An easy way to plot OB frequency response using a sealed box as a model.maxro said:Where are you going with this?
That doesn't take into account the rear wave, which will cause phase cancellations.
Try this: http://www.tolvan.com/edge
Play around with the shape of the baffle, and position of the driver for the best response, then tune from there. It has an option for OB.
Geoff.
Try this: http://www.tolvan.com/edge
Play around with the shape of the baffle, and position of the driver for the best response, then tune from there. It has an option for OB.
Geoff.
Attachments
Or, better yet try this: http://www.tolvan.com/basta/
Basta allows you to account for driver parameters, which The Edge does not.
Basta allows you to account for driver parameters, which The Edge does not.
Geoff H said:That doesn't take into account the rear wave, which will cause phase cancellations.
Yes it does. Look at the lower right hand corner. The 'EQ' frequency is the cutoff frequency of the baffle. It does not show the combing effects which (in my room anyways) are moot. But it does show the HP function of the baffle.
Scottmoose said:Martin's upgraded mathCad worksheet will knock your eyes out.
Martins Mathcad stuff runs klunky on my computer. Besides the not being able to 'save' etc. I like programs that run fast and slick and facilitate 'playing' ......
The worksheets do facilitate playing. Never had a problem with that myself.
The reason they run slow is because they are extremely detailed in terms of what they calculate. They aren't instant on anyone's machine because of the sheer amount of processing involved. Even on a brand-new machine with 2Gb RAM, massive processor etc it still took a while to run the in-room routines on a big horn I've been designing recently. The price you have to pay for accuracy.
The reason they run slow is because they are extremely detailed in terms of what they calculate. They aren't instant on anyone's machine because of the sheer amount of processing involved. Even on a brand-new machine with 2Gb RAM, massive processor etc it still took a while to run the in-room routines on a big horn I've been designing recently. The price you have to pay for accuracy.
"Accuracy" beyond the realm of practicality.Scottmoose said:The worksheets do facilitate playing. Never had a problem with that myself.
The reason they run slow is because they are extremely detailed in terms of what they calculate. They aren't instant on anyone's machine because of the sheer amount of processing involved. Even on a brand-new machine with 2Gb RAM, massive processor etc it still took a while to run the in-room routines on a big horn I've been designing recently. The price you have to pay for accuracy.
(for me anyways)
hitsware said:I like programs that run fast and slick and facilitate 'playing' ......
Then you'll love The Edge. Was it metioned already that it's FREE?
I've got it. Won't take driver specs though.maxro said:
Then you'll love The Edge. Was it metioned already that it's FREE?
Had Basta too, but the time limit ran out
IMO my Boxplot kludge out does any other
approach.
IMO my Boxplot kludge out does any other
If it works for you that is great, you should use whatever best fits your needs. But does you model include the following capabilities :
- multiple drivers with correct T/S parameters
- driver directionality as a function of diameter
- relative driver placements on the baffle
- combined driver and baffle directionality (the off axis response) in front, beside, and behind the baffle
- interaction between drivers at the listening position
- floor bounce cancellation and floor reinforcement at low frequencies
- multiple drivers and crossover filters including inverted connections
- boost or cut of driver(s) w.r.t. the other driver(s) on the baffle
- proximity of the rear wall and potential reflections
Looks like you can handle one driver and an approximate baffle size which is a good start. However, I am not sure how your "kludge" out does any other modeling, I would rank it behind MathCad and the Edge for producing useful OB results. But if it works for you and any other people then that is what you should use for designing your OB speakers.
MJK said:
If it works for you that is great, you should use whatever best fits your needs. But does you model include the following capabilities :
- multiple drivers with correct T/S parameters
- driver directionality as a function of diameter
- relative driver placements on the baffle
- combined driver and baffle directionality (the off axis response) in front, beside, and behind the baffle
- interaction between drivers at the listening position
- floor bounce cancellation and floor reinforcement at low frequencies
- multiple drivers and crossover filters including inverted connections
- boost or cut of driver(s) w.r.t. the other driver(s) on the baffle
- proximity of the rear wall and potential reflections
Looks like you can handle one driver and an approximate baffle size which is a good start. However, I am not sure how your "kludge" out does any other modeling, I would rank it behind MathCad and the Edge for producing useful OB results. But if it works for you and any other people then that is what you should use for designing your OB speakers.
Well ...... I'm working on the "multiple drivers'" part
http://home.comcast.net/~jhyamamoto/efftest.xls
Gotta add Qm to the inputs and Qts to the outputs.
and 'Re' (to the inputs)
hitsware said:
Well ...... I'm working on the "multiple drivers'" part
http://home.comcast.net/~jhyamamoto/efftest.xls
Gotta add Qm to the inputs and Qts to the outputs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Full Range
- 'modeling' open baffle speakers