+1 to avoid SoundEasy; "discussion" here differs from others over the years mainly in that it's more polite than some in the archives. No great value in a rehash that I can see, though I will comment that over a few decades in software no developer I've crossed paths with who used the "can't make changes because didn't get specifics" argument later made commits improving the code even on trivially exact items---the solutions which do occur are the programmer changes jobs, users move on, or users grit their teeth and put up if circumstances conspire to prevent anything else. The underlying psychology, exposed more clearly than it often is here, seems to be the users are defective rather than the code. Sometimes this is indeed correct. But it's rare.
Hi Ron,
I have offered to implement your suggestions, provided you'll actually tell me what is the problem – what do I need to do to improve the software ?.
It’s not a difficult question. Yet, you are unable to provide a clear answer.
The “wish list” is activated every year for each new software release. Users respond very well with their suggestions and just about every one gets implemented.
So, where are you when this happens?.
“Ask users what they find difficult” – this is your own suggestion, so I am asking you again - what do I need to do to improve the software ?.
BTW, current release is V20 for Windows7. V16 was for WinXP.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
+1 for returning this thread to a constructive discussion.
I would suggest a public bug/feature forum though. May be easier to manage and triage.
Erik
I would suggest a public bug/feature forum though. May be easier to manage and triage.
Erik
Bohdan, I gave you a few hints here:
SoundEasy or Omnimic [Archive] - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video Discussion Forum
You told me I was wasting my breath. No mention of a wish list, either 😉 Imagine that...
In that thread, Jeff said he couldn't make much headway with your software so he gave up and wrote his own and sold Soundeasy. You took that as a compliment that you "inspired" him to move forward.
Your request for comments appears to be nothing but lip service, as evidenced by your comment on my use of v16- it is fairly clear in what I wrote that I understand it was written for XP. You are just in "defense of your baby" mode and anything I say will just be countered with another defense.
I tell you what, since you think your software has improved so much, send me your v20 (or v21 if that is coming soon) upgrade gratis and I will check it out as objectively as I can. If you like, I will send you (or if you prefer, post publicly) a list of ways I think it can be improved and you can shoot holes in it. If you can win me over you can win anyone over 😉
SoundEasy or Omnimic [Archive] - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video Discussion Forum
You told me I was wasting my breath. No mention of a wish list, either 😉 Imagine that...
In that thread, Jeff said he couldn't make much headway with your software so he gave up and wrote his own and sold Soundeasy. You took that as a compliment that you "inspired" him to move forward.
Your request for comments appears to be nothing but lip service, as evidenced by your comment on my use of v16- it is fairly clear in what I wrote that I understand it was written for XP. You are just in "defense of your baby" mode and anything I say will just be countered with another defense.
I tell you what, since you think your software has improved so much, send me your v20 (or v21 if that is coming soon) upgrade gratis and I will check it out as objectively as I can. If you like, I will send you (or if you prefer, post publicly) a list of ways I think it can be improved and you can shoot holes in it. If you can win me over you can win anyone over 😉
Hi Ron,
Very well, I looked up the thread you recommended, and also found this comment from Dennis:
“..I wouldn't consider buying SoundEasy just for the measurement capabilities. There is a lot of software that is out there for less that can do MLS measurements.
However if you look at it as a design suite which has measurement capabilities then it is the best value out there other than the free tools like PCD of HolmImpulse. I have been using SE for almost 15 years now and it is probably the best money I have spent on speakerbuilding tools except for maybe my router. The crossover emulator which allows you to listen to and tweak a crossover design before you actually build it is invaulable to me and worth the purchase price by itself.
This is a very full featured tool and will take some time to master but I feel the effort is well worth it…...”
Interestingly, I found a couple of bizzare, critical comments and just one example is:
“…Why the hell would you make different file extensions for woofers tweeters and midranges? It's asinine. A driver is a driver, you name the damn file for what it is....
My answer: because Windows allows you to view/filter files by their assigned file-extension. Now, if you want to plug-in tweeter into your project, you select “.twe” extension filter and only tweeters will be displayed for your file selection, so do not have to read through 100 file names to get your tweeter file. It’s a productivity feature.
I am happy to send you free V21, but you have to start answering simple questions.
So, (this is your own suggestion), I am asking you again - what do I need to do to improve the software ?.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Nice example of the user is broken approach; bonus points for ignoring background and asserting ignorance. Also, good try on the "be prepared" bit; discussion history here's publically archived and easily available on search. As Erik points out, expanding upon it would just be thread clutter. Goodbye. 😉
Back to the original topic please.
Do any of the optimizers tell you which components to remove (or add) if they're not required (or need adding?) 🙂 A "topology optimizer"?
I think that might be handy for many users.
Anyways, I think Bill is correct in post #12. Once you get a feel for crossover design, an optimizer is a feature that's less and less used. After using LspCAD for a number of years, I gradually found myself using it to optimize only one component. 🙂 And you can do that manually outside of the optimization feature of the program. 🙂
Determining the proper topology is where many DIY'ers can run into troubles.
Cheers,
Dave.
Do any of the optimizers tell you which components to remove (or add) if they're not required (or need adding?) 🙂 A "topology optimizer"?
I think that might be handy for many users.
Anyways, I think Bill is correct in post #12. Once you get a feel for crossover design, an optimizer is a feature that's less and less used. After using LspCAD for a number of years, I gradually found myself using it to optimize only one component. 🙂 And you can do that manually outside of the optimization feature of the program. 🙂
Determining the proper topology is where many DIY'ers can run into troubles.
Cheers,
Dave.
As to which components to remove, an optimizer will tell you by making the component value very large or small. A really small capacitor or large inductor is an open circuit; and a really large capacitor or small inductor is a short circuit.
As for which components to add, or what topology to use, that is a more of an experience thing - although it could probably be done with genetic algorithms and a lot of time. I've never heard of a commercially available speaker design program that does this, but certain companies probably already have this ability.
...now add missing the point to the mix. My point was you mistook someone giving up on your software as "inspiring" someone.
My suggestion was not an attempt to get free software upgrade, as such, rather a means to give you constructive criticism relevant to your current effort instead of something from 6 or so years ago...that I don't currently have installed on anything. If I spend a number of hours refamiliarizing with your software and writing a critique, in the end the software was hardly "free".
Until then we are at an impasse, I say it's way clunkier than it needs to be and you think your software is too advanced for me....
Well, I can genuinely say I really did not want to start this kind of debate. I only meant to ask for ideas about other software to try. If I encouraged this kind of unrestrained behavior I'm very sorry. Some one please close this thread since I don't think it can be returned to being useful.
Hi Ron,
No, the only impasse you got yourself in, despite my repeated requests to provide some examples of what I need to change in the software, is that you actually failed to do so.
So once again, as per your own suggestion - what do I need to do to improve the software ?.
Until you clarify your complaint, I am forced to conclude, that the software is simply too advanced for you.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Hi Erik,
My sincere apologies for this departure. It was totally unintentional, and it dragged way too long.
I have only responded to an unfair and unsubstantiated (as it turns out) criticism.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Erik,
I suggest to try LspCAD for a bit. It does take a little effort to get up to speed, but ultimately I think it's the best all-around program....that includes an optimizer. I use it all the time and even use my older Version 5.25 as well. Although it doesn't allow the free-form routing of Version 6.
The question I asked earlier (that Ron answered) was a rhetorical one. Ultimately, I don't think the optimizer feature of any of these programs is a key selling point. The layout capability, analysis, and intuitiveness are the key features. LspCAD is pretty darn good on all those aspects.
XSim is also a terrific program. And you can't beat the price.
Dave.
I suggest to try LspCAD for a bit. It does take a little effort to get up to speed, but ultimately I think it's the best all-around program....that includes an optimizer. I use it all the time and even use my older Version 5.25 as well. Although it doesn't allow the free-form routing of Version 6.
The question I asked earlier (that Ron answered) was a rhetorical one. Ultimately, I don't think the optimizer feature of any of these programs is a key selling point. The layout capability, analysis, and intuitiveness are the key features. LspCAD is pretty darn good on all those aspects.
XSim is also a terrific program. And you can't beat the price.
Dave.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for recommending LspCAD to me. I did in fact try the demo and ultimately I couldn't get past how difficult it was to create a schematic or edit a part. This from a person who used to do tech. support for PCB and schematic editing software.
By accident I managed to connect 2 or three parts and try the optimizer. It seemed pretty cool, but never again was I able to edit part values.
I'm sorry, even if there IS a way, running into difficulties that early in a software trial really put me off. Now if I could take the output of XSim's schematic editor and feed it to LspCAD I might take another look. Maybe I'm spoiled.
Best,
Erik
Bohdan,
if I may give you a piece of advice regarding your software.
Start improving things right at the beginning, namely your
web site. To me, it is totally unacceptable and if I were a
potential buyer, the web site would put me off instantly.
https://sites.google.com/site/passivefilter/
I have made it quite technical. But I hope very good for learning filter teory and real world adaption.
Has functionality to fit a passive filter to a active filter curve.
The filter syntesis program emulates a passive 4 order filter.
3 bands: High, mid and low
Imports RoomEQwizard impedance and SPL data for each band
R,L and C on each node
Calculates Butterworth 1 to 4 order for both active and passive
Automatic change components and correlates with active filer spesified by user. From 100 changes/second.
Look at curves as components are changing!
Curves for all components, tranfer function and SPL
Magnitude and phase in dB and degrees + plot in complex chartesian diagram, s+jw
Regards Torgeir
I have made it quite technical. But I hope very good for learning filter teory and real world adaption.
Has functionality to fit a passive filter to a active filter curve.
The filter syntesis program emulates a passive 4 order filter.
3 bands: High, mid and low
Imports RoomEQwizard impedance and SPL data for each band
R,L and C on each node
Calculates Butterworth 1 to 4 order for both active and passive
Automatic change components and correlates with active filer spesified by user. From 100 changes/second.
Look at curves as components are changing!
Curves for all components, tranfer function and SPL
Magnitude and phase in dB and degrees + plot in complex chartesian diagram, s+jw
Regards Torgeir
What part of "I can't run it on my system" don't you get? To give you a reasoned critical review of the User interface (which you don't want because you can't then dismiss it out of hand) I need to be able to run it. If you want me to talk specifics down to details that would satisfy your question and are relevant to your current production, I need software that runs on Win 10. Otherwise, all I have is a $250 coaster and not-so-fond memories of using it 😉
I don't seem to have these types of memories about other, very complex, pieces of software with significant learning curves. How many pages is your "manual" now? I agree your website is a mess.
To the OP, I suggested Bohdan start a new thread...but he is too invested in his defense of his "baby" and persistent ideology that users who don't like his software are not credible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.