This is very exciting news! I was under the impression that MJK was not willing to release any new software because of intellectual property issues (understandable). I can't wait to play with it-this should prove to be an exceptionally powerful design tool. Thanks Martin!
<damn....this means I am going to have to build *more* speakers.....where will I put them???? When will the madness end?>
<damn....this means I am going to have to build *more* speakers.....where will I put them???? When will the madness end?>
too many speakers
I am with you on that one jeremym.
I really like the work MJK has done and am keen to send in what ever token amout he feels in reasonable. The work he has done has made me a very true believer in TL designs.
Good for you Martin and thank you very much.
My suggestions have already been expressed bipole, bipole, bipole, bottom exit ports.
I am with you on that one jeremym.
I really like the work MJK has done and am keen to send in what ever token amout he feels in reasonable. The work he has done has made me a very true believer in TL designs.
Good for you Martin and thank you very much.
My suggestions have already been expressed bipole, bipole, bipole, bottom exit ports.
Thanks, Martin & scottmoose
I'm working on a simulation of a ML TQWT with the sides being trapezoidal.
I think this is OK (Y/N)?
This also raises the question:
What about sloped baffles? I see the feature for toe-in. I hope I didn't overlook that one. My current application is to "aim" the driver's CL's towards the ear, not to compensate for acoustic centers.
What about height of baffle above floor? Such as for the Totem-style or others on spikes?
I, like scottmoose have combined parameters for 2 drivers to be modelled as one. Is this (an mtm) a valid execise in a ML TQWT?
I would like to ask the location for the "best value" (OK, I'm tight...) for the purchase of Mathcad.
Martin, name your price for your worksheets.
For those like myself who still work with Explorer, I copy and paste parameters and response graph into a 2 X 5 table in a Word.doc. This lets me compare one above the next to judge what progress I make in the simulations. It saves paper and pushing it around until a design matures.
Thanks again
I'm working on a simulation of a ML TQWT with the sides being trapezoidal.
I think this is OK (Y/N)?
This also raises the question:
What about sloped baffles? I see the feature for toe-in. I hope I didn't overlook that one. My current application is to "aim" the driver's CL's towards the ear, not to compensate for acoustic centers.
What about height of baffle above floor? Such as for the Totem-style or others on spikes?
I, like scottmoose have combined parameters for 2 drivers to be modelled as one. Is this (an mtm) a valid execise in a ML TQWT?
I would like to ask the location for the "best value" (OK, I'm tight...) for the purchase of Mathcad.
Martin, name your price for your worksheets.
For those like myself who still work with Explorer, I copy and paste parameters and response graph into a 2 X 5 table in a Word.doc. This lets me compare one above the next to judge what progress I make in the simulations. It saves paper and pushing it around until a design matures.
Thanks again
Ed Lafontaine said:
Yes. Far as I'm aware. I've never had any problems at least. I paste into Word etc too -I'm scouring ebay for a genuine copy of a late version of MathCad that I can afford too -time I had one.
Dave -good point about flared ports. Not something I've ever used, believe it or not, but could be worth looking into.
No, they don't as yet cover upward-firing enclosures like Terry's BIB box as yet. Similar issues to downward firing ports I believe, though probably easier to resolve as there's less variables to consider. I'm sure Martin can do it though. Regarding Terry's BIB enclosure, it has other issues in modelling I believe, owing to its interaction with the room -it's closer to being a horn in this respect than other ported designs. (I'm still a fan of it though, even if it's the one enclosure type I still have to create using a rule of thumb).
Best
Scott
Scottmoose said:
I have a ton of heavily flared elliptical ports i'd love to give away instead of turning into plastic 2x4s.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
MTM
I've built two MTM boxes (a photo of the newer one is in MJK's gallery). One was a conventional TL, the newer is a MLTL.
Both drivers measured equal in close miking up to the cuttof frequency, from there on they started to diverge.
This doesn't means that the equivalent driver placed in the mid point between the real ones is the ideal - just that it's quite acceptable.
I've built two MTM boxes (a photo of the newer one is in MJK's gallery). One was a conventional TL, the newer is a MLTL.
Both drivers measured equal in close miking up to the cuttof frequency, from there on they started to diverge.
This doesn't means that the equivalent driver placed in the mid point between the real ones is the ideal - just that it's quite acceptable.
OK, some responses to questions asked above. Been a long day, so please forgive me if I miss your question.
I have been struggling with how to get around this issue for a long time, it bothers me when people make money off of my hard work and nothing is coming my way. So this is my first, hopefully last, attempt at a solution. I am going to upgrade what is currently available and get the ball rolling, if support is there I will start adding more features amd new worksheets. I have a ton of files dating back almost 15 years that could be made available, everything from crossover design to 3D room SPL response calculations. The TL worksheets were only started about 5 years ago, there is 10 years worth of work before them. We will have to see how things go but it could be a steady flow as my time permits.
There will be two worksheets for most geometries, one a floor standing tower and the other a stand mounted speaker off the floor arrangement. The baffle step and floor bounce will be calculated differently for each.
E-Bay. Look for version 2000 or 11. Do not buy version 12! Version 12 is a nightmare, probably the most unstable Windows application I have ever run, slow, crashes, big time pain in the butt. I am back to using 11 and will hold off upgrading to 13 until I am convinced it will run OK. MathSoft is really taking heat over version 12, I think it has dramatically impacted sales of 13.
It is already included. I have floor and rear wall reflections of the driver, port, and baffle edge sources programmed into the worksheet being tested by Scott. You can remove the wall by placing it 100 m away from the speaker.
After the current TL worksheets are posted I plan on doing a lot more work on the BLH and FLH worksheest including corner loading. Dipoles should be easy, MTM a little more challenging but I believe doable, open baffle is essentially done and just needs dressing up, and finally non rectangular baffles. At that point I will move onto some more of the special design ideas.
Thanks for the positive feedback and continued interest,
I have been struggling with how to get around this issue for a long time, it bothers me when people make money off of my hard work and nothing is coming my way. So this is my first, hopefully last, attempt at a solution. I am going to upgrade what is currently available and get the ball rolling, if support is there I will start adding more features amd new worksheets. I have a ton of files dating back almost 15 years that could be made available, everything from crossover design to 3D room SPL response calculations. The TL worksheets were only started about 5 years ago, there is 10 years worth of work before them. We will have to see how things go but it could be a steady flow as my time permits.
There will be two worksheets for most geometries, one a floor standing tower and the other a stand mounted speaker off the floor arrangement. The baffle step and floor bounce will be calculated differently for each.
E-Bay. Look for version 2000 or 11. Do not buy version 12! Version 12 is a nightmare, probably the most unstable Windows application I have ever run, slow, crashes, big time pain in the butt. I am back to using 11 and will hold off upgrading to 13 until I am convinced it will run OK. MathSoft is really taking heat over version 12, I think it has dramatically impacted sales of 13.
It is already included. I have floor and rear wall reflections of the driver, port, and baffle edge sources programmed into the worksheet being tested by Scott. You can remove the wall by placing it 100 m away from the speaker.
After the current TL worksheets are posted I plan on doing a lot more work on the BLH and FLH worksheest including corner loading. Dipoles should be easy, MTM a little more challenging but I believe doable, open baffle is essentially done and just needs dressing up, and finally non rectangular baffles. At that point I will move onto some more of the special design ideas.
Thanks for the positive feedback and continued interest,
I'm in line too.
Martin, you have a fan club at Yorkville Sound. We design amps and mixers during the day, and spend our winter nights tinkering with our own home loudspeakers, often using your magnificent mathcad tools. No use for quarter-wave designs in P.A. applications though, everything at work is b.r. or horn, so please don't feel ripped off if we download at work before heading home to the farmhouse with noisy dial-up internet service (the only loudspeaker engineer in the building uses AkAbak and AJHorn for simulations). I'll alert the coworkers when your new software tools are offered for sale, and vote for you with my wallet when I finish paying off Santa.
Cheers,
Dave
Martin, you have a fan club at Yorkville Sound. We design amps and mixers during the day, and spend our winter nights tinkering with our own home loudspeakers, often using your magnificent mathcad tools. No use for quarter-wave designs in P.A. applications though, everything at work is b.r. or horn, so please don't feel ripped off if we download at work before heading home to the farmhouse with noisy dial-up internet service (the only loudspeaker engineer in the building uses AkAbak and AJHorn for simulations). I'll alert the coworkers when your new software tools are offered for sale, and vote for you with my wallet when I finish paying off Santa.
Cheers,
Dave
bzdang said:
Small world. A client of mine just got his own page on the Yorkville site (and i got honourable mention
)... http://www.yorkville.com/default.asp?p1=2&p2=45&p_id=127
dave
(PS and another dave too... "dave? dave's not here man..."_.)
re: Mathcad 13....
They sent me an upgrade notice (I have version 11) and were asking $325!!! They have since dropped the upgrade price but it is still way too much IMHO.
I think I got the version 11 upgrade for about $150 or so. IMHO, the upgrade prices were never really justified for the "improvements".
The upshot of all this is to say that if you find version 8 or 2000 for a reasonable price, go for it.
They sent me an upgrade notice (I have version 11) and were asking $325!!! They have since dropped the upgrade price but it is still way too much IMHO.
I think I got the version 11 upgrade for about $150 or so. IMHO, the upgrade prices were never really justified for the "improvements".
The upshot of all this is to say that if you find version 8 or 2000 for a reasonable price, go for it.
Can the graphs be rearranged in order of usefulness? I know they are all relevant, some less so.
I find myself scrolling to the frequency response graph as soon as I've entered the last parameter.
I'd like the suggestions of others for the graphs I should be watching along with frequency response. What am I missing?
Can the graphs displayed be user selected?
I find myself scrolling to the frequency response graph as soon as I've entered the last parameter.
I'd like the suggestions of others for the graphs I should be watching along with frequency response. What am I missing?
Can the graphs displayed be user selected?
New feature guys: a plot showing the air velocity in the port and when it hits 'danger' levels. Very useful indeed. See below picture. That red line? When it reaches 0.03, you need a bigger port!
Sorry it's been a while but I knew Martin was fixing a few bugs and adding this and a couple of other tweaks, so I decided to wait. However, I promised some notions of an MLTL using the Lowther PM6C. Martin was kind enough to send me the correct T/S parameters, as those published on the Lowther site are... a little bit off. In fact, they're so far off it isn't even funny in my view, but there you have it. Fs in particular, to give just one example, is grotequely optimistic. 36Hz is claimed, Martin's pair were circa 57Hz. None of which is to suggest they are anything other than superb drivers, I gather they are, and Martin rates them very highly indeed. I'll probably buy a pair in the New Year myself, which is perhaps the best mark of my confidence / opinion. It is however a cautionary warning -don't assume the published data is particularly accurate. That goes for most other manufacturers too.
OK, so I could have just done yet another regular MLTL for them, right? Well, I wanted to try something different. I can do normal MLTLs practically in my sleep by now, I've modelled so many of the things in Martin's software, and I'm not knocking them -they're great. (I've built a fair few in the last 18 months or so too -6 pairs if memory serves, not counting the 3 pairs of ML TQWTs and various other boxes). But I wanted to do something a bit different to show you what the new software can do for you (ahem). See the next post for exactly what.
Cheers
Scott
Sorry it's been a while but I knew Martin was fixing a few bugs and adding this and a couple of other tweaks, so I decided to wait. However, I promised some notions of an MLTL using the Lowther PM6C. Martin was kind enough to send me the correct T/S parameters, as those published on the Lowther site are... a little bit off. In fact, they're so far off it isn't even funny in my view, but there you have it. Fs in particular, to give just one example, is grotequely optimistic. 36Hz is claimed, Martin's pair were circa 57Hz. None of which is to suggest they are anything other than superb drivers, I gather they are, and Martin rates them very highly indeed. I'll probably buy a pair in the New Year myself, which is perhaps the best mark of my confidence / opinion. It is however a cautionary warning -don't assume the published data is particularly accurate. That goes for most other manufacturers too.
OK, so I could have just done yet another regular MLTL for them, right? Well, I wanted to try something different. I can do normal MLTLs practically in my sleep by now, I've modelled so many of the things in Martin's software, and I'm not knocking them -they're great. (I've built a fair few in the last 18 months or so too -6 pairs if memory serves, not counting the 3 pairs of ML TQWTs and various other boxes). But I wanted to do something a bit different to show you what the new software can do for you (ahem). See the next post for exactly what.
Cheers
Scott
Attachments
Right, so we've already looked at an MLTL previously. In that case it was my Small Thor cabinet -OK, a 2 way, MTM cabinet, but that doesn't matter, the principle is the same.
One of the most significant aspects of the new worksheet in my view is the ability to see the effects of baffle-step in the in-room response curve, and to come up with your own BSC circuit to counter this problem. However, the high values the worksheet frequently predices worried me quite a bit -10ohm resistor anyone? That's big. That'll cripple the efficiency. Now, that's not a problem for us SS types,but it's going to be a bit of a problem for those who like their amplification to come in as few watts as possible, usually provided from glowing glass bottles (I own a WAD KEL34 PP valve amp as well, and very nice it is too). So, remembering I'd knocked up (please!) a pair of wings (stop it...!) to triple the width of a pair of Martin's MLTL design for the FE207E a couple of months ago, which instantly allowed me to rip out the BSC circuit, I've been looking at wide-baffle designs.
There seems to be an increasing interest in wide-baffles of late. I don't pretend to understand much of the physics behind it, and I'm astonished at just what a large effect a relatively small baffle can have, as GM illustrated to me yesterday in another thread, but suffice to say, the effect can be dramatic.
Now, you can model a wide baffle design in the new sheet, no problem. But wouldn't that mean a very shallow enclosure? Not at all. You see, in the first half of the sheet where we define the line and the internal cabinet shape the rear of the driver 'sees', we stick to our standard MLTL proceedure and dimensions. We can then add additional panels to the sides cheerfully without altering the internal line providing we keep the original side-walls in place. Part 2 of the sheet defines the externals of the cabinet, divorced from the internals in that respect, so we simply enter the external dimensions the front of the driver 'sees'. Easy.
And effective. I simply added an 8" extension to each side of a normal MLTL enclosre for these drivers. Both the inductor and resistor values plunged from 2.5mH and 10ohms to 1mH and 4ohms. I'll post some plots later, but going wide-baffle is a very interesting option indeed. If such cabinets would be too wide to be practical all the time, you could add hinged pieces to the sides, which would fold away when the speakers were not in use. Dismiss at your peril!
Again, this is just a single example of one thing that the new worksheet will allow you to look at. The next thing I want to try doing is examining the effects of floor-bounce and ways of reducing it. And that's before we really get on to speaker distance from the listening positions, axis of the listening postion from the drivers...
Cheers
Scott
One of the most significant aspects of the new worksheet in my view is the ability to see the effects of baffle-step in the in-room response curve, and to come up with your own BSC circuit to counter this problem. However, the high values the worksheet frequently predices worried me quite a bit -10ohm resistor anyone? That's big. That'll cripple the efficiency. Now, that's not a problem for us SS types,but it's going to be a bit of a problem for those who like their amplification to come in as few watts as possible, usually provided from glowing glass bottles (I own a WAD KEL34 PP valve amp as well, and very nice it is too). So, remembering I'd knocked up (please!) a pair of wings (stop it...!) to triple the width of a pair of Martin's MLTL design for the FE207E a couple of months ago, which instantly allowed me to rip out the BSC circuit, I've been looking at wide-baffle designs.
There seems to be an increasing interest in wide-baffles of late. I don't pretend to understand much of the physics behind it, and I'm astonished at just what a large effect a relatively small baffle can have, as GM illustrated to me yesterday in another thread, but suffice to say, the effect can be dramatic.
Now, you can model a wide baffle design in the new sheet, no problem. But wouldn't that mean a very shallow enclosure? Not at all. You see, in the first half of the sheet where we define the line and the internal cabinet shape the rear of the driver 'sees', we stick to our standard MLTL proceedure and dimensions. We can then add additional panels to the sides cheerfully without altering the internal line providing we keep the original side-walls in place. Part 2 of the sheet defines the externals of the cabinet, divorced from the internals in that respect, so we simply enter the external dimensions the front of the driver 'sees'. Easy.
And effective. I simply added an 8" extension to each side of a normal MLTL enclosre for these drivers. Both the inductor and resistor values plunged from 2.5mH and 10ohms to 1mH and 4ohms. I'll post some plots later, but going wide-baffle is a very interesting option indeed. If such cabinets would be too wide to be practical all the time, you could add hinged pieces to the sides, which would fold away when the speakers were not in use. Dismiss at your peril!
Again, this is just a single example of one thing that the new worksheet will allow you to look at. The next thing I want to try doing is examining the effects of floor-bounce and ways of reducing it. And that's before we really get on to speaker distance from the listening positions, axis of the listening postion from the drivers...
Cheers
Scott
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.