VituixCAD v2

[witwald]

Hello. I would like to make a small suggestion for an added feature. When I am using the Enclosure Tool, I often work with various high-pass and low-pass filters. I use the Group Delay panel to display the filter gain, but I tend to swicth off the display of the Group delay trace, leaving just the Filter gain trace, which is what I am interested in seeing. Below is an example:

To make the display of filter gain make more sense in this particular use case, would it be possible to change the "Group delay" graph heading to "Filter gain"? I imagine that it should not be very difficult to do that. Ideally, it would also be great if the dB axis was now displayed on the left-hand side of the plot, and the group delay axis was completely omitted in this instance.

If both "Group delay" and "Filter gain" are being displayed simultaneously, would it be possible to change the "Group delay" heading to "Group Delay and Filter Gain"?

If only group delay is being displayed, then would it be possible to completely omit the dB axis that is labelled on the right-hand side?

Taken together, those relatively minor changes would considerably enhance the UX.

Thank you for giving due consideration to my request.

[kimmosto]

2.0.135.0 (2026-03-22)

Optimizer

• Added Limit minimum EPDR checkbox.

[kimmosto]

2.0.134.0 (2026-03-21)

Optimizer

• Fixed bugs in Minimum impedance and Maximum gain limitation. Frequency range was limited while optimization to accelerate performance, but finding actual minimum and maximum requires full range calculation.
• Calculated range while optimizing Preference rating depends on selected variables (weights). Optimized range is 100-16000 Hz with NBD weight = 0. NBD weight > 0 needs 84-19200 Hz to cover 1/4 oct. below and above normal range. Start frequency with LFX/LFQ weight > 0 is 10 Hz. Frequency limits are set to text fields when Preference rating is selected.
• Weighting factors for Minimum impedance, Maximum gain, and Ref axis linearity have been increased to make the limits much steeper.

Preference rating

• Allowed two slope targets; ON or LW, and PIR or SP. ON target alone without power averages could be a bit unstable in some cases. Dual target system is also more compatible with Optimizer having two targets.
• 'Show target' checkbox removed. ON/LW slope target is shown in SPL chart. PIR/SP slope target is shown in CTA-2034 chart.

Main

• Frequency response, Frequency response of Driver, Listening window, Group delay, Filter response of Driver and Polar frequency responses exported with unwrapped phase.

[Reet]

Those guys at Purifi must be having a laugh...

[kimmosto]

2.0.133.4 (2026-03-03)

Main, Enclosure

• Fixed crash when chart with logo is zoomed in with double-click.

This bug has not appeared since the logo addition in 2.0.74.0 (2021-06-11), so .NET 4.8 could work differently in hiding chart grid columns and rows than previous versions.

[kimmosto]

2.0.133.3 (2026-02-28)

• Performance of minimum phase calculation improved.

SPL Trace

• Impedance response extrapolated below the lowest traced frequency using R + L||C||R electrical equivalent circuit fitted to traced curve at 0 Hz with entered Re, f_min and f_peak. Linear impedance responses without adequate resonance peak are extrapolated as linear, limited with entered Re.
• Minumum-phase response is calculated from traced data before resampling to 5-40kHz 1/48 ppo.

[kimmosto]

2.0.133.2 (2026-02-18)

Main

• Fixed svg export of Directivity Polarmap. Bug since yesterday.

[kimmosto]

2.0.133.1 (2026-02-17)

Main

• Improved accuracy of contour lines in Directivity Polarmap with Klippel palette. Cost is decreased performance so Default palette or some other chart type is recommended while adjustments.
• Tooltip of Compress and Expand SPL scale buttons updates after clicks.

[Reet]

Thank you for taking the time, this is very helpful.

[kimmosto]

I've always understood this feature to be more of a "fix" for measurements with low SNR where the windowing function has made for incorrect off-axis response at low frequency, however the follow up question is "what should one expect for DI at low frequency for a monopole speaker?"...

As far as I recall, the most important reason for adding 'Force to gradient' was unreliable measurements; environment and input noise, possible drifting of D.C. in the mic input and "mathematical" effects of cropped impulse response by the time window. For example ARTA had some issues with input channel opening causing variance to L.F. It's also certain that it's difficult...impossible to measure actual far field in a room due to distance dependencies. Relative difference of delays between 0 and 180 deg measurements and front & rear radiators is bigger to short than long measurement distances. That is one of the reasons for DI > 0.x dB at very L.F.

Common sense tells that unidirectional full space concept with sealed cabinet and front driver is omni at frequency lim->0 Hz. DI > 0 dB above 20 Hz. The same story with front vents.

Boxed with front active driver and rear vent/passive is dipole at frequency lim->0 Hz. DI is slightly negative close to tuning frequency because active cone does not move much and rear vent/passive produces most on the pressure. Below tuning freq. DI returns back to 0 dB - and positive while closing to 0 Hz. We could estimate theoretical minimum level of negative dip in DI at tuning freq. by simulating vent's/passive's response to 180 deg by Diffraction tool or The Edge. This assumes that active cone is silent i.e. system is ideal without any damping. For example D=100mm vent in the center of 400x1000mm rear baffle produces ca. 0.25 dB at 27 Hz to distance of 30 m. That would be the minimum level of dip in DI as negative value i.e. -0.25 dB.

I usually use 'Force to gradient' in Merger so that directivity of full space concept with rear vent is forced to omni at tuning frequency. Pressure drops quite fast below that so dipole effect closing to 0 Hz is insignificant for sound balancing.
Larger sealed and vented full space concepts with front vents are forced to omni at 20 Hz if measurements have obvious errors such as clear level variance to different angles, or DI >> 0 dB @ 20 Hz. Very large; wide and tall constructions are closing to half space concept in practice so forcing to omni for zeroing DI does not make much sense anymore. Large and flat box on solid front wall is acoustically half space, DI >= 3 dB.

You can copy-paste this to the other thread/forum if needed.

[Reet]

Minor bug report, tooltip on "expand SPL scale" and "compress SPL scale" at the top of the main window shows 40dB regardless of actual SPL span.

[Reet]

Hi Kimmo, over at DIY there has been some "crowd-sourced" development of a classic monkey-coffin style 3-way speaker, and a question was raised on the use of "force to gradient" in the merge process. I've always understood this feature to be more of a "fix" for measurements with low SNR where the windowing function has made for incorrect off-axis response at low frequency, however the follow up question is "what should one expect for DI at low frequency for a monopole speaker?".

In my own measurements, I have not found a monopole speaker to be fully omnidirectional at 100Hz and below, however slightly better than this particular speaker. My speakers designs have used a smaller baffle width, and usually with a port on the back side, so DI approaches zero and even negative value at low frequency.

The speaker being discussed in a wide cabinet with 12" woofer in a closed/sealed cabinet, and measurements completed at 1m distance in-room. The measured data is of good quality, so I did not find the need to use "force to gradient" and the resulting DI at low frequency is around 2.4dB. Of course, if force to gradient is used with 100% monopole selected, the result becomes a DI of 0dB.

I am wondering if you have any insight or opinions on what would be considered the more correct result, this:


Or this:

[kimmosto]

Chapter related to slope targets...

Quoted message updated completely. Added text by S. Olive, target values in dB/oct and calculated textbook power response and DI slopes.

Few comments to Olive's short text:

The ideal target slope for the on-axis and listening window curves (0 and –0.2) is identical for both test samples, which indicates that the on-axis curve should be flat, while the off-axis curves should tilt gently downwards.

Agree, but other directivity patterns than unidirectional boxed were not (presumably) studied so this this cannot be generalized. I'm quite sure horizontal on-axis cannot be generalized because nothing in practice has indicated that. More constant directivity (flat horizontal DI or widening dispersion at top octave) -> more on-axis tilt down.

The degree of tilt varies among curves for Test One and the larger sample. Test One includes mostly 2-way designs whereas the larger sample includes several 3-way and 4-way designs that tend to have wider dispersion (hence smaller negative target slopes) at mid and high frequencies. This suggests that the ideal target slope may depend on the loudspeaker’s directivity.

3- and 4-ways don't necessarily have wider dispersion at H.F. than small 2-ways. They can have smaller mid so dispersion at upper mid can be wider. More ways and larger front baffle increase directivity at lower mid ... upper bass so large traditional multi-ways usually have more linear directivity index and lower off-axis slopes. Agree that this suggests that the ideal target slope may depend on the loudspeaker’s directivity, but dependence locates probably in on-axis, listening window and power response. Not (so much) in predicted in-room because it represents perceived tonal balance at mid...far field better than on-axis and listening window alone. Power rules more to far field + off-axis. In addition, speakers in Test One were quite bad in average so we can ignore the results and conclusions quite safely, though slope targets in the table are calculated from top-10 %.
Dipole usually produces extra reflected phase matching pressure to mid-bass so on-axis and listening window slopes can be more horizontal than with cardioidish. Dips at L.F. in room response reduce energy and tilt balance up so large boxed or cardioid woofer arrays with solid wavefront towards the listener can have more horizontal on-axis than e.g. small bass cardioid requiring intentional bass boost. And so on, not forgetting the tilt of room reverberation balance.

[kimmosto]

PIR should probably have slightly higher slope target than ER...

Agree. This case dependent. In some rare cases ER slope is very close to PIR slope, but usually PIR slope is slightly steeper.

[kimmosto]

There are few typos in Olive's paper...

There are also a couple of ambiguities or illogicalities. Preferred speakers in the big group have target LW slope = -0.2 and target SP slope = -1.75, but target SPDI slope = 1.4. It should be 1.75 - 0.2 = 1.55 if the same speakers were preferred. Maybe each variable has own group of preferred speakers...

Speakers in the small group were 2-ways having higher directivity slopes due to directivity of smaller box and less crossover bands. Can we assume that lower slopes would be more preferred also with 2-ways, but really good 2-ways with lower slopes were not available and tested? Or was stronger directivity more important in that room acoustics than better (=lower) directivity slopes? Combination of reverberation time and listening distance may not support well-designed small 2-ways with healthier directivity slopes.

Speakers were not listened off-axis or off-room. Speakers were not listened how they are normally listened to. Monophonic only, one speaker at 3 m, directly in front of the listener. In the consumer market, everyone does not sit in the same listening spot whole time. If someone does, they are most likely listening in stereo or multi-channel, meaning the angle between listener's ears and the speaker was not correct either (except for HT center). Music samples were almost the same elevator muzak. Few sharpened drum beats, but no real transients, heavy loads or real acoustic orchestra for sure. Listeners were led to focus on the tones of the singer, guitars and a few other instruments. Why not, because there was no intention to study anything else due to preconditions. The study was so limited that for example directivity slopes, dynamics, non-linear distortion, direction of wavefront, sound stage / diffraction problems dropped to zero or close to. So here we are - too many variables has become irrelevant on some forum(s) because they were not properly studied when it was possible.

[Reet]

PIR should probably have slightly higher slope target than ER, but those two and often very close together perhaps it's splitting hairs. I often turn off ER trace on CTA-2034 chart and just look at PIR to reduce clutter.

[kimmosto]

For example default values of SL_LW, SL_PIR and SL_SP for 'Full space' are equal to 'Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements Part II' by S. Olive.

Chapter related to slope targets. Last two rows are calculated from Olive's table, not included in the original.

[kimmosto]

Target zones in CTA-2034 chart as a function of standard directivity index slope, since rev. 2.0.133.0:
Red circles are default values of target slopes (SL_) in Preference rating window: Close to Constant DI @DI-slope=0.3 dB/oct, Half space @DI-slope=0.78 dB/oct, Full space @DI-slope=1.18 dB/oct. Ideal 'Constant DI' does not have default values (all -0.8 dB/oct). It's too theoretical.

[kimmosto]

2.0.133.0 (2026-02-05)

Main

• Minor modifications to target zones in CTA-2034 chart.
• Added 'Danville 96k' and 'LEA 96k' to DSP system list in Options window.

Preference rating

• Added NBD_LW, NBD_SP and NBD_SPDI values to variable table.
• Minor modifications to default values for 'Full space', 'Half space' and 'Constant DI' slope targets (SL_).
  For example default values of SL_LW, SL_PIR and SL_SP for 'Full space' are equal to 'Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements Part II' by S. Olive.
• One slope target can be activated at a time to clarify monitoring of target line in CTA-2034 chart.

[kimmosto]

2.0.132.0 (2025-11-25)

• Linkwitz-Riley HP/LP linear-phase active filter blocks support 10th...16th order (60...96 dB/oct) slopes.
• Linkwitz-Riley HP/LP target in Optimizer window supports 10th...16th order (60...96 dB/oct) linear-phase slopes (Lin.pha checked).
• Development environment updated from Visual Studio 2022 to 2026 (VS 18).

[Reet]

For the intended purpose of diffraction simulation, which would be to apply to nearfield response of a woofer, I would probably just take the size of the facet directly horizontal to the centre of the woofer and apply that as a roundover and call it good, so red trace if I understand your descriptions properly.

I know you have some completed speakers with these big facets, why don't you compare with your own real-world measurements? Which one of these responses when applied to the nearfield response and merged, has the best alignment with the final speaker measured response?

[DaveFred]

At the risk of splitting hairs, I am wondering how to best model enclosure diffraction when the cabinet has beveled facets.

Here is the cabinet drawing, 350mm tall, 180mm wide, driver 190mm from bottom, driver SD 54cm^2,



And here are some diffraction simulations,

Orange - 180mm cabinet width with square edges ignoring the bevel
Red - 180mm cabinet width, treating the bevel as a roundover based on where the bevel lands in the middle of the woofer
Purple - 180mm cabinet width, treating the bevel as a roundover based on where the bevel is at the top of the woofer
Green - 150mm cabinet, treating the cabinet width as being the bevel in the middle of the woofer.

I realize that for the purpose of baffle step, these are all within 1/2 dB and not going to make a world of difference, I was just wondering which simulation would you consider most correct?

My poorly educated guess would be "Red".



Thank you,

David.

[kimmosto]

2.0.131.1 (2025-11-02)

Diffraction

• Movement of effective acoustical center to off-axis angles is simulated by subtracting group delay at 5-7 Hz from all off-axis responses, including diffracting waves. This eliminates e.g. shifting of high-pass frequency of open baffle on frequency axis as the radiator size changes.

[kimmosto]

Ok, thanks! Let's try wider publication.

2.0.131.0 (2025-10-29)

• Target framework changed from .NET Framework 4.5.2 to 4.8. That's the last supporting Windows 7 sp1.

[Reet]

As far as I can tell, everything is working normally via Wine, though with slower performance and ugly aliased charts. There were some messages spit out to the terminal, I'm not sure how detrimental they are. Here's an example:

01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01d8:fixme:thread:NtQueryInformationThread ThreadIsIoPending info class not supported yet
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {c3fcc19e-a970-11d2-8b5a-00a0c9b7c9c4}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {b196b283-bab4-101a-b69c-00aa00341d07}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {af86e2e0-b12d-4c6a-9c5a-d7aa65101e90}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {ecc8691b-c1db-4dc0-855e-65f6c551af49}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {94ea2b94-e9cc-49e0-c0ff-ee64ca8f5b90}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {00000003-0000-0000-c000-000000000046}
019c:fixme:olepicture:OLEPictureImpl_QueryInterface () : asking for unsupported interface {00000144-0000-0000-c000-000000000046}
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF960, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF960, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF960, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
01a4:fixme:ole:thread_context_callback_ContextCallback 00007F2821451798, 00006FFFF9F52B80, 00007FFFFF4FF850, {d7174f82-36b8-4aa8-800a-e963ab2dfab9}, 2, 0000000000000000
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"WindowsForms10.COMBOBOX.app.0.141b42a_r7_ad1"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"WindowsForms10.COMBOBOX.app.0.141b42a_r7_ad1"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"ComboLBox"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"ComboLBox"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"WindowsForms10.COMBOBOX.app.0.141b42a_r7_ad1"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"WindowsForms10.COMBOBOX.app.0.141b42a_r7_ad1"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"ComboLBox"
019c:fixme:oleacc:find_class_data unhandled window class: L"ComboLBox"

[draki]

W11 Pro 25H2/ 64: works OK, can't notice any problem so far...

[Reet]

I primarily have been using VituixCAD in a Windows 10 VM. I pushed many buttons and found no issues installing the updated version above.

Within Linux, I have avoided VituixCAD running under Wine for two reasons - performance, and right click context menu often disappears immediately after clicking, making the UI unusable. Give me a little time and I will test the new version.

[kimmosto]

I'm going to change .NET Framework requirement from 4.5.2 to 4.8 which is the last one Windows 7 sp1 supports. Would you care to test it on real Win7, Win10, Win11, some Virtual machine on macOS or linux, and possibly with Wine 10.12 or later.
I have tested on Win 11 Pro 25H2 and Win 7 sp1 on VMware Workstation Player 16 (on Win 11 Enterprise 23H2).
No functional changes compared to 2.0.130.1.
---Link removed---

[kimmosto]

Few examples about time windowed far measurements without any post-processing could give some answers about usability of directivity data also with short time gate. Absolute accuracy is different thing, but we can make quite safe assumptions especially with simple conventional concepts without surprises in directivity:

6.5" boxed woofer, 8" passive radiator in the back. There is some extra directivity at LF due to time window, reflections, possible noise and DC offset. That can be reduced with 'Force to gradient' feature.



2x15" woofers in I-frame dipole baffle, hor plane. DI at LF may be a bit less than in theory, but generally directivity is captured down to 20 Hz. Very much smoothed but again, we know that it is smooth with quite plain I-baffle.



Designer can use Diffraction tool to simulate directivity to 0-180 deg, and Calculator to include that directivity to any on-axis response, and finally merge two sets of far field responses with Merger: LF part contains simulated directivity and HF part measured directivity. Merging could be e.g. at 150 Hz with blending of 3-4 octaves. This is also "wrong", but so is everything (including NFS) except real far field measurements at 2-3 m in anechoic.

[mv8]

Thanks for the explanation, Kimmo

[kimmosto]

...in his opinion, the technique of combining near-field measurements and off-axis far-field measurements (as is done in VituixCAD) is wrong.

Of course it is wrong, and all credits belong to something else 😁 But seriously, most of the messages by Bohdan seem to include some wrong assumptions how Merger works - or at least what is possible with Diffraction+Calculator+Merger. Very short answer to default usage is that directivity of merged LF data is adopted from far field HF responses. So it does not merge plain near field multiplied by on-axis diffaction to far field with some blending. Of course not, because that would produce radical error. Time window causes smoothness to directivity data at LF. That is one of inaccuracies in default usage. Other inaccuracies are near field measurement itself (cone behavior), simulated diffraction and magnitude+phase error at LF due to time window and selected window function.

[mv8]

Of course though I prefer e-mail and delayed answering after few months.

Okay, I wanted to send you a link to a conversation I had with Bohdan about merging measurements. I am not competent enough to discuss this topic at the appropriate level, but here are a few of Bohdan's answers in which he explains why, in his opinion, the technique of combining near-field measurements and off-axis far-field measurements (as is done in VituixCAD) is wrong.

I remembered this conversation, and that's why I asked my first question about the implementation of Matched Filter in VituixCAD.

https://groups.io/g/Soundeasy/topic/odp_soundeasy_using_the/102932391

[kimmosto]

May I send you a private message?

Of course though I prefer e-mail and delayed answering after few months.

[mv8]

kimmosto Thank you for your reply and explanation. May I send you a private message?

[kimmosto]

If you have the time and the will to read a bit of the SoundEasy manual, it might be worth adding this feature to the Convert IR to FR tool?

I had time to read. Procedure contains multiple steps, parameter adjustments both numerically and graphically, and some evaluations and possible undos for each measurement. Parameters probably variate depending on off-axis angle. This does not fit very well to preferred measurement procedure where each driver is measured semi/full automatically 0-180 or 0-360 with steps of 10 or 5 degrees, and LF+MF drivers at near field. Bohdan also says:
"In addition, before you start using this tool, please be aware, that close-mike measurement technique, coupled with diffraction analysis, will yield equally good, if not better results, simply because the reflections are attenuated by the virtue of the measurement technique...
Therefore, once you become confident with Cepstral Deconvolution, you may try to use it for all quick, first-cut activities, and move to close-mike measurements for the final results."

I kinda disagree with Bohdan because near field and diffraction simulation are not difficult and complex compared to cepstrum method. The only possible problem is accuracy of simplified diffraction model. SE probably has better diffraction simulation compared to VCAD's rapid and easy approach.

By the way, someone else asked averaging of impulse responses measured from different distances. That would require probably 10x more measurements for each driver, automatic and manual (sub-sample) fine tuning of timing, magnitude scaling with distance etc. Also this is possible for on-axis only, but way too extreme for off-axis with dual plane or balloon measurement.

[mv8]

Sure, I understand.
Matched Filter and Cepstral Deconvolution operations are performed on impulse measurements, so I think the easiest way would be to include such a function in the Convert IR to FR tool.
Most importantly, these functions do not require any additional measurements, so when measuring far field, we have data for possible further processing.

I also see no reason why these options could not be implemented in REW.

[Reet]

Frankly I gave up on SE on version 26 after feeling like I was paying to be a beta tester, and struggling to converse with the developer on simple concepts like whether baffle step should be treated as an energy gain or an energy loss. My comments above were simply thinking about what a practical implementation in VituixCAD would look like.

Perhaps the cepstral editor question could be posed to John Mulcahy of REW as well.

[mv8]

I don't see anyway around the merge process in VituixCAD, regardless of the method to fill in the low frequency portion of the windowed response, you still need a mechanism to apply it to the complete "high frequency portion" measurement set in bulk.

There's nothing preventing you from loading an un-windowed measurement as an overlay, use active filter components to design the equivalent matching filter and use that as the low frequency portion in the merge tool. I'm not sure it's saving many steps though, it may actually be a faster process just to measure near field and simulate diffraction.

Cepstral editing was one of the more unique features of SoundEasy when I used it. I thought it was a very cool feature with a very clunky UI, and at the time I was using SE it was limited to only a maximum of 48kHz measurement sample rate.

Have you tried measuring spinorama on a turntable using SoundEasy with the Matched Filter function?

[Reet]

I don't see anyway around the merge process in VituixCAD, regardless of the method to fill in the low frequency portion of the windowed response, you still need a mechanism to apply it to the complete "high frequency portion" measurement set in bulk.

There's nothing preventing you from loading an un-windowed measurement as an overlay, use active filter components to design the equivalent matching filter and use that as the low frequency portion in the merge tool. I'm not sure it's saving many steps though, it may actually be a faster process just to measure near field and simulate diffraction.

Cepstral editing was one of the more unique features of SoundEasy when I used it. I thought it was a very cool feature with a very clunky UI, and at the time I was using SE it was limited to only a maximum of 48kHz measurement sample rate.

[mv8]

kimmosto Kimmo, I sometimes use SoundEasy for measurements, which, in my opinion, has an interesting function of “cleaning” measurements from the influence of the room. It is solved using the Cepstral Deconvolution or Matching Filter function. If you have the time and the will to read a bit of the SoundEasy manual, it might be worth adding this feature to the Convert IR to FR tool?

When used correctly, this feature allows you to avoid combining near-field and far-field measurements.

https://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/ SoundEasy V30 Reference Manual: Chapter 16.2, from page 16 to the end.

[kimmosto]

2.0.130.1 (2025-09-28)

Enclosure

• Fixed compliance calculation with isobaric configuration. Bug since 2.0.15.1 (2019-04-28).
• 'W to Ohm' text box updated also with isobaric configuration.

[Reet]

1m measurement distance is still not completely far field as 3m typical listening distance, so 1m diffraction response allows for small improvement of accuracy. For a similar reason, near field diffraction is completed using 10-30m distance, not 1m. It helps to avoid speakers sounding too thin due to inadequate BSC from inaccurate response data.

[bnilsson]

Thanks.
That brings up another related question regarding Merger.
I have never been able to understand, or missed it completely in the instructions, why does Merger need two diffraction correction files, one near (e.g. 1000mm) and one far (e.g. 5000mm)?

[bnilsson]

Thank you, that fixed the problem.

[kimmosto]

I have a cylindrical enclosure standing vertical with the driver mounted on top, pointing upwards.
Consequently the orientation is 90 degrees vertically in reference to the listener.
I have selected a listening/microphone distance of 1000mm, which will be in the same plane as the driver mount, sideways to the cylinder axis.
In the layout graph describing the baffle, driver and microphone, where should the microphone be located to conform to this geometry?
Should it be in the middle of the driver, or at the bottom, outside the baffle?

Baffle step is not visible to 90 deg off-axis with this kind of very simple diffraction simulation. Response includes directivity of an ideal piston, but nothing more. If you are creating diffraction response for Merger tool, you can create circular baffle (36 corners, height=width), driver and mic in the center point, and export response to 90 deg off-axis. Hor or Ver does not matter. Axis distance should be what Merger needs; one export to 30000 mm and another to distance where actual far field measurements are captured.