VituixCAD

Designing complete filter with enclosure+driver simulation is inaccurate and bad method so it will never make comeback.
Very sad. as to me it was a great option, allowing to quickly estimate in the first approximation what passive filter can be used with a particular woofer from the datasheet in a particular box volume and just choose the desired woofer without buying and measuring it.
I don't know of any other program that allows you to do this kind of simulation, to see the behavior of the driver in conjunction with capacitances and inductances, at least approximately.
I think it's a great feature
 
Last edited:
As I already said, all that is still possible, but feedback is not real-time. In addition, there is no guarantee that certain passive filter or topology would be close or possible because T/S and diffraction simulation cannot forecast cone losses, edge resonances, break-up etc. and impedance curve with T/S only is just a joke. Also location of vent(s) and driver(s) can be more significant. Much more than just volume and driver model is needed to get plausible result. Usually tuning of vent position in practice too so it's very difficult to avoid buying when target is high enough. This case is closed.
 
I mainly used this function to have access to several different active EQ options.

The problem with impedance and T/S is probably that Le is assumed to be a pure inductance, which it isn't.

Using processing on the driver in an enclosure is also the reason why I found a voltage plot to be an interesting option.

But this maybe opens up "Pandora's box" as determining maximum capacity by x-max is not very precise either, especially if you are working with B&C or 18-sound drivers. Maybe having the option to plot a few Bl points for each driver could be an idea? LspCAD had a very simple option for this, but it was developed at a time when Bl(x)-curves were not widely available.
 
  • In the driver dialog, the possibility to lock parameters before activating the cross calc function would be an excellent function. For example, plotting in Eighteensound drivers can be a P in the A due to their limited datasheets.
Forgot to comment about this. Crosscalc is not for missing parameters. It is for calculating other parameters when one parameter is adjusted. Parameter locking is not implemented to Add/Edit driver-window. Fundamental physical parameters (Mms, Cms, Rms, BL, Sd) have automatically the highest priority.

Unknown parameters are left zero (0). Also wrong or inaccurate parameters can be set to zero. They are calculated when OK button is pressed (using calculation order which prioritizes fundamental parameters). This is mentioned in user manual as well as purpose of crosscalc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Using processing on the driver in an enclosure is also the reason why I found a voltage plot to be an interesting option.
Filter gain trace with Y2/dB scale in Group delay chart represents voltage plot. Therefore is was not added in previous update. Just multiply supply voltage with gain and you have total voltage supplying all drivers (not individuals).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have not really gotten around to ask you if you want this type of feedback @kimmosto , but I did discover, I think, something that might be a bug.

I was a bit surprised by the results I got when adding some resistance in series with the driver. So i decided to test this comparing a driver with no resistor, a driver with a 2 ohm resistor, and a driver with no resistor, but 3,4 ohm added Re. The Bl factor was kept constant to make sure this affects Qes/Qts, and not Bl (which is default when using crosscalc). I overlayed the response curves to make sure I got the exact same results from the 5,4 ohm driver as I got with the 3,4 + 2 ohm driver.

This is what I got (I focus on 20Hz where SPL is matched):
1707826693406.png


What I expected to see was that the current is the same for 5,4 and 3,4 + 2 ohm, but I expected to see different values of power as I believe this is the actual power in the coil, meaning the extra 2 ohms are included in one, but not in the other. I added a set with 3,4 ohm Re and no series resistor for reference. Common physics tells us that the reactive nature of the box means the power in the driver with 3,4 ohm + 0, and the power in the driver with 3,4 ohm + 2, should be very much the same as the loss is mainly in the 3,4 ohm Re part of the driver. At the same time, we do not see a huge difference in aparent power so we are not talking about significant reactive forces here.

Yes, all are matched to the exact same SPL at 20Hz.

Am I missing something, or might there be a🪲here?

Do you want this kind of feedback @kimmosto ?
 
Obvious bug. Wrong impedance variable in VA, P and I calculation. They all look the same... :mad:
I just hope that this is the last one due to integrated filter feature (which has been as pita as separate with main program). I'd like to remove whole feature as unnecessary, but somehow other users seem to need it. I do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Active high pass and possible L-T or PEQ may be needed needed with any active system. Especially with small systems where (excursion) capacity is very limited (though protective high pass sounds worse). Those have been available for years - first with main program and now with few active stages integrated to Enclosure tool.
Passive C was added to enable faster simulation of possible series capacitor after link to main program was cut. Series L was added at the same time. Rs has been there since the beginning (9.5 years). Passive components are not necessary because main program is still available for it.

Snicker-is should change to official forum (HTguide) or use e-mail in order to continue with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user