Dayton Woofer Tester II any good?

ScottG

Member
2003-02-04 12:23 am
US
There was a thread on this on the MAD board not long ago, but it has been having some problems lately (so I don't think you'll find them).

The general consensus was: good product (dependable in practice) for what it does but ultimatly a "dead-end" product because of its overall lack of compatability with other software products (..i.e. exporting data was limited).

What I wonder is if it will test the driver with out the usuall delta-mass or its derivative (enclosure volume alteration) needed.. That would make at least quality control testing a LOT easier.
 

mac

Member
2003-05-26 1:49 am
Seattle
ScottG said:
The general consensus was: good product (dependable in practice) for what it does but ultimatly a "dead-end" product because of its overall lack of compatability with other software products (..i.e. exporting data was limited).

My take on that thread was that most people, including Ken Kantor, thought the WT2 was a very worthwile device. A couple people said that SE could do what WT2 does, although with much more fuss.

From my understanding there isn't any compatability issues with exporting data. From CSAudio:

"WT2 can save comma delimited imp/phase files. You will probably have to massage the file but if there is a standard for this program we can create a pull-down to auto export."
 

mac

Member
2003-05-26 1:49 am
Seattle
ScottG said:
"massaging" files, creating after-the-fact solutions, etc. - Thats all I ment by "lack of compatability", not that it couldn't work-out for a particular user on a more sophisticated basis.

The data is written out to a text file in a comma-delimited format. That's a very open standard. Also, as I noted, CSAudio is receptive to providing enhanced export solutions too. Can't ask for much more than that IMO. :)
 

Salas

diyAudio Chief Moderator
Paid Member
2002-10-08 11:31 am
Athens-Greece
You see I am not that interested in its export file compatibility since I avoid simulators. To me its measuring - listening - measuring. Sims never told me that this insignificant fraction of dB here and there meant listenable or not. I do it the hard way.
The only thing I want it for is to avoid fuss with jigs. If it gives dependable T-S that prove ok when the box is built its cool.
 
I played around with my woofer tester last night, and it seemed to provide very good results. I can do everything that the woofer tester does in SoundEasy, but it is much harder. If you need to get T/S parameters on a driver easily, the WT2 is the way to go. The impedence curves that I got matched up well with published specs, and the Fs, Vas, and Qts were withing expected ranges. The WT2 even did a good job of measuring the impedence of a JBL 2445J mounted to the horn. It showed the impedence peaks caused by the horn loading. To get Vas, you do have to either build a sealed box or add mass, but I found this to be easier than I expected. The good old "add some nickles" trick worked very well. he softwaree even told me if I had too few or too many nickles taped to my drivers. Pretty handy.
As for importing to SoundEasy, I haven't tried this yet. I was hoping that someone here might have some input on doing this.

Cheers,
Zach
 

lolojr1

Member
2004-10-03 5:20 am
i got mine the other day and tried it out had a problem it didnt like my usb ports ? dont know why but brian from c&s helped me out called me and i eventually got it to work great.

to solve the problem i ended up buying a usb 2.0 card and it fixed it
he also said that bass box is going to get an upgrade soon to import
the files tw2 creates so that will be that much easier to use.

they claim that the parameters are as good or more accurate than the accuracy that tou will build a box to anyways a claimed 5% up or down accuracy of box design wont make any really noticabe difference in the sound of the finished box.

oh and the add nickel trick worked just fine for me too