Interessant. How do you reconcile:
- The repeated references to VituixCAD while posting graphs from Boxsim?
- The claimed comparisons which are in fact based on 'estimations', not data?
- The claim that you're using an [apparently non-existent] off-the-shelf Dayton crossover with Boxsim-optimiser generated values that need 'rounding off' for the BOM?
Last edited:
Shall we wait in silence ‘til the questions come? Or when the real life measurements are posted?
Its true that a lot of work goes into proper implementation after fixing the capacitor values from adjusting inductors to repeated measurements, however despite this the design in post 1 is rock solid, in the coming posts I will show alternatives, however post 1 is infallible.
Well, that's twaddle straight off because
a/ There is no such thing as 'infallible' in this universe,
b/ You claim it's designed in VituixCAD yet post only a few select simulations from Boxsim [which in case you've forgotten is not VituixCAD: it's Boxsim]
c/ In that first post you claim on the one hand that it's using an off-the shelf Dayton crossover [which doesn't even exist], and then in the same post present a different filter with non-standard values that have clearly been derived from a simplistic running of Boxsim's optimiser.
So again, I ask:
How do you reconcile:
- The repeated references to VituixCAD while posting graphs from Boxsim?
- The claimed comparisons to other [completely different] speakers which are in fact based on 'estimations', not data?
- The claim that you're using an [apparently non-existent] off-the-shelf Dayton crossover with Boxsim-optimiser generated values that need 'rounding off' for the BOM?
For me, something like this....:
....usually corresponds to a point where any serious discussion ends.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.