in front of the driver should,I believe, be considered as throat chamber and not horn. The horn proper starts at the end of the lower panel at the point wherepath starts to bend round. I think this first section iscalled a manifold?. The figure that should be entered for the volume of throat chamber is 13000 for the manifold and then whatever is actually in front of the diaphragm. Normally about 4 to 5 litres for most drivers.So 18000 should be entered for VTC. The average cross section of the throat chamber should be entered as 544, as this is the smallest and hence most important restriction, andforms the greater part of the path from the letterbox entry along to the start of the flare out to the throat. Next is the throat itself, at no time does the horn path or manifold narrow down to 404!. The Throat is 688 at the start, and S1 should be enetered as this. Next is the actual length of the horn and thisis never 200 (or was it 210), even including the manifold!. The model for the horn should be something like as follows:
VRC: 88
LRC: 20
ATC: 544
VTC: 18000
S1: 688 S2: 1238 exp/con 62.
S3: 1238 exp/con 42.5
S4: 3078 exp/con 39
S5: 4300 exp/con 19
Closest approximation for this as a single section horn would be :
S1: 688 S2: 4300 Hyp: 1630 T: 0.7/0.8or possibly 0.9.
Does anyone bother with the grilles any more?, as the original design might well have had allowances made for the restrictions imposed, and would also suggest that the mouth area should be considered as a much lower figure than the total front area.This model does not include the top panel of the flare, as this is so close to vertical that the difference in tuning to the horn would be minimal. Why exp or conical?,.The sides are actually flat and not curved, as a true exponential flare should be. The difference is not that great, it's up to you. A caution message will pop up saying atc < sd. Well it is, isn't it?. The difference in plots between entering the driver sd and the manifold area is nearly all at the top end , which is probably why these cabinets are supposed to go higher than most, check it for yourselves and compare them.
After looking at the plans and drawing them out on cad, I noticed something that I will probably be very unpopular for mentioning, but here goes anyway.
There is,for all intents and purposes, very little difference between the wsx and the 186/1850 horns. The manifold is the feature which puts them apart. This does make an improvement in the upper frequencies from about 130 hz upwards.It opensup to 3db at 250hz !. All other things considered, it's the same breed of animal, just different coloured spots. When considering the 186, it has been said that this horn can be used up to 200hz, but that is probably the pd186 driver. As far as which one is louder, or goes lower, then the guy with themore powerfulamp and the most efficient drivers that can handle the power is going to win!. Anyone want to discuss any of the above, or feels that I've just had a senior moment, then maybe we should move this over to the advanced discussion forum, and let anyone who wants to chew on the bone have their tuppence worth, we might get somebody who knows what they are doing give us a few pointers. happy Building!.
need all input parameter for the wsx to put into the lastest hornresp version, here is a picture of the input i need(and help too lol):
