VituixCAD v2

[kimmosto]

kimmosto

I wonder if it would be possible for VituixCAD to import such a list with part numbers so that the crossover design process could evaluate the cost of specific LCR components, or generate a file to order specific components. I don't know if this is technically possible, but this was the idea that popped into my head. What do you think about it?

I'm sure it's possible, but I'm not keen to add optimization with price lists. Primary target is sound quality which correlates with XO connection and component values in the simulation. Not with price.
In addition, Excel price lists are very easy to generate, but availability is different. I don't want to promote companies having long Excel part lists over companies which can for example manufacture and deliver any inductor you ask in few days for cheaper that e.g. Janzen. Excel interoperability library is one possible problem. I don't like to add that into VCAD project due to possible dependency requirements. Excel interop is not a problem when all users have the same OS and Excel installed, but that's not the case with VCAD.

[JMB13]

I agree Kimmo. In fact, prices are very fluid based on market, location, season, and distributor.

[tktran]

Purifi Audio drivers added to online database

PTT10.0X04-NAB-02
PTT4.0M04-NAC-03
PTT4.0M04-NAC-04
PTT4.0M04-NFC-01
PTT4.0M04-NLC-02
PTT4.0M08-NAC-03
PTT4.0M08-NAC-04
PTT4.0M08-NFC-01
PTT4.0M08-NLC-02
PTT4.0PR-NA2-02
PTT4.0PR-NF2-01
PTT4.0PR-NL2-01
PTT4.0X04-NAC-03
PTT4.0X04-NAC-04
PTT4.0X04-NFC-01
PTT4.0X04-NLC-02
PTT4.0X08-NAC-03
PTT4.0X08-NAC-04
PTT4.0X08-NFC-01
PTT4.0X08-NLC-02
PTT5.25M04-NFA-02
PTT5.25PR-NF2-01
PTT5.25X04-NFA-01
PTT5.25X04-NFA-02
PTT5.25X08-NFA-01
PTT5.25X08-NFA-02
PTT6.5M04-NFA-01
PTT6.5M04-NLA-02
PTT6.5M08-NAA-07
PTT6.5M08-NAA-08
PTT6.5M08-NFA-01
PTT6.5M08-NLA-02
PTT6.5PR-NA2-03
PTT6.5PR-NF1-01
PTT6.5PR-NL1-01
PTT6.5W04-NFA-01
PTT6.5W04-NLA-10
PTT6.5W08-NAA-07
PTT6.5W08-NAA-08
PTT6.5W08-NFA-01
PTT6.5W08-NLA-10
PTT6.5X04-NAA-07
PTT6.5X04-NAA-08
PTT6.5X04-NFA-01
PTT6.5X04-NLA-10
PTT6.5X04-NLB-02
PTT6.5X08-NAA-07
PTT6.5X08-NAA-08
PTT6.5X08-NFA-01
PTT6.5X08-NLA-10
PTT6.5X08-NLB-02
PTT8.0PR-NA2-01
PTT8.0X04-NAB-02
PTT8.0X08-NAB-02

Kimmo,

How do you add these to the online database- Do you have to do it manually for each and every driver?

Or do you have a helper tool that automatically extracts the TSP from datasheets or html/XML?

[kimmosto]

Do you have to do it manually for each and every driver?

Unfortunately yes. Few 1.1 versions had internal pdf reader with configurable text parsing rules for each manufacturer. That could be still usable for few manufacturers.

pdf is basically graphics file format, and many manufacturers are not able or willing to print pdf files as readable plain text with the same format for many years. Also html pages are quite random. I have tested also OCR applications, but they are not necessarily better than pdf to text file converter.
Manufacturers may think that their pdf files and web pages are commercial material requiring fancy and often changing outlooks. Not data. I think it's quite opposite, and they should create strict standard using common quantity names and SI units to help customers using simulators. This wouldn't be difficult, but requires some co-operation. Not competition or ignorance with T/S data.

Of course simulator users could co-operate too, but that has not happened though I have asked many times to provide data for other users with online database. Selfishness has won.

[kimmosto]

^Unapproved when single comma was deleted. Not very motivating to use this forum.

[theSven]

It might be that the edit was done to fast from the last save. I've sent you a DM with an option if your interested. Apologies for the inconvenience.

[tktran]

Of course simulator users could co-operate too, but that has not happened though I have asked many times to provide data for other users with online database. Selfishness has won.

Really? I have input T/S parameters for driver's I have purchased, or looked to purchased. But I thought they are saved locally to my PC. I thought that online database is separate.

How do we submit TSP data to be "approved" to be added to the VituixCAD2 online datasheet? Maybe I should RTFM...

[kimmosto]

I thought they are saved locally to my PC. I thought that online database is separate.

How do we submit TSP data to be "approved" to be added to the VituixCAD2 online datasheet? Maybe I should RTFM...

Online database is on the server, and local databases are personal in local folder.

You can send records by e-mail. Select rows (filtered by date/your name in Updated field). Right click, Export xml and send file to me.
I paste it to my local database and copy to server. That's it.

Parameters should be taken from manufacturer's datasheet. Not some random sample measured by user. Revision of datasheet and Updated field should be included.

[kimmosto]

2.0.108.2 (2023-09-15)

Calculate T/S parameters

• Error tolerance increased from 1.5 to 6 to get solved result with unsmooth impedance curves.

[kimmosto]

It might be that the edit was done to fast from the last save.

That's exactly the problem. Every member should have rights and possibilities to fix factual errors and typos as soon as possible to avoid misunderstandings. Modifications should be possible from 0s to at least few hours after posting. That is standard function on discussion forums, and should be also here. Moderator rights can help some individual, but that does not fix actual problem which can bother every writer. Especially with this microscopic times roman font of editor window.

[tktran]

I agree. Also in modern times I am often writing via dictation and the machine learning is not perfect so often I have to edit and correct. A lot of us have perfectionist traits; I think and rethink what I really want to say to make my writing is clear and explicit.

So often needs things editing or revision. The other thing is sometimes missing ONE word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I believe I’m a not the only one that goes back and reads my writing sometimes hours, when someone else has responded. At least on this forum, the editing is not limited to 30 minutes, unlike that that other forum DIYA.

Of course, I can see the built-in rules to designed to favour humans and minimise bots infiltrating this forum… Perhaps there is a happy medium somewhere?

[theSven]

I will check with vBulletin Support. From what I'm seeing in the admin panel, there are no options to configure the spam settings or set how long or fast between edits would cause a flag. It's the forum software and I certainly do not want to alienate our community.

[theSven]

The thread I started on vBulletin support: https://forum.vbulletin.com/forum/vb...in#post4485177

[kimmosto]

Bots don't fix factual errors and typos right after posting. Preventing corrections sounds just some brain fart imo.

[kimmosto]

Many have changed to XenForo. diyaudio, ASR, AV Nirvana, HH.org etc. No problems with corrections or appearance of edit window.

[JonMarsh]

Sven is going to make you a moderator, then this problem will go away.

[Guest]

Hi,

Save and Open in the Enclosure Tool is giving me some unexpected results.

Scenario:
I work on and save an enclosure project, e.g a closed box with a specific Q value.
Then start another CB project with a different Q, and save it..
I go back and open the first CB project.
Then I find that the Align pane is not updating the Q to the previously saved value.
The Align pane keeps the Q settings for the existing project before Open, which means that my work can go terribly wrong if I do not pay attention.

Is this intentional, for a good reason? If so, what is the reason?
Or is it simply a bug?

I am using VituixCad 2.0.108.2

BN

[Reet]

Alignment tab doesn't contain any information about your enclosure design, it's just some buttons to auto-calculate values in Enclosure tab. Your enclosure design is the values in the enclosure tab, cabinet volume, Q, tuning, etc. All are adjustable independently of calculated values in the alignment tab.

[Guest]

I choose to (strongly) disagree on this logic.
Since the alignment tab auto-calculates my enclosure volume it is changing my carefully saved enclosure design in an uncontrolled way.
In my view, my enclosure design should definitely include my desired Q.
At least "auto-align" should not be checked automatically when I open a previously saved project, since this will change my volume by whatever Q value happens to be on the Align tab.
As it is now, I am forced to remember what Q I used, this is not exactly what I mean by "saving" the enclosure project.

BN

[kimmosto]

2.0.109.0 (2023-09-30)

Enclosure

• Rg parameter removed from Driver configuration group, Align tab and calculations.
• Cs checkbox and text box added to Filter tab. Optional passive series capacitor with ESR=0.01 Ohms.
• Ls checkbox and text box added to Filter tab. Optional passive series inductor with DCR=0.1 Ohms.
• Rs text box added to Filter tab. This replaces Rg.
  Note! Filter components are not included in impedance response simulation.
• Copy filter button copies also Cs, Ls and Rs to the clipboard.
• Status of Auto align checkbox is not saved to user config and enclosure project. Enclosure tool opens with Auto align unchecked.

[kimmosto]

At least "auto-align" should not be checked automatically when I open a previously saved project, since this will change my volume by whatever Q value happens to be on the Align tab.
As it is now, I am forced to remember what Q I used, this is not exactly what I mean by "saving" the enclosure project.

Purpose of auto align is to enable scrolling of driver database with some decent alignment to find driver with required extension and sensitivity without need to adjust anything manually. Otherwise checkbox should or must be unchecked to avoid losing manual design. I understand that temporary purpose of the checkbox is difficult to remember and control so the last revision does not save auto align status anymore. Some other users have hoped that program should save everything to everywhere to allow continue in the future with exactly previous settings. Someone is always unhappy...

[Guest]

Thanks for disabling the "Auto-align" autocheck in the Enclosure Tool.
Others may be unhappy, but I am not. 😀
Problem solved.

BN

[kimmosto]

New passive component extension in Enclosure tool does not work properly at the moment. Cs, Ls and Rs are in wrong place in the network. I'll try to upload fix tomorrow.

[kimmosto]

2.0.109.1 (2023-10-01)

Enclosure

• Fixed response calculation with passive filter. Bug since yesterday.
• Added total impedance with passive filter to Impedance chart. Traces are disabled if passive components are not enabled.

[Guest]

Obviously a newbie question:

If I take a halfspace SPL chart from a driver manufacturer's site, and use the "Trace SPL" tool to make a SPL file, is there any way I can use this data for a bass reflex enclosure in the Enclosure Tool?

BN

[Guest]

Sorry to post more than one question at a time...

I am comparing the halfspace SPL from exported an enclosure project I made a few weeks ago with the Scan-Speak W22/4851T00 driver, to what I get today.
I use a bass reflex enclosure auto aligned to QB3/SQB3.
My previous halfspace SPL was flat down to the normal f3 drop.
Today for the same alignment I get a rise of +1dB before the drop.
Has anything changed in the algorithm in the updated versions?

BN

[Reet]

Obviously a newbie question:

If I take a halfspace SPL chart from a driver manufacturer's site, and use the "Trace SPL" tool to make a SPL file, is there any way I can use this data for a bass reflex enclosure in the Enclosure Tool?

BN

I don't fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. Enclosure tool already shows low frequency half space response of the driver. You can merge the cabinet response with manufacturer response to get some idea of actual response in your cabinet fairly easily. Export SPL in enclosure tool, merge with traced manufacturer response with merger tool, select "no baffle loss". Result from this is half space response, load this into diffraction tool half space response, check box for "full space". Result here is expected result in cabinet, of course with much inaccuracy of manufacturer and simulated data, and result is minimum phase. Correct process is to install driver in your cabinet and measure real world result for crossover design following measurement guides available.

[kimmosto]

Driver+box calculation does not work properly with rev. 2.0.109.1 if 'Show effect of voice coil inductance' is unchecked. I have tried to avoid multiple full range calculation loops - first with selected inductance model and mechanical system to get correct impedance curve and transfer function with passive filter, and then mechanical system with plain Re to create fake flat SPL response which can be multiplied by transfer function of active and passive filter stages (with actual impedance response of course). This option is terrible mess

I have to make some plan; either remove passive filter option to the next revision or duplicate calculations in Enclosure - which probably takes few days... a week. Earlier link between Enclosure tool and main program calculated twice in Enclosure and once in the main program to include passive stages

[Guest]

I don't fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. Enclosure tool already shows low frequency half space response of the driver. You can merge the cabinet response with manufacturer response to get some idea of actual response in your cabinet fairly easily. Export SPL in enclosure tool, merge with traced manufacturer response with merger tool, select "no baffle loss". Result from this is half space response, load this into diffraction tool half space response, check box for "full space". Result here is expected result in cabinet, of course with much inaccuracy of manufacturer and simulated data, and result is minimum phase. Correct process is to install driver in your cabinet and measure real world result for crossover design following measurement guides available.

The manufacturer's SPL data contain the driver behavior over the whole frequency range, such as cone breakup, etc.
My purpose is to include the driver behavior "preview" in the project to help me evaluate my crossover design at an early stage.

Thanks, I will try your suggested workflow.

BN

[Reet]

Biggest problem with traced data is the minimum phase aspect, lacking proper timing information between multiple drivers in a project makes for just guess work at best for initial crossover design. My recommendation would be to mount the driver on a baffle and measure real-world results, same for T/S parameters, depending on manufacturer, datasheet information can be quite unreliable. But, if you must continue with traced data, I have assembled some document a while back that may help you, but pay close attention to the text in bold on the first page.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j9leycXJNvUmYZxQNVqg8U13mMRHh8Iw/view?usp=drive_link

[kimmosto]

2.0.109.2 (2023-10-05)

Enclosure

• Fixed response calculation with 'Show effect of inductance' unchecked. Bug since 2.0.109.1 (2023-10-01).

Did not require multiple full range calculation loops. Just few intermediate variables. Anyway, this passive LCR filter option was really challenging with all three impedance models and flat fake frequency response option.

[Reet]

That is a useful addition to the enclosure tool, for inclusion series inductor, resistor or capacitor. Alternative would be to revert back to the old "include crossover" option.

I wonder if it would be useful for the auto-alignment buttons to align the cabinet with inclusion of the filter? I believe this is something bnilsson11 above was looking for.

[kimmosto]

I wonder if it would be useful for the auto-alignment buttons to align the cabinet with inclusion of the filter? I believe this is something bnilsson11 above was looking for.

The reason for adding Cs was to enable simultaneous tuning of box volume and series capacitor with too small closed box compared to driver's Qts to get closer to ideal Qtc=0.7-0.8 to half space. Tuning is quite subjective process in practice because we cannot specify "ideal" target which is reachable in every case. Designer is probably forced to make some compromise; combination of tolerable hump, dip and high pass. Ls is just extra to show possible hump at upper bass.
Tuning has been possible without passive components in Enclosure tool, but it's slower requiring export of SPL and Z, and loading SPL to main program with XO. 'Feed speaker' has been available for Z only, but of course it would be possible for SPL too. In that case difference between separated and new integrated passive components would be few seconds / iteration.
So auto align with passive components could be a bit overkill compared to advantages.

More modern and recommended way to cut response hump due to high Qts and limit excursion is to use active filter. That is able to adapt in every case, and does not require ~1 mF bipolar cap.

[augerpro]

Just wanted to confirm with Kimmosto a question on measuring symmetric driver layout such as MTM. Specifically vertically. Is it correct that there is no difference between measuring with both woofers at the same time, versus measuring each one individually? The SPL and phase should sum correctly either way?

[Reet]

Driving just one speaker will affect cabinet alignment - bass response. So nearfield should be completed with both drivers connected. Far field >300Hz measurement should be relatively unaffected by measuring only one driver connected.

[augerpro]

Imagine the woofers have their own enclosures

[kimmosto]

Magnitude of possible problem when measuring both midwoofers of MTM at once depends on measurement distance. No problem if you can measure at 2000...2500 mm i.e. normal far field listening and simulation distance. Then you just add single driver instance to X,Y,Z=0,0,0 mm and load data including both Ms for it.
But there will be magnitude and angle error and differences between M drivers if you are forced to use much shorter measurement distance due to limited room height and time-window requirements. Here is one example with measurement distance of 1000 mm and M-M=300 mm. Acoustic averaging reduces error in the sum at mic, but there will be some remaining error compared to measurement at 2000...2500 mm.

It's certain that acoustic summing by the simulator with recommended method (=measuring single driver only) is not free of errors, but it enables more freedom when selecting measurement distance and simulation distance. It also enables playing with driver locations if mechanical construction is modular and adjustable.

[Reet]

Imagine the woofers have their own enclosures

Sorry, I misunderstood the intent of your question. Kimmo has provided an excellent response. With each driver in its own enclosure, why would you not measure each driver individually? Measuring as a pair necessitates both horizontal and vertical measurements, while also locking driver locations in place and the other distance errors mentioned. Measuring a single driver allows for accuracy of SPL at any distance, some flexibility in driver separation in the crossover simulation, and in many cases you may get very good results with only horizontal measurement set. So my recommendation is to always gather data for individual drivers.

[Guest]

I humbly request that the merger Tool would offer an output file name and path dialog, not to overwrite and corrupt my input data.
Is this difficult to do?

[Reet]

Previously VituixCAD would append a _mrg suffix to the file names when merging, which I preferred, Regardless, the current process is to create a new folder for the merged file output, folder selection with new folder button is available when you save.

[kimmosto]

Suffix such as _mrg is possible with "root-filename hor/ver angle.txt/frd" only. For example I cannot use suffix due to CLIO QC and Outline table. 3D balloon naming conventions accept prefix, but own directory for merger results is safer, more logical and mentioned also in user manual.

[kimmosto]

Program should also warn and ask if directories are the same: "Output filename crashes and overwrites input (HF) file. Press OK to add 'VXM ' prefix to merged files. Cancel to change output directory or file extension.". Hopefully it actually works like that...

[kimmosto]

2.0.110.0 (2023-10-28)

Main

• Added window for creating project folder and subfolders with driver list. Two folder hierarchy options: Project name\Data folder\Driver name or Project name\Driver name\Data folder. Far, Impedance, Merger and Near folders can be created for each driver as parent folder or subfolder. Optional common folders: Datasheet, Diffraction, Drawing, Enclosure, Export and Room. Window opens with File->New command or wizard button in Drivers tab.

Enclosure

• Effective box volume depends on Qa. Resonance frequency decreases by adding damping material i.e. decreasing Qa. Simplified Vb calculation and tooltip of Qa text box are compatible with UniBox 4.07 by Kristian Ougaard: Vb=Vphys*(1+0.9/Qa^0.9). No fill: Qa=120, Minimal fill: Qa=80, Walls covered: Qa=20, Heavy fill: Qa=5.
• Added tooltip to Qp text box. Values are compatible with UniBox 4.07 by Kristian Ougaard: No flush ends: Qp=70, One flush end: Qp=80, Two flush ends: Qp=90, One flared end: Qp=120, Two flared ends: Qp=140. Note! End corr should be adjusted manually too.

User manual is not yet updated for project folder creator. Maybe in few days...

[JonMarsh]

Very useful updates!

[Reet]

Great changes, the change in resonant frequency with Fs should make for a bit better agreement when comparing actual measurement to simulation.

FWIW most of my reflex designs use slot ports, when comparing actual measurement and impedance to the simulation, I find Qp around 20-30 is proving better agreement with real world results. Possibly the values I had used for Qa and Ql were bad, or perhaps Qp suggested by Kristian accounts for port ends but still assumes an otherwise perfect port, not accounting for bends, laminar flow vs turbulent flow, back pressure or other factors restricting port efficiency. I'm no expert on the subject though, just trying to determine best values for accurate simulation.

[Nil L]

kimmosto,
The optimizer may suggest cutoff frequencies as a result of its operation that should never be used. For example, 600 hertz for two drivers. The tweeter should never play down to 600 hertz. The play of percentages between axial response and power response doesn't help. Offer. Add a parameter that limits the frequency range in which the optimizer can search for the best option. Each driver has its own range. Or a common range for all drivers.
The same thing happens with the level of individual drivers. The optimizer decides that the tweeter level can be 5 dB higher than the midbass level. It would be good to set a range of levels at which the optimizer can play. Each driver has its own range. Or a common range for all drivers.

[Reet]

Optimizer doesn't design the crossover for you, only to adjust part values to achieve the target goal you've provided. Options already exist to limit frequency range of optimization, and define high pass / low pass target to optimize individual driver response. Optimization to overall power and axial response doesn't care about individual driver responses, but can be limited to adjustment of a single driver circuit by limiting components to optimize. Best results if driver response is already in the ball-park of target to begin with and appropriate circuit topology is in place. It's an excellent time saving tool.

[kimmosto]

...can be limited to adjustment of a single driver circuit by limiting components to optimize.

This is primary method to keep crossover frequency within proper range. Another very good option is to limit component values of passive network. Parameters i.e. component values have min and max constraints. For example series coil of the woofer >= 1.2 mH and/or series cap of tweeter <= 10 uF could maintain some sense in XO freq while total on-axis is optimized.

All this is very natural with active OPA and DSP projects because frequency is main parameter of LP and HP filters. Just limit freq with min and max constraint. FIR projects use transfer functions which are created with target responses having XO freq selected by user.

[Nil L]

Thanks for the advice. I am aware of this possibility. It’s not a good idea to mentally calculate the denomination that will limit the optimizer’s search. To teach a program that can do this faster than any brain seems to me to be the best idea. But this is not a problem at the moment. In case of arbitrariness of the optimizer, I deprive him of the laurels of the winner and manually do everything normally.