Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Software Tools SPICE, PCB CAD, speaker design and measurement software, calculators

VituixCAD
VituixCAD
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 3rd March 2019, 06:39 AM   #981
kimmosto is offline kimmosto  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
kimmosto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kuopio
Quote:
Originally Posted by nc535 View Post
It would be so nice to have check boxes to include radiation from adjacent wall, ceiling, floor surfaces.
Direct sound is already difficult and inaccurate because dual plane response data does not cover both rotation and tilting of driver while dual plane directivity simulation. Problem is self evident especially with rectangular drivers. Another issue would be processing speed.
Challenge with mirrored drivers would be acceptable with single response to reference angle, but directivity simulation in two planes should be switched off. Power & DI and Directivity charts would be blank.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:44 PM   #982
nc535 is offline nc535
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Realized I had done the reflection incorrectly.

Found the "driver layout" window by right clicking in the schematic window (manual doesn't say) and corrected Z values of image drivers quickly and easily.

New results: front /listening axis only 3 db down. Boundary null disappeared due to curvature of baffle spreading out the reflection energy arrival times!!!! (more precisely - it moved well out of the passband - to 854 Hz)

Next need to evaluate side firing woofers...
__________________
My Synergy Corner Horns and Bass Bins
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...bass-bins.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2019, 02:00 PM   #983
nc535 is offline nc535
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmosto View Post
Direct sound is already difficult and inaccurate because dual plane response data does not cover both rotation and tilting of driver while dual plane directivity simulation. Problem is self evident especially with rectangular drivers. Another issue would be processing speed.
Challenge with mirrored drivers would be acceptable with single response to reference angle, but directivity simulation in two planes should be switched off. Power & DI and Directivity charts would be blank.
Thanks.
I didn't see this until after my recent post.
I don't follow completely but I think I get the general idea. I already see slight but tolerable processing delay with the array. I understand accuracy issue at a high level. I know the image method itself has issues in the modal region.

But this is only way I see to get the answers I need short of building and testing prototypes. A qualitative answer is sufficient to my purposes - keep me from making expensive mistakes.

In this case, I only care about response out to 150 Hz or so where 5" driver is close to point source. Does that help with accuracy? When I look at the full range driver I really only want to see to what extent the curved baffle reduces boundary interference. What I see looking at the woofer is encouraging.
__________________
My Synergy Corner Horns and Bass Bins
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...bass-bins.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2019, 02:57 PM   #984
nc535 is offline nc535
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Hi Kimmosto:
I'm having a lot of fun/adventure taking this to the limit. I've got ~96 drivers between the woofer and full range arraays and their images and about a 4 second time lag after changing .e.g. a filter parameter.

Regardless of the accuracy, this design isn't complete without a front wall behind the woofer array to reflect sound forward or a ground plane image to complete the CBT.

I've managed to create a fairly smooth crossover between woofer array and full range but step response still indicates large time misalignment. What would you recommend as a process to find time alignment at this stage where I've imported single measurement on axis and relied on diffraction tool export to predict directivity for both drivers?

I've gotten the ball park first by an estimate based on physical offset and then refined by trying to match group delay for both sets of drivers but the GD is spread over a wide range for both sets of drivers, as one would expect from an array, and the frequency response at XO is not very sensitive to it one in the ballpark.

Thanks,
Jack
__________________
My Synergy Corner Horns and Bass Bins
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...bass-bins.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2019, 02:16 PM   #985
Vassilists is offline Vassilists  Greece
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Hello, any idea how to bring back the optimizer target line, that is not visible when I chose axial and power response?
I can see only the target line of the Axial response of Driver...
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2019, 02:38 PM   #986
kimmosto is offline kimmosto  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
kimmosto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kuopio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassilists View Post
how to bring back the optimizer target line
Show target line should be checked in context menu.
Adjust by Shift + mouse drag to new position if target is outside visible Y scale.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2019, 02:49 PM   #987
Vassilists is offline Vassilists  Greece
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Thank you Kimmo! Shift+mouse! Simple and efficient.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2019, 07:11 AM   #988
Mario Pankov is offline Mario Pankov  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sofia
VituixCAD
Hey Kimmo,

very nice work, what a pity I discover it just now! I e-mailed you a few days back but got no reply, see you`re active on here. Can you, please, PM me - I am interested in some drivers you sell on your website
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2019, 08:11 AM   #989
kimmosto is offline kimmosto  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
kimmosto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kuopio
^I replied to your e-mail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2019, 02:50 PM   #990
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
VituixCAD
Looking at the target line for the power response in a new project file, the slope is set at approximately 1 dB per octave. What made you choose this value as the default? Is this the generally accepted slope for balanced sound?

I'd be interested to get pointers / links providing some background / insight into this.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


VituixCADHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki