Maybe designing of vintage style speakers with quite poor sound is fun and therefore "the best software" should support that too?
I mean mistake has already happened if designer needs diffraction simulation for higher than 600-700 Hz. And optimizing response of direct sound to a single spot in 3D space e.g. at 2.5 m 20 deg off-axis just confirms that original design target has not been very sustainable.
to design a speaker you need a fake baffle in cardboard and build many prototypes until the response is the best for the desired XO.
this is painful trial and error, which will never be as good as a computer optimization.
Same thing for building the XO, trial and error is impossible.
the current baffle designers are NOT accurate, they do not predict an accurate real life response, + they are trial/error designers. The computers gives an approximate response, it doesn't fix the box for you.
this is painful trial and error, which will never be as good as a computer optimization.
Same thing for building the XO, trial and error is impossible.
the current baffle designers are NOT accurate, they do not predict an accurate real life response, + they are trial/error designers. The computers gives an approximate response, it doesn't fix the box for you.
There are different approaches. Enclosure can be understood as directivity component - kinda wave guide from radiating surface to full space. Then it's not for response shaping to any particular direction and especially not for certain XO slopes. It's not mandatory to make a single prototype if designer is aware how to shape enclosure so that conversion to full...half space is smooth and off-axis responses to different directions i.e. directivity does not have major irregularities due to diffraction. Responses and slopes are shaped with XO and controlled directivity of whole construction takes care that off-axis is well-behaving.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.