Hi Brian,
The three-character band pass options remaining were BP0, BP1, BP2, BP3 and BP9. I decided on BP9 for the latest topology.
The disclaimer in Post #9647 applies in this case also.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/119854-hornresp-965.html#post5831999
Kind regards,
David
Ah, I can see the challenge...
Having recently watched a video where an otherwise knowledgeable fellow was mis-characterizing the orders of some of the enclosures he was discussing, I'm somewhat sensitive to adding to the misinformation that's out here. Also, AFAIK, it's not possible to have an odd-order passive alignment unless there is some inline filtering (and yes, Le is not counted, LOL, because the main effect of that is usually out of the passband).
I have a suggestion - how about labeling the various options as follows?
Config #1 (4th order)
Config #2
Config #3 (6th order series)
Config #4 (6th order parallel)
Config #5
Config #6 (8th order series)
Config #7 (8th order parallel)
Config #8
That way the "BP(num)" refers to the configuration, not to the order. This might be a way to avoid the confusion... and having people claim that their bandpass build is a 9th order one "because David's software says that it is"
As to the actual "order" of the "9th order bandpass" config in the software, Freddi's sim is interesting - the config suggests that it should be some sort of 8th order alignment, but the impedance curve suggests it's 6th order. Strange. Maybe the alignment that he came up with has two of the displacement minimums occurring near to or on top of each other, so what he really has achieved is some sort of quasi-6th order alignment. I need to investigate further...
Well, I answered that easy enough - Freddi's sim it is quasi 6th order. When shooting for a smooth passband when using the wizard, two of the impedance peaks merge into one.
Hi clf,
Many thanks for this additional feedback - I see what you mean now. There is definitely something wrong somewhere! I will investigate as a matter of urgency, and try to fix as soon as possible. Thanks again for bringing this important bug to my attention.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the suggestion - yet another thing for me to think about
.Kind regards,
David
Hi Fred,
You are a bit slow off the mark
.The bug was first reported by 'clf' and was fixed earlier today - see Post #9729.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Brian,
After giving it some thought, in order to minimise the amount of work involved and to reduce the potential for user confusion, I am considering changing the current BP5, BP7 and BP9 designations to BPA, BPB and BPC respectively, with BPA being a Type A band pass system, BPB being a Type B, and BPC being a Type C.
Reasons:
1. The existing BP4, BP6 series and parallel, and BP8 series and parallel codes and designations are correct and meaningful, and therefore best left unchanged.
2. Type rather than Config is preferred because I like to avoid abbreviations wherever possible, and Configuration is just too long for some parts of the user interface.
3. A, B and C rather than 1, 2 and 3 are preferred so that there is no chance of the user thinking that the designations perhaps refer to first, second and third order band pass systems.
What do you think - would these proposed changes fit the bill?
Kind regards,
David
After giving it some thought, in order to minimise the amount of work involved and to reduce the potential for user confusion, I am considering changing the current BP5, BP7 and BP9 designations to BPA, BPB and BPC respectively, with BPA being a Type A band pass system, BPB being a Type B, and BPC being a Type C.
Reasons:
1. The existing BP4, BP6 series and parallel, and BP8 series and parallel codes and designations are correct and meaningful, and therefore best left unchanged.
2. Type rather than Config is preferred because I like to avoid abbreviations wherever possible, and Configuration is just too long for some parts of the user interface.
3. A, B and C rather than 1, 2 and 3 are preferred so that there is no chance of the user thinking that the designations perhaps refer to first, second and third order band pass systems.
What do you think - would these proposed changes fit the bill?
Kind regards,
David
Attachments
I find the sheer number of all these BP configs confusing and I know I will never be able to keep them straight unassisted no matter what they are called. Looking for help, I only found one instance of the word bandpass in the help file via ctl-F. I tried to find that screen you posted and failed. What I think would help would be the ability to cycle through simple block diagrams when choosing the config although if I could choose one and then immediately view its schematic, that would probably suffice.
( - figured that one would be noticed real fast) is there a configuration besides the old series "BP6A" which might "partially" describe the little proposed Karlson below with smoothing stub?
https://i.imgur.com/LRTLtmn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LRTLtmn.jpg
That is an error - it should be band pass (two words) not bandpass. It will be corrected in the next release. You will find more than one reference if you search for band pass.
That's because it doesn't exist yet. The form was generated temporarily to show Brian the order in which it is proposed that the options be listed.
The Input Wizard selected from under the Help menu allows you to in effect do this. Press the F7 function key to open the wizard, click the Next button twice, select the 'Band pass' option and click the Next button again, select the desired band pass loudspeaker option and click the Next button two more times to see the schematic diagram. If it is not the topology you want, click the Back button twice and select another option. When you have identified the system you want, click the Finish button to create a new record and then adjust the input parameters values to suit. While it might sound like a complicated process, in practice it only takes a couple of seconds to switch from one band pass option to another and view the associated schematic.