New plotting software

[taj]

Yeah, the sheer enormity of .NET is too much for me. The time it would take to become familiar with enough of the .NET landscape to begin writing any code is more than my interest level can bear.

..Todd

[Dustin B]

Python Scripting for Computational Science

Scientific Computing Tools For Python — Numpy

I'm shooting in the dark here, but that book makes it sound like you should be able to use the Fortran libraries you need from Python scripts.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by taj

Yeah, the sheer enormity of .NET is too much for me. The time it would take to become familiar with enough of the .NET landscape to begin writing any code is more than my interest level can bear.

..Todd

I got VS and .NET back in 2001 and I tried to get into it, I gave up. But for reason - VS2008 seems far more developed - I found it quite straightforward this time. SOme things with mangaged code interoperability - which is mostly not addressed in the documentation - but not as long as I stay in .Net.

Originally Posted by Dustin B;2193321[/QUOTE

I'm shooting in the dark here, but that book makes it sound like you should be able to use the Fortran libraries you need from Python scripts.

Thanks - that top book does look very interesting. I am not that familiar with Python. How does it compare with C#? Who supports it?

[Dustin B]

Python (programming language) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an open source language managed by the non profit called the Python Software Foundation. It's been around since 1991 and still actively being developed.

There are some major sites out there written in it, such as YouTube.


It was a small shift to get used to the fact it's a dynamically typed language and code blocks are all defined by whitespace. But now that I'm into it, I like it better than C#. Like I said earlier, it's very concise and promotes clean code. It's not unusual to write in 20 lines of python what would have taken over 100 in something like C#.

[taj]

Python looks like it has great community support with external libraries. I think I'm going to take a much closer look at it.

..Todd

[gedlee]

OK, now back to the subject. Did anyone look at the software? Does this help you to understand how polar maps show more data than FR nor polar angle plots? My intent was as much education as it was documentation.

[wintermute]

Thanks Earl, the new link fixed it. Sorry I hadn't come back to the thread for a few days.

Tony.

[taj]

Wow. A few minutes dragging around the coordinates and the speaker performance becomes much more visually intuitive. Yes, I could get used to that.

Nice work. (Even though I had to hold my nose and use I.E. -- but that's not your fault.)

Now I want to measure, plot and study my own projects... Maybe one day.

..Todd

[gedlee]

Thanks Todd

I keep trying to tell people that these kinds of ploits are extremely insightful and show the true nature of a loudspeaker design. I can viually see the problems when the data is shown like this, but with the way its typically shown, even I can';t tell what the problems are, or if there are any - its all hidden.

But, of copurse, when other designers see the problems in theior designs they are NOT going to want to show that data to the public. Contrary to the claims, this whole industry lacks transparency and that is quite deliberate when you seen behind the scenes. Claims like "measurements don't tell the story" - so they don't show any or only enough to be misleading.

my plea to the audio marketplace is simply this - demand to see the data that shows whats really going on.

[arend-jan]

Hi Earl,

I think you did a good job with the interface. It's simple and the polar and frequency response plots aside the polar map are instructive and clarifying. I have some questions though.

The sharp dips/nulls in the frequency response, are those real or artifacts of some sort? And most important, are you planning to support third party data so we can make plots of our own speakers?