Transmission Line Modelling Software

Hi guys,

I know you all have tools that you use (and the creators of which are on this forum) and I certainly don't want to tread on peoples toes! But I have been creating a TL modelling application that I would appreciate any comments on.

So far it has all been theoretical and I have not had much chance to compare it to other models or real life enclosures, so a little bit of testing against known parameters would be useful.

Other than that, any suggestions/constructive criticism is always very welcome.

Kind regards,
Pete

leonardaudio.co.uk

P.S. This is very much in a Beta state, so be prepared for a lack of error checking...
 
Hi guys,

I know you all have tools that you use (and the creators of which are on this forum) and I certainly don't want to tread on peoples toes! But I have been creating a TL modelling application that I would appreciate any comments on.

So far it has all been theoretical and I have not had much chance to compare it to other models or real life enclosures, so a little bit of testing against known parameters would be useful.

Other than that, any suggestions/constructive criticism is always very welcome.

Kind regards,
Pete

leonardaudio.co.uk

P.S. This is very much in a Beta state, so be prepared for a lack of error checking...

Hi Pete,


Great work!
Looking good so far.., I've checked by comparing a few designs I've made earlier
Here are my :2c: opinions that would make this program a very good tool to be used in conjunction with HR,MJK..and so on:

Add a filter section(module) where you can set the lower and the higher pass-band boundaries:
That is by multiplying TF:s of Bw and LR HPF, LPF up at least to 4th order by using easy to enter S-parameter coefficients.

The effect of this module should be easy to turned on/off when comparing the inclusion of filters and when not.

b:)

PS: :mad: My Spell-checker doesn't work, again :grumpy:
 
Add a filter section(module) where you can set the lower and the higher pass-band boundaries:
That is by multiplying TF:s of Bw and LR HPF, LPF up at least to 4th order by using easy to enter S-parameter coefficients.

The effect of this module should be easy to turned on/off when comparing the inclusion of filters and when not.

That's actually one of the things i'd LOVE to be added into Hornresp :D It would be quite fabulous to see the effects of high/low-pass filters on the frequency response graphs, and the cone excursion plots. I guess i've been a bit "spoiled" by the user-friendliness of WinISD :eek:
 
bjorno,

Thanks very much for your comments. I don't have any experience with filters myself, but I agree it would be a good inclusion. Filter equations can't be that hard, I'll have a look around..

How did you find the way that you input the enclosure geometry. I wasn't sure if it was very clear how you do it but hoping that it is quite easy to use...

Thanks,
Pete
 
Heres a thought.

As far as platforms go, windows is currently #1, however there are a massive wave of handheld devices on the way who run android.

It would be a huge remake but is it possible to get this to run on an android device? My phone here has a dual core 1.2ghz processor with 512 ram and full qwerty keyboard. Its more powerful than my last laptop!

perhaps when the kinks are worked out.

Gotta love more box building tools! Gratz!
 
Heres a thought.

As far as platforms go, windows is currently #1, however there are a massive wave of handheld devices on the way who run android.

It would be a huge remake but is it possible to get this to run on an android device? My phone here has a dual core 1.2ghz processor with 512 ram and full qwerty keyboard. Its more powerful than my last laptop!

perhaps when the kinks are worked out.

Gotta love more box building tools! Gratz!

I would love to remake it for android. i have just downloaded the software development kit but it will take a while for me to get my head around it.

I wont be doing anything for macs in the near future. Although i may remake it as a webapp, so everything could use it then...
 
Geometry input is straightforward. I'm guessing it's in meters?

Driver input... things I wanted to enter were greyed out.

The 'width' surprised me, I expected it to go the other way. Just what does the number mean?

Not sure what the API allows, but I'd like to see the tabs as separate windows. Yes, it's hard to focus on more than one window at once, but you get a peripheral sense of the size of the changes.

I'm curious, why can't you input '0' damping?


Anyway, nice work! I look forward to the next version.
 
Thanks for the comments Keriwena. Much appreciated.

Geometry input is straightforward. I'm guessing it's in meters?
Yes, I should state the units really. I'll add that to my Todo list!

Driver input... things I wanted to enter were greyed out.
Ah.. Yeah. i have been messing with this for a little bit now. i can't come up with an easy way of letting the user input what they want and calculating the rest. For now though it might be better to allow entry of Qts etc. and calculate Rms Mms, as that it more common.

Maybe a T/S calculator 'tool' would be a good addition.


The 'width' surprised me, I expected it to go the other way. Just what does the number mean?
The geometry viewer shows you the 'front' of your enclosure. The width, i guess, actually refers to the depth and so as you decrease the depth the geometry viewers width increases. I should change this to be more intuitive and also add more views to the geometry viewer. Thanks.


Not sure what the API allows, but I'd like to see the tabs as separate windows. Yes, it's hard to focus on more than one window at once, but you get a peripheral sense of the size of the changes.
Yes. it should be fairly straightforward to have the different tabs as different windows. I just thought it might get a bit much having so many different windows. Also, you would be left with nothing on the main window!
I'll have a play with different options.

I'm curious, why can't you input '0' damping?
An oversight on my part. Error checking was checking all values that they weren't zero. Stuffing obviously can be zero though. I have now changed this and you can enter zero in the latest update.
You can install updates via the help menu. (Either clicking the update option, or if you have the latest version then you just open the about window)

Anyway, nice work! I look forward to the next version.

Thanks!
 
Geometry input is straightforward. I'm guessing it's in meters?

Driver input... things I wanted to enter were greyed out.

The 'width' surprised me, I expected it to go the other way. Just what does the number mean?

Not sure what the API allows, but I'd like to see the tabs as separate windows. Yes, it's hard to focus on more than one window at once, but you get a peripheral sense of the size of the changes.

I'm curious, why can't you input '0' damping?


Anyway, nice work! I look forward to the next version.

Agree with Keriwena, I tried to to input a zero for the damping but the program returned a 1 or 0.001 but this didn't change the graphs at all.


Schmeet:
How did you find the way that you input the enclosure geometry

After more than 40 years of experience designing TL:s I have no problem to guestimate a plausible TL size for any driver without using any software.

When I first started using your program, I entered the correct TS directly into the Driver .Isd text file.

Prior to enter data into your program One need to know what to enter(Instructions of a work flow) and why(Explanations on how a TL is engineered). After pressing 'button' a note should show (confirming)that this action alters the design.


b:)
 

Attachments

  • L-Test.JPG
    L-Test.JPG
    712.2 KB · Views: 2,257
bjorno,

Thanks for the comparison. A couple of things:

I think you may have entered the Start Area and End Area the wrong way round on my software. Start Area is the closed end and End Area is the open end.

Also, what is the length and areas of the HornResp enclosure that you posted the graphs from? I am not used to HornResps input parameters...

As per my previous post, you can now input zero for the stuffing. My stuffing equation is very empirical and so there aren't really any units. But.. 0 is no stuffing, 0.2 is moderate and 1 is alot! It should (and does on mine) make a lot of difference.
 
bjorno,

Thanks for the comparison. A couple of things:

I think you may have entered the Start Area and End Area the wrong way round on my software. Start Area is the closed end and End Area is the open end.

Also, what is the length and areas of the HornResp enclosure that you posted the graphs from? I am not used to HornResps input parameters...

As per my previous post, you can now input zero for the stuffing. My stuffing equation is very empirical and so there aren't really any units. But.. 0 is no stuffing, 0.2 is moderate and 1 is alot! It should (and does on mine) make a lot of difference.

The System length is 2.3 m; S1 area= Closed end and S4= the terminus. The driver is at an offset of 75.5 cm counted from S1.

You are right concerning the areas:By a mistake :eek: I entered the wrong value for the End area: I wrote 0.031 m^2 ,should be 0.0031m^2.

When entering the correct area the graphs became very congruent as should do. :D

Great Program!

IMO, Anyone who want to design a OD-TL (Offset Driver Transmission Line) can IMO with confidence use your program for achieving a good result.

b:)

PS: I will later (but not today) test the FR impact from the damping coefficients that can be entered. I think a comparison with MJK:s program would be very interesting.
 
Very nice work! Thanks for posting it.
Which model did you use for the calculations behind it, if you don't
mind my asking?

Driver parameters should be entered as:
Vas, Fs, Qms, Qes, Sd, Re, Le
and if I didn't forget any the rest can be calculated from them.
These are typically the minimum set provided by manufacturers.

It would be nice to have the total system internal volume calculated
on the Enclosure page.

I think it is nicely thought out and organized, the tabbed setup looks
fine to me but I could see where you might on occasion want more
than one open.
 
Last edited:
I coded around 1979 a simple TL simulator in FORTRAN that I ran on the college's DECsystem-10. It was very difficult to test and debug it and they complained about all the CPU time I was using for the complex math, LOL! I wanted to improve it over the years and thought about doing coupled sections exactly as you did it but never got around to it. Did you code this in VB.net? I'd assume you had a complex math library?

I am somewhat familiar with DEC computers (PDP-11, VAX) but never knew exactly what the DECsystem-10 was. I knew it was a timeshare system and I just found this info about it. It was getting close to the end of production - 1983 when we had it:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/pdp10.html
 
Last edited: