In the enclosed picture alternative A is quite common both for TL and bass reflex speakers. It´s also what I have read and "learned" over the years (and todays reading). But as I understand it you would say alternative B is a better option for control, less placement dependency etc. Or do I misunderstand you?
Attachments
A is more common because it usually looks better and simpler, and rear port produces deeper sound stage and less direct mid-range noise/resonances.
B is not necessarily any better due to possible noise at mid-range though total signal is more integrated.
My concern was rear port close to floor.
B is not necessarily any better due to possible noise at mid-range though total signal is more integrated.
My concern was rear port close to floor.
Thank you Kimmi,
So once again as almost always it´s a trade off.
I guess, at least from a theorethically perspective, I, as many DIYs and manufacturers seem to, prefer the A version. For it´s possibly less problematic mid doe to less "leaking and interacting mid signals" from the port. There are so many discussions on the internet, with various "thinking" but less actual theory that doesn´t really help if one like to understand.
This mean that the most important thing now is to integrate the measures from the port position in A in a correct way into the XO design.
So once again as almost always it´s a trade off.
I guess, at least from a theorethically perspective, I, as many DIYs and manufacturers seem to, prefer the A version. For it´s possibly less problematic mid doe to less "leaking and interacting mid signals" from the port. There are so many discussions on the internet, with various "thinking" but less actual theory that doesn´t really help if one like to understand.
This mean that the most important thing now is to integrate the measures from the port position in A in a correct way into the XO design.
Anything else to say or ask before I fade out? What each of you is willing to do continuously to get updates and technical support also in diyaudio?
Limited single axis XO simulators, ancient Excel tools, obsolete measurement software, mics unable to capture timing, questionable sticky treads etc. have filled my cup, and political correctness or disinterest has muted critical discussion. Without backup this seems like one-man war which is really pointless with freeware.
Limited single axis XO simulators, ancient Excel tools, obsolete measurement software, mics unable to capture timing, questionable sticky treads etc. have filled my cup, and political correctness or disinterest has muted critical discussion. Without backup this seems like one-man war which is really pointless with freeware.
I would like to thank you for your support and VituxCAD. I learned a lot reading this thread. Not only this software makes designing crossover easier but also visualistation of data tweaking components makes the learning proces faster.
Your tips are Gold.
Thank you [emoji846]
Your tips are Gold.
Thank you [emoji846]
Is there another forum (does not have to be English) where there is "better" conversation?
I do read a couple of German forums as they seem to be more in following with "modern" design methods compatible with your software.
Thank you,
David.
^^Germans are few years ahead because they started with version 0.1 in February 2015. 1/3 of commercial licenses went to Germany in 2015-2016. First license to France in November 2015, U.S.A in March 2016, England in May 2016. Soon after that program was changed to freeware.
At the moment majority of commercial customers are in the U.S.A. Others in England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan.
VituixCAD probably rules DIY scene in Finland almost without exceptions. Boxsim has popularity in Germany due to origin/language and traditions.
Some of you have experience and confidence that e-mail support will work in the future no matter what happens in diyaudio. That's probably true though I don't love copy-pasting from user manual, tooltip, changelog or measurement instructions to e-mail.
One option is to move to VituixCAD v2 @HTG. HTG is usually quite silent and possibly fertile soil for discussion without spam of single axis XO simulators, FRD tools, Edge/XDir, 'designing crossovers without measurements' etc. Different opinions should be allowed of course, but obvious narrow-mindedness should have limits set by community - or I won't join that community.
At the moment majority of commercial customers are in the U.S.A. Others in England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan.
VituixCAD probably rules DIY scene in Finland almost without exceptions. Boxsim has popularity in Germany due to origin/language and traditions.
Some of you have experience and confidence that e-mail support will work in the future no matter what happens in diyaudio. That's probably true though I don't love copy-pasting from user manual, tooltip, changelog or measurement instructions to e-mail.
One option is to move to VituixCAD v2 @HTG. HTG is usually quite silent and possibly fertile soil for discussion without spam of single axis XO simulators, FRD tools, Edge/XDir, 'designing crossovers without measurements' etc. Different opinions should be allowed of course, but obvious narrow-mindedness should have limits set by community - or I won't join that community.
What is the popular DIY audio site in Finland?
You used to have links on your site to VituixCAD discussions on various forums, but I no longer see those links (and your speakers are gone...).
Thank you,
David.
Please do not fade out! Your software is a very nice tool and your pace of improving/ adding in requests is simply amazing!
I for one would gladly pay a diy compliant price for the software, and I feel that others would to.
I fully understand that you are sick of answering the same rtfm questions again and again and trying to educate people who are not willing to put effort in reading and developing their knowledge. For me this is the main reason that I dont fancy the idea of releasing some of my own developed tools while I would actually like to share my knowledge; I just dont have the energy and time for the endless useless discussions.
Maybe an idea would be to close this forum for posting for everyone but yourself and you can post update info and specific answers on email questions once in a while at update releases?
Many thanks for all your effort so far, it really is highly appreciated by some of us!!
I for one would gladly pay a diy compliant price for the software, and I feel that others would to.
I fully understand that you are sick of answering the same rtfm questions again and again and trying to educate people who are not willing to put effort in reading and developing their knowledge. For me this is the main reason that I dont fancy the idea of releasing some of my own developed tools while I would actually like to share my knowledge; I just dont have the energy and time for the endless useless discussions.
Maybe an idea would be to close this forum for posting for everyone but yourself and you can post update info and specific answers on email questions once in a while at update releases?
Many thanks for all your effort so far, it really is highly appreciated by some of us!!
There is also a forum dedicated to "Audio Science Review" that might be less about stickies with outdated bad info and more inclined to "new" ideas and ways.
The owner of the site (I think it is him) has an actual Kipple machine that he uses to measure and post real Spin-O-Ramma data of both commercial and DIY speakers.
You should check it out.
David.
I'd like to point out that I agree that a properly done crossover can lead to a superior result. I began encouraging the 'full crossover' agenda even before the sticky you mention was written 10 years ago.
It was written to address the questions a large number of members were asking, to serve as an introduction. diyAudio members tend to run the gamut from less to more experienced, some looking to learn more, which takes time, and some happy where they are.
If you're finding it untenable here, I think HTGuide would be a suitable home, it has some of the most advanced DIY builders posting out there, and though the volume of posts is quite low, the S/N ratio is the highest of any DIY forum I've found. As you've seen, your approach is very much appreciated there and generally considered a gold standard, and you already seem to get along with Jon/ET quite well.
There is also a thread about VCAD Has anyone here used this - Vituix software?. Main topic in the end was speculation which university I've studied. Correct answer is that I've never even visited in any university. Just seen few university buildings outside so I'm probably not qualified for scientific discussion
Member
Joined 2003
FWIW I've found this thread very helpful and I keep an eye on it to hear about how others are using the software, maybe learn some new tricks
I think it's important to have some separation between software support and trying to educate the world on acoustic design principals. It may be good to focus here on software specific features, issues, workflow, and take acoustic design principals to another thread.
I think it's important to have some separation between software support and trying to educate the world on acoustic design principals. It may be good to focus here on software specific features, issues, workflow, and take acoustic design principals to another thread.
Member
Joined 2003
Kimmo,
It seems that the solution is indeed for you to cut back so you don’t burn out (burn out more?). I hope you can just sit back, and not feel you have to respond to all questions and comments. Then it’s up to the other members to answer the questions on the various functions of the software.
Also we could rename the thread something like
VituixCAD New Features Suggestions, so theory questions would be off topic and deleted.
Or have that AND another thread called:The VituixCAD member supported help thread.
Something like that.... We’re open to ideas.
It seems that the solution is indeed for you to cut back so you don’t burn out (burn out more?). I hope you can just sit back, and not feel you have to respond to all questions and comments. Then it’s up to the other members to answer the questions on the various functions of the software.
Also we could rename the thread something like
VituixCAD New Features Suggestions, so theory questions would be off topic and deleted.
Or have that AND another thread called:The VituixCAD member supported help thread.
Something like that.... We’re open to ideas.