Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Please explain the difference in geometry between a fairly "open"
conical horn made with three walls and the corner. Surely a difference
in geometry has to exist for the acoustic functionality to differ?

For an obvious start, a room corner is not conical - unless you live
in an oast house.

A room corner has the property of a constant expansion rate. A conical
horn has the property of a constant expansion rate.

A conical horn has a mouth, a room does not. A room corner has three
*reflective* surfaces, a conical horn has none.

A horn is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by having rigid walls, such are
also reflective. That difference is non-existant.

Yes, when you are in the room, then you are also in the horn, you are
right, that difference does exist, you are even right that I had failed
to consider it and allow for it because the similarities are so obvious,
and it is of course something that I should have thought of.

I don't think that makes the right/wrong difference here and I *do*
think that the interchangeabily of the models "room corner" and "conical
horn" is vital in getting the most out of any given system in any room.
I do not understand how it can be relevant to try to exclude this dual
image of the same setup and I am surprised that you can not see it in
all its obviousness.

You seem to want to exclude all conical horns that are of a non-elipsoid
cross-section from being horns, if you can make the point then by all
means do, but don't try to claim that a horn with absorbing wall
surfaces will constitute anything but an attenuation device by being
lossy.

Crosssection shape
can be freely chosen, aspect ratio's beyond 3:1 are best avoided unless
it is for feeding another horn, bends will attenuate frequencies whose
wavelenght is comparable to or smaller than the bend radius.

Are you completely insane? Do you have *any* idea what you're saying
there?

Let me check ... "Crosssection shape can be freely chosen, aspect
ratio's beyond 3:1 are best avoided unless it is for feeding another
horn, bends will attenuate frequencies whose wavelenght is comparable to
or smaller than the bend radius." - yes, it still looks as what I typed
and as what I meant to say.

There *are* no bends in a conical horn, and a subwoofer is used
only at frequencies where a wavelength is more than ten feet!

I just addressed the general properties of a conical horn, one of which
happens to be that it can be bent, and it is still a valid conical horn
if bent. There hadn't been much bass-range in early cinema sound if that
was not correct. You seem to read into this that it is about any
specific frequency range, I intentionally used the term "horn"
undefined. Don't be so much wanting to prove me wrong that you forget to
check that what you yourself write is valid.

You are a buffoon.

I have not commented on your person Stewart, and I usually do not
comment on peoples person in discussions, it appears not to be required
to so do ... O;-) ... usually you come across as better behaved.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******