How does one export FRD and ZMA files from REW or ARTA to PCD? I tried saving them as text, changing the extension to e.g. frd and exporting to PCD, but no success...
Thanks.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Hi Ron,
You are certainly entitled to your own humble opinion – I respect this. The software is clearly too advanced for you.
SoundEasy is by far the most powerful DIY software in it’s price range, as testified by its 1580 users (and this number is constantly growing).
The program is being updated and upgraded on yearly basis and is currently in release Version 20. User’s comments and improvement suggestions are being constantly implemented in the newer versions.
The work-flow is described in Chapter 2, on page 2.1, and logically follows typical loudspeaker building activities – it’s actually very simple and quite obvious.
The large number of users who upgrade the program on yearly basis is further testimony to it’s popularity and acceptance in DIY community.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Ah, of course. So in your view anyone who doesn't like your software is just too dumb to use it? You've said this before, in fact 😉
After your saying something as bold as that about a paying customer in a public forum, I would say that anyone who buys your software from now on is a fool. If my 4+ years of engineering school (strong interest in system analysis and control) plus 25+ years in the hobby is not enough, I would say that clearly Bohdan doesn't have a clue how to write usable software.
SoundEasy is a very complete tool set. In that respect, some do find it a little challenging to get started, which is why I wrote the Guide Ron E referred to. True, it won't design a speaker for you or lead you by the hand through the process. What it will do is allow you to look at difference aspects of design w/o first having to do something else. It is very powerful and very flexible, whether you want to design a complete speaker or just an active circuit to address some particular equalization function. Think of it like a carpenters tool box. You may not need every tool in the box for a specific job, but it's likely if you go looking for a tool to do a job will find it in there. In a sense, it's up to the user to organize the tools in a manner most useful to him.
I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding from the kind DIY'ers. I have had good luck creating my own crossovers. Here is an example of the FR of my 2-way monitors:
While I managed to get really good phase and amplitude matching what I realized is that it's a giant PITA even with well behaved drivers. So, I don't need software to tell me how to make a filter per se, and even if I did, XSim has plenty of circuit blocks. However I would love to shorten the time to optimize a crossover for amplitude and phase.
For instance, trying to get to an electro-acoustic 3rd order, 18 db/Octave slope when the driver is around 9 db/Octave (really awful example) is where I thought an optimizer might really save some time.
Also, matching asymmetrical crossovers. Like 1st and 3rd order for phase and amplitude or when one or both driver's aren't particularly linear through the cut-off section.
Yes, I got what I wanted, but it would be nice to press a button and have it finish while I eat Pocky's. Now that I think about it, it's not so much optimizing 1 filter, but optimizing pairs of filters at a time that is the largest challenge. Do-able. But if others are just pressing buttons and voila! out comes a solution, then I'd like to know about it. 🙂
Best,
Erik
While I managed to get really good phase and amplitude matching what I realized is that it's a giant PITA even with well behaved drivers. So, I don't need software to tell me how to make a filter per se, and even if I did, XSim has plenty of circuit blocks. However I would love to shorten the time to optimize a crossover for amplitude and phase.
For instance, trying to get to an electro-acoustic 3rd order, 18 db/Octave slope when the driver is around 9 db/Octave (really awful example) is where I thought an optimizer might really save some time.
Also, matching asymmetrical crossovers. Like 1st and 3rd order for phase and amplitude or when one or both driver's aren't particularly linear through the cut-off section.
Yes, I got what I wanted, but it would be nice to press a button and have it finish while I eat Pocky's. Now that I think about it, it's not so much optimizing 1 filter, but optimizing pairs of filters at a time that is the largest challenge. Do-able. But if others are just pressing buttons and voila! out comes a solution, then I'd like to know about it. 🙂
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
Hi Ron,
So far, you have thrown around several abusive comments - and regrettably, nothing more. You have not even mention what version of SE you have.
From a self-proclaimed expert in software writing, I would expect more exact and accurate statements, listing any particular change you would like to see in the software.
This would be your starting point in showing on this public forum, that you are indeed who you claim to be.
Until this happens, I can not offer you any hopes for re-writing the software to satisfy your individual taste.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
For Xsim (m.b. it will help for PCD also):
- The decimal separator must be dot. If comma used in file - open *.frd in Wordpad and replace.
- Avoid Cyrillic characters anywere in file paths (Not sure but it seems so).
First export the impulse response as minimum phase .wav. Close the original file. Then import the minimum phase impulse back into REW. Now export as .txt or .frd file. PCD opens it up just fine. There maybe a better way but that was the only way I managed to get a minimum phase FRD into PCD. You need the minimum phase version for the PCD simulator to work accurately.
I'm sure we would all rather eating Pocky Sticks and pressing the Staples "Easy" button for a magic XO that took no effort.
We have it so easy with the tools given to us by Waslo and Bagby that we shouldn't complain. A big part of it still comes down to experience and "art" to make a good simple XO. I still marvel at the creations coming from the Masters like Bagby or TG. Or have you see Waslo's Cosyne linear phase 3 way XO?
Like I said before, the Cosyne XO should be printed and sold on T shirts.
We have it so easy with the tools given to us by Waslo and Bagby that we shouldn't complain. A big part of it still comes down to experience and "art" to make a good simple XO. I still marvel at the creations coming from the Masters like Bagby or TG. Or have you see Waslo's Cosyne linear phase 3 way XO?
Like I said before, the Cosyne XO should be printed and sold on T shirts.
Last edited:
I'm sure we would all rather eating Pocky Sticks and pressing the Staples "Easy" button for a magic XO that took no effort.
We have it so easy with the tools given to us by Waslo and Bagby that we shouldn't complain. A big part of it still comes down to experience and "art" to make a good simple XO. I still marvel at the creations coming from the Masters like Bagby or TG. Or have you see Waslo's Cosyne linear phase 3 way XO?
Like I said before, the Cosyne XO should be printed and sold on T shirts.
Hah, I never even heard of that. But if more hot blonde's had been Electrical Engineering students when I went to school my life would have been radically different. 😀
Erik
Attach the zipped file that you want to be imported in PCD and I'll modify
it so you can see for yourself.
Sorry Lojzek, the REW IR measurement exceeds the permitted file size....never attached before so it could be I'm doing something wrong. Could I send you a PM?
Also, thanks Flaesh and XRK
Export the ARTA or REW frequency response with less data samples,
then compress it with zip. Email is not an option right now. If this time
upload doesn't work out, we'll think of something else.
then compress it with zip. Email is not an option right now. If this time
upload doesn't work out, we'll think of something else.
Nevermind the Cosyne whatever XO, can we see what's written on the back of the T-shirt? 😀
I have no illusions that you would actually do this. 😉 If you are actually receptive to input from users other than John K., start a "Soundeasy Wish-list" thread somewhere and solicit opinions/suggestions from more than just me. Judging from user reviews of your software, they are interested in the promise of strong capability, but almost all will say that the software is VERY difficult and not intuitive. It really doesn't need to be so clunky.
Ask users what they find difficult. Analyze the questions on the yahoo group. Look at free measurement programs like holm, ARTA, etc... and some of the free crossover simulators like speaker workshop, boxsim, xsim, etc... What do they do right? There are many ways you can find data to help you improve your software, but for as long as you persist in thinking that people who don't like it (or find it annoying/difficult/even buggy) are just too dumb or inexperienced to use it, you will learn nothing useful.
I use V16, IIRC. Haven't installed it for over a year since it doesn't seem to play nice with Windows 7 (message box errors that aren't fatal, but buggy behavior - some of which that also existed on XP) and the windows 10 upgrade broke my XP Mode instance.... I'd have to reinstall to give you a full list of annoyances, that you would just ignore anyway...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.