
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  diyAudio Store  Blogs  Gallery  Wiki  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
MultiWay Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers 

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
7th January 2002, 07:53 AM  #1 
diyAudio Member

Software speaker simulation weirdness
I took Dr. Leach's Audio Engineering class at georgia tech, and in the process learned a great deal about this stuff. His textbook sits on my desk at all times. So I am playing around with various drivers to be considered for my first pair of real speakers. His method for sealed box systems entails choosing the QTC.
I will be referring to the focal 15KX in the examples as it was what i was working with at the time. (i wish i could afford it!) Vas = 280.3L fs = 25.8, QTS = 0.39, QES = .40, QMS = 9.71 anyways, Dr. Leach says to choose your QTC. so lets go with 0.707. Then estimate the value of QMC. he suggests using 510 for unfilled systems, and 25 for filled systems. so lets use 3.5. Then calculate the electrical quality factor QEC by the equation QEC = QMC*QTC/(QMCQTC)... .886 Then calculate the compliance ratio alpha alpha = (QEC/QES)^2  1 = 3.91 then VAB is simply Vas(280.3L) / alpha. or 71.76L and fc is fs*sqrt(alpha+1) = 57.19hz. to accomodate the effects of filling this volume must be reduced further. Leach suggests 25% for uncompressed home fiberglass insulation. So Vb = 71.76/1.25 = 57L So final box volume would be 57L + bracing + driver displacement. This varies significantly from winISD which gives me an enclosure size of 121L and an Fc of 46.8hz(extrapolated from the phase plot...freq when phase = 90) unibox gives 131L with an Fc of 54.4hz with Ql = 30 and Qa = 5. would QMC be the parallel combination of these two? In which case i'll recalculate the Leach way with a QMC of 4.3. I get a VAB of 81L and FC of 54.6. It seems leach and unibox are very close with their calculation of Fc. which means both should calculate the compliance ratio similarly, but why the big difference in Vab? Both in my acoustics class and my audio engineering class, Vab was always Vas/alpha. What am I missing? I like Dr. Leach's method because it follows with his PSPICE loudspeaker models that I use to simulate driver + crossover interactions. If it is grossly inaccurate however, I need to find something new!. jt 
7th January 2002, 08:34 AM  #2 
Warp Engineer
On Holiday

a= (Qtc/Qts)^2  1
Vb = Vas / a Fc = (Qtc x Fs) / Qts So if Qtc = 0.707 a = 2.286 Vb = 122.6L Fc = 46.77 
7th January 2002, 11:01 AM  #3 
diyAudio Member

Alright, I have it figured out now.
Can somebody explain how unibox gets the volume ? With similar QMS' (4.28) i get a box size of about 80L using the method from my textbook, the same fs, and the same alpha. Unibox shows a "physical Vb" of 134L while leach's is 80L. using the compliance ratio from unibox to calculate Vb, you get 80L, why would they report 134L though? The box still needs to be reduced in size to accomodate the effects of the filling that you desigined for. thanks jt 
11th January 2002, 09:28 PM  #4 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Kuopio, Finland

jteef,
I think there is a problem adding leak Q (Ql) into this. Because if we add that, then the system is of third order instead of second. It doesn't have one simple Qtc in same sense that second order system has. It is probably the reason why you get differing results. If you set Ql to very high value, then you should get equal results. Mr. Leach's box calculations seems to omit Ql as I have seen others to do also. I believe it is because of mentioned difficulty. This has been a royal headache for me, as I have been working with mathematics of next generation WinISD. BTW, you might want to play with new WinISDpro 0.50a4, downloadable from www.linearteam.org site (check programs menu). We have done (hopefully) some improvements over "classic" versions, although there is still much work which needs to be done. There is no consideration for Qa in "synthesis" phase, but at least you can play with it, as well as with Ql. The box synthesis part is probably one thing what needs complete rework. With Best Regards, Janne 
12th January 2002, 02:11 AM  #5  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney

just my thoughts...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Speaker design is like second nature to Leach. I think, if his methods say, "Vb = 71.76/1.25 = 57L" then you can rest assured that the results won't be disapointing.
__________________
Crossover/Subwoofer Simulator 

12th January 2002, 05:12 AM  #6 
diyAudio Member

I did some more simulations in Unibox, and oddly, the Focal KX15 was the only driver that didn't make sense in the simulations. Who knows...
leach doesn't go into the aerodynamics of the filling in his textbook Just the density of filling, the volume ratio of air to filling, and the specific heat of air, and of the filling. In the model, they are neatly integrated into the acoustical air mass of the enclosure, and the acoustical losses in the enclosure. jt 
12th January 2002, 08:59 AM  #7 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney

jteef, have you seen his paper  ElectroacousticAnalogous Circuit Models for Filled Enclosures  JAES Vol.37, No.7/8 July/August. It's a great article, but a bit too demanding of data about the candidate filling
__________________
Crossover/Subwoofer Simulator 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
speaker simulation software for Mac OSX  rebojorge  MultiWay  24  17th January 2016 08:07 PM 
Simulation software.  beppe61  Solid State  30  28th February 2006 08:19 PM 
Anyone uses simulation software ?  boxedin  Solid State  0  22nd December 2005 09:56 PM 
simulation software  hacknet  Tubes / Valves  6  15th December 2005 02:11 PM 
Speaker measurement and simulation software?  Few  MultiWay  8  4th June 2004 08:31 AM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 