I have started to look into SoundEasy V11 as it is modestly priced. After working with it a bit there are a few basic questions that I can't seem to get straight answers for. If anyone is familiar with SoundEasy, your help is much appreciated.
1. How do you calibrate the software? Normally I am used to doing calibration first before moving on to actual testing. Is it just the Digital-MLS portion under EasyLab?
2. How do you do Mic and Amp calibration? What is the file format for the calibration files? For the Amp calibration, do you generate a calibration file with SoundEasy first and then use it? For mic calibration files, is the format the same as FRD files?
3. How can you transfer files between two computers so that you can do testing on one and design on another based on the same data?
I have also searched through the forum, and someone mentioned changing to LEAP or LMS because a littl more precision was required. Does anyone know in what aspects are LEAP and LMS more precise?
1. How do you calibrate the software? Normally I am used to doing calibration first before moving on to actual testing. Is it just the Digital-MLS portion under EasyLab?
2. How do you do Mic and Amp calibration? What is the file format for the calibration files? For the Amp calibration, do you generate a calibration file with SoundEasy first and then use it? For mic calibration files, is the format the same as FRD files?
3. How can you transfer files between two computers so that you can do testing on one and design on another based on the same data?
I have also searched through the forum, and someone mentioned changing to LEAP or LMS because a littl more precision was required. Does anyone know in what aspects are LEAP and LMS more precise?
soongsc said:
You'd need both LEAP and LMS to match the functionality of SoundEasy. LEAP is just a concepting and modelling program, LMS is the measurement arm.
I use LEAP 5 and it is good but not perfect. The baffle diffraction simulator is rather cool but the results don't seem to quite match up with real life measurements.
I've never used Soundeasy but Zaph uses it and recommends it. I've looked at the functionality and for the money I'd say its a good bet. The LEAP and LMS combo is probably better but it sure is a lot more expensive.
john k... said:
John,
I have downloaded the design guide, but I'm not sure where to find the answers to the three basic quiestions I posted. The other parts I think can be figured out as I gradually move along with SE. I'm using a modification of the Wallin JIG II, and it seems the concept is similar as described in the manuals.
Software choices
I think we have allready spoke offline, but I will add my 2 cents in anyway. First if you decide to go with soundeasy, I have a copy available for less then you will pay retail. I have Leap-5 and CLIO. I agree with the last person who posted that Enclosureshop is cool, but for the DIY builder I don't really do much conceptualization work before I build anyway. I mainly use crossovershop. I use Clio becasue the lite version is only 800 and can be used with a pci slot. Linear X seriously needs to redesign LMS to be USB or something. I mean get real there are only like 2 motherboards sold today with and isa slot on them. And from a funtionality standpoint, it's a pain to have to reach around a computer for hookups anyway. The only nice feature is the cut and paste import. It saves alot of time. On the other hand Clio is just more user friendly then soundeasy. Soundeasy is good, but microphone and preamp response is questionable and I have had accuracy problems that I don't with Clio. Clio's manual is also very well written. I just like the plug an play simplicity of a purpose designed measurement system. That saud Soundeasy has alot of functionality and less of the "might use" features. It's also alot cheaper. I would try crossovershop and lms if you have the money, but otherwise soundeasy with a nice soundcard like a firewire-410 will get you in the ballpark.
I am asking $175 for my copy of soundeasy if you are still interested. I have a USB dongle. It's version 10 so for another $25.00 you can get the upgrade to 11. I would probably let a few versions pass until I upgrade. The steps usually arn't significant. You would still be about $30.00 plus shipping cheaper then parts express or orca. Hope this helped.
I think we have allready spoke offline, but I will add my 2 cents in anyway. First if you decide to go with soundeasy, I have a copy available for less then you will pay retail. I have Leap-5 and CLIO. I agree with the last person who posted that Enclosureshop is cool, but for the DIY builder I don't really do much conceptualization work before I build anyway. I mainly use crossovershop. I use Clio becasue the lite version is only 800 and can be used with a pci slot. Linear X seriously needs to redesign LMS to be USB or something. I mean get real there are only like 2 motherboards sold today with and isa slot on them. And from a funtionality standpoint, it's a pain to have to reach around a computer for hookups anyway. The only nice feature is the cut and paste import. It saves alot of time. On the other hand Clio is just more user friendly then soundeasy. Soundeasy is good, but microphone and preamp response is questionable and I have had accuracy problems that I don't with Clio. Clio's manual is also very well written. I just like the plug an play simplicity of a purpose designed measurement system. That saud Soundeasy has alot of functionality and less of the "might use" features. It's also alot cheaper. I would try crossovershop and lms if you have the money, but otherwise soundeasy with a nice soundcard like a firewire-410 will get you in the ballpark.
I am asking $175 for my copy of soundeasy if you are still interested. I have a USB dongle. It's version 10 so for another $25.00 you can get the upgrade to 11. I would probably let a few versions pass until I upgrade. The steps usually arn't significant. You would still be about $30.00 plus shipping cheaper then parts express or orca. Hope this helped.
Re: Software choices
Yes, we did talk, and I wish I had known of your SE before I got mine. But I will certainly give you a call if someone else is interested. I quite agree that SE does not seem to be well supported. I have sent mail to ask that questions I am asking here, but now response. I did get response on two simple errors that I encountered but the response was not useful, I finally figured it our myself. The calibration is not even as precise as Speaker Workshop, and the method of removing time-of-flight is not as clean cut as SW either. I'm just trying SE out to see if the other features are any good or not.
I think ultimately I would like to be able to use CLIO or Klippel for testing, really don't know what for design yet, but the way you have described LEAP, it does sound interesting.
I still haven't figured out the answers to my questions in the first post yet, so anyone who might know, your help is much appreciated. Zaph maybe?
mp006ltk said:
Yes, we did talk, and I wish I had known of your SE before I got mine. But I will certainly give you a call if someone else is interested. I quite agree that SE does not seem to be well supported. I have sent mail to ask that questions I am asking here, but now response. I did get response on two simple errors that I encountered but the response was not useful, I finally figured it our myself. The calibration is not even as precise as Speaker Workshop, and the method of removing time-of-flight is not as clean cut as SW either. I'm just trying SE out to see if the other features are any good or not.
I think ultimately I would like to be able to use CLIO or Klippel for testing, really don't know what for design yet, but the way you have described LEAP, it does sound interesting.
I still haven't figured out the answers to my questions in the first post yet, so anyone who might know, your help is much appreciated. Zaph maybe?
I also just started with soundeasy, and I only had very limited experiance with SW before that, so I am no expert, but this is how I understand it.
The speakers amplifier is automaticaly "calibrated" by the refrence probe, so no need to worry about that. The mic and mic preamp are outside of the refrence loop, so they need calibrated. The process is outlined in the manual and the short walkthrough. It involves taking the calibration data (you can use a lot of different formats) and importing it as though it was a driver, and saving the driver file and using that as a calibration refrence.
The "calibrate" button in SoundEasy is just for channel balance on the soundcard, which is important, but never seems to change much on my system. I am not sure why the program doesn't just remember it?
As for measuring then using another computer for simulation, that seems more complicated. You can export an impulse responce, SPL graph or save it all in a driver file then save the whole thing. I havent tried any of these yet, but it does look like any of them would work for transporting measurements.
-Chad
The speakers amplifier is automaticaly "calibrated" by the refrence probe, so no need to worry about that. The mic and mic preamp are outside of the refrence loop, so they need calibrated. The process is outlined in the manual and the short walkthrough. It involves taking the calibration data (you can use a lot of different formats) and importing it as though it was a driver, and saving the driver file and using that as a calibration refrence.
The "calibrate" button in SoundEasy is just for channel balance on the soundcard, which is important, but never seems to change much on my system. I am not sure why the program doesn't just remember it?
As for measuring then using another computer for simulation, that seems more complicated. You can export an impulse responce, SPL graph or save it all in a driver file then save the whole thing. I havent tried any of these yet, but it does look like any of them would work for transporting measurements.
-Chad
Okay, I've figured out the mic calibration portion found in Chapter 16 of the manual. It seems like SE uses 750 points so it has to convert whatever calibration file is provided, and then export it. Then at the digital-MLS, just select the Cal. Mic file that you exported. Not a smart way of doing it, but it might work.
So I think possibley amp calibration is done by running an MLS on the amp, export the data, then do the same process as the mic calibration file. Hmm, but my mic goes out to 46K and my setup is only 22K, so I need to do some extension to the data.
So I think possibley amp calibration is done by running an MLS on the amp, export the data, then do the same process as the mic calibration file. Hmm, but my mic goes out to 46K and my setup is only 22K, so I need to do some extension to the data.
Having finished generating mic calibration file and preamp calibration file. I still have an uneasy feeling. First during testing of the preamp itself, at first it seems to show that the Wallin preamp II is phase inverting. Running the "Run MLS" many times result in the same thing. Then I used a scope to test the preamp and it showed non-inverting. After continued running the MLS, the program started to show both the REF and IN were inverting which I can accept that probably the SC has inverting inputs.
After getting seemingly acceptable SPL/phase response, I went to do an HBT and then export it, but I was only getting "0.00" in the amplitude column and "- NAN" in the phase column. The results were the same after a few tries. I then exported the SPL/Phase data first, then imported it, did the HBT, then exported it. It then worked.
Everything still seems weird at this point. I am starting to wonder what I can expect during actual testing.
After getting seemingly acceptable SPL/phase response, I went to do an HBT and then export it, but I was only getting "0.00" in the amplitude column and "- NAN" in the phase column. The results were the same after a few tries. I then exported the SPL/Phase data first, then imported it, did the HBT, then exported it. It then worked.
Everything still seems weird at this point. I am starting to wonder what I can expect during actual testing.
Looking at the displayed mic and preamp calibration curves, I noticed the mic curves displayed is the sum of preamp and mic calibration data regardes whether the preamp calibration is selected or not. The preamp calibration data in the chart seems to be the data in the file.
It seems like in the good old days when I reviewed software and documentation.
It seems like in the good old days when I reviewed software and documentation.
Calibration file lessons learned
Working with the calibration files I learned one thing that is not in the manual. Originally I though the data exported is the data displayed. Therefore when I played around with the HBT tail slopes, I changed them individually for phase and amplitude. I now think the data is regenerated based on the HBT parameters during export. I think this may be the driving factor of the error I get. With this understanding, the data now comes out accurate.
soongsc said:
Working with the calibration files I learned one thing that is not in the manual. Originally I though the data exported is the data displayed. Therefore when I played around with the HBT tail slopes, I changed them individually for phase and amplitude. I now think the data is regenerated based on the HBT parameters during export. I think this may be the driving factor of the error I get. With this understanding, the data now comes out accurate.
I've been trying to run a frequency response test to include the sound card and mic preamp in the loop for a preamp calibration file. I've been able to do it on one cimputer, but it does not seem to work on another computer. One computer generates an SPL/Phase plot that looks real, but the other just generates an SPL that looks like an open loop OPAMP response.
If anyone has any experience with this, help is much appreciated.
If anyone has any experience with this, help is much appreciated.
I've already downloaded all I can find on SE. The information is sort of organized as an operation manual rather than a reference manual.
Anyway, I don't know why the frequency response test to include the sound card and mic preamp in the loop is working today. But at least I got the data I wanted.
Did some measurements and played around with file saving, and I found out why nobody could answer my question in the first post concerning moving files from one computer to another. There are too many different file types and data are saved individually. The user really has to remember how he names files and organize them. Saving driver files do not save the test data with it, so I'm beginning to think that getting the HBT of the data is probably the keypoint, but I haven't tried it yet. The fact that it doesn't let you save tested data in the driver file is something that I think is very inconvenient because some mathematically generated data can be misleading if the boundary conditions are not properly considered.
This said, I think SE does a good job gathering the measured data if you put enough cycles on it. I think this shows typical scholar designed software for scholars, good capability but not so well oranized.
Anyway, I don't know why the frequency response test to include the sound card and mic preamp in the loop is working today. But at least I got the data I wanted.
Did some measurements and played around with file saving, and I found out why nobody could answer my question in the first post concerning moving files from one computer to another. There are too many different file types and data are saved individually. The user really has to remember how he names files and organize them. Saving driver files do not save the test data with it, so I'm beginning to think that getting the HBT of the data is probably the keypoint, but I haven't tried it yet. The fact that it doesn't let you save tested data in the driver file is something that I think is very inconvenient because some mathematically generated data can be misleading if the boundary conditions are not properly considered.
This said, I think SE does a good job gathering the measured data if you put enough cycles on it. I think this shows typical scholar designed software for scholars, good capability but not so well oranized.
How to use impulse files?
I am still trying to figure out how saved impulse files can be called back at a later time and processed. I have exported impulse, I have Saved Input Buffer to a RES file, but how can I get the data back into SE so that CSD and SPL/Phase plots can be regenerated?
Couldn't find anything in the manual that talks about it.
I am still trying to figure out how saved impulse files can be called back at a later time and processed. I have exported impulse, I have Saved Input Buffer to a RES file, but how can I get the data back into SE so that CSD and SPL/Phase plots can be regenerated?
Couldn't find anything in the manual that talks about it.
For those whom might be using SE doing both acoustic and impedance testing, it's necessary to increase the window size if you switch from acoustic to impedance testing otherwise you will get funny results at the low end of the impedance plot. I think this may be quite different from other software out there.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.