^Maybe you already know that CLIO fw-02, MIC-01, QCBox Model 5 and ver 12 QC software is my primary measurement system. Convert IR to FR is in use with .mls files almost every week without problems. Also pocket crp files should work but I have not yet tested the latest 3.0 version. I will look your mls file in debug mode. Small adjustments to get backwards compatibility can be done.
2.0.113.1 (2024-04-16)
Convert IR to FR- Added support for CLIO 4.x mls files.
- Added sample rate: 51200 Hz.
Thank you so much Kimmo for making changes for a single person! Now everything works , even importing files from ancient CLIO versions!
🤓
🤓
Now it's also possible to make immediate conversion from old mls to txt, cvs or wav. Wav IR is quite good transfer format to e.g. ARTA and REW.
Hi guys I am trying to simulate a bipole subwoofer and this is what I am getting but I think it is wrong, but I am not sure. I am trying to simulate a front and rear firing bipole. I was certain that below a certain frequency things should be monopole but I show directivity throughout... and ideas?
It's not just that. Listening distance setting is too short - probably ca. 1000 mm. You should not set values less than 2000 mm for normal speakers. 3000...4000 mm is okay for directivity simulations.
That is not very realistic assuming you are not listening in anechoic. Radiator which locates 2-3 times further than the nearest does not have any significance to total. So directivity, power etc. of omni radiator at LF is best to simulate to distance where reflections are usually included.
Are you saying that by setting listening distance to 3ft or under 2000mm the simulation is now inaccurate ???
It's not black or white, the smaller the distance the less accurate it gets.
That doesn't mean all of a sudden totally inaccurate.
Hi
Planning to measure 3 way soon with this arrangement TMWW (The two woofers wired in parrallel).
Im not sure how to procede. I have skimmed this: https://kimmosaunisto.net/Software/VituixCAD/VituixCAD_Measurement_REW.pdf
Questions:
a) Nearfield: I should let both speakers play then measure woofer that is most close to the floor and try block woofer above with pillow or something. is this right?
b) Far field. Should I let both woofers play and then measure at center of the woofer that is most close to midrange?
Planning to measure 3 way soon with this arrangement TMWW (The two woofers wired in parrallel).
Im not sure how to procede. I have skimmed this: https://kimmosaunisto.net/Software/VituixCAD/VituixCAD_Measurement_REW.pdf
Questions:
a) Nearfield: I should let both speakers play then measure woofer that is most close to the floor and try block woofer above with pillow or something. is this right?
b) Far field. Should I let both woofers play and then measure at center of the woofer that is most close to midrange?
No. Those are "random response devices" so the best (~only) way is to build and measure and design crossover.
For the next time, feature list should help with feature questions: VituixCAD 2 Features
Hi, I have two questions on the merger feature.
1. I appreciate the Near Field measurements need to be corrected for baffle diffraction but why with a diffraction response of 5-30m if the free field measurements are taken at 1m - shouldn't this be at whatever distance the FF measurements are acquired?
2. Why does the merger ask for a diffraction response 1000mm for the FF measurements, these have been measured free field and therefore baffle diffraction is part of the measurement and correction shouldn't be needed.
Thanks in advance for any input.
1. I appreciate the Near Field measurements need to be corrected for baffle diffraction but why with a diffraction response of 5-30m if the free field measurements are taken at 1m - shouldn't this be at whatever distance the FF measurements are acquired?
2. Why does the merger ask for a diffraction response 1000mm for the FF measurements, these have been measured free field and therefore baffle diffraction is part of the measurement and correction shouldn't be needed.
Thanks in advance for any input.
If your final listening distance is actual far field such as 2-9 m, near field responses should be converted to far field with simulation including full baffle loss. VituixCAD Diffraction tool requires (too) long listening distance setting to give full baffle loss. Therefore recommendation for near to far conversion is baffle simulation to 5-30 m. Not to actual measurement distance.
Quite short far field measurement distance such as 1000 mm does not include full baffle loss. Therefore it is recommended to simulate also baffle loss to actual measurement distance (e.g. 1000 mm). With two baffle simulations Merger tool is able to compensate too small baffle loss in far field measurements to avoid level error while merging LF and HF parts.
I believe it could be helpful to take another look at the context here, especially since it’s easy to unintentionally focus on smaller issues.
When we carefully examine the graph above, we can see there’s a slight difference.
However, if we consider the scale, we’ll notice that this difference is actually quite minimal, around 0.3 dB
It's debatable how significant that is in a practical situation.
Depending on the size of the baffle, shape and edges, moving a couple of degrees could already have a more significant effect.
Additionally, this kind of difference wouldn’t have a significant impact on the system, and at most, it would result in a very subtle change in sound at best.
It's most definitely not a make-or-break situation.
When we carefully examine the graph above, we can see there’s a slight difference.
However, if we consider the scale, we’ll notice that this difference is actually quite minimal, around 0.3 dB
It's debatable how significant that is in a practical situation.
Depending on the size of the baffle, shape and edges, moving a couple of degrees could already have a more significant effect.
Additionally, this kind of difference wouldn’t have a significant impact on the system, and at most, it would result in a very subtle change in sound at best.
It's most definitely not a make-or-break situation.
Last edited:
Possible error depends on combination of baffle size, baffle layout, radiating area, merging frequency, time window, window function, measurement distance etc. Typical merging frequency with small speakers is 300-400 Hz and expected error without compensation of measurement distance max. 0.5 dB. Not much in that case, but things get probably worse if speaker speaker is large and measurement distance must be short due to limited space but listening distance will be much longer.
Whole point is offer tool to reduce possible error and give information for designer that shortish far field measurement distance reduces baffle loss compared to actual far field. This feature can be skipped by leaving lower Diffraction response field empty, but possible thin sound in large free space may require compensation by boosting LF a bit while XO simulation.
P.S. Summing of near field port and cone signals is another error source. Typical (often recommended) mistake is to equalize port and cone levels at ca. 15 Hz. Port signal is usually more lossy than cone signal so actual sum could be significantly lower than XO simulation shows.
Whole point is offer tool to reduce possible error and give information for designer that shortish far field measurement distance reduces baffle loss compared to actual far field. This feature can be skipped by leaving lower Diffraction response field empty, but possible thin sound in large free space may require compensation by boosting LF a bit while XO simulation.
P.S. Summing of near field port and cone signals is another error source. Typical (often recommended) mistake is to equalize port and cone levels at ca. 15 Hz. Port signal is usually more lossy than cone signal so actual sum could be significantly lower than XO simulation shows.