Member
Joined 2003
Dear @kimmosto
Thank you for ongoing great updates and thanks to the folks for number of nice requests as well.
Feature request (if I could)
I'd like to use the "Custom equation" in the "Preference rating" with the same constants as the (9) equation but without sensitivity to the slope.
But I can not manually set the first constant.
It looks strange a bit as well because checking "with sub" returns a perfectly good score so the constant might be adjusted to set the full score of 10 with sub.
So please consider implementing the text box to the first constant of "Custom equation" or maybe fix the bug of constant without checking "with sub"?
Reorder of "Drivers" and expansion of count of drivers
I am using VituixCAD as a "Loudspeaker measurements explorer" as well.
There are hundreds of great, meaningful measured data on the web which definitely I can't miss.
So I imported them into VituixCAD so that I can do an apple-to-apple comparison with my data.
Unfortunately, it reached to hundred models and still growing so currently, I'm using multiple project files.
In addition, organizing drivers (in my case loudspeaker models) is a bit fiddly on my text editor.
So reorder button with multiple (simultaneous) drivers selection is very helpful for me.
I know this is way way out of intended use but if you could, please consider.
Thanks in advance.
(VituixCAD 2.0.88.1 / Windows 10 Pro 21H2)
Thank you for ongoing great updates and thanks to the folks for number of nice requests as well.
Feature request (if I could)
I'd like to use the "Custom equation" in the "Preference rating" with the same constants as the (9) equation but without sensitivity to the slope.
But I can not manually set the first constant.
It looks strange a bit as well because checking "with sub" returns a perfectly good score so the constant might be adjusted to set the full score of 10 with sub.
So please consider implementing the text box to the first constant of "Custom equation" or maybe fix the bug of constant without checking "with sub"?
Reorder of "Drivers" and expansion of count of drivers
I am using VituixCAD as a "Loudspeaker measurements explorer" as well.
There are hundreds of great, meaningful measured data on the web which definitely I can't miss.
So I imported them into VituixCAD so that I can do an apple-to-apple comparison with my data.
Unfortunately, it reached to hundred models and still growing so currently, I'm using multiple project files.
In addition, organizing drivers (in my case loudspeaker models) is a bit fiddly on my text editor.
So reorder button with multiple (simultaneous) drivers selection is very helpful for me.
I know this is way way out of intended use but if you could, please consider.
Thanks in advance.
(VituixCAD 2.0.88.1 / Windows 10 Pro 21H2)
This is quite confusing item because accurate phase match within very wide range to a single point in 3D space is just over-theoretical academic rubbish, imo. In practice, designers who prefer phase matching tune mechanical construction and value of RLC components or parameters of active IIR stages, or use FIR filter to create also minimum phase response. Duelund's or other theories on white papers are not required for that. We should also remember that accurate phase match within wide range is not possible with other than FIR, it can happen in a single (small) point in 3D space with multi-way using separate drivers, it does not guarantee balanced sound and logical and stable soundstage and large listening area in vertical plane.
Anyway, also filler mid band with exact phase match with woofer and tweeter should be target for on-axis response in acoustical domain. Not "Duelund" or any other filter transfer function in electrical domain. Maybe that is possible to implement into Optimizer window so that users understand what they are actually doing.
Could you tell or link how "with sub" is calculated on ASR? I've never seen/found their spec. for it, and nowadays I don't give a sht what happens there.
VituixCAD has still original "LFX=1.162 and LFQ=0.5 when 'with sub' is checked" though this does not work anymore with equation 9 due to existing slope-sensitive calculation directly by Olive's patent. I guess constants for "with sub" are a bit different on ASR though they have eliminated some slope insensivities too.
I can do that though first constant may need some minimum limit to eliminate negative rating. Generally, adjustable first constant does not harm optimizing which is primary purpose of 'custom equation'.
Drop of rating when 'with sub' is unchecked is already fixed (will be published later). That "bug" was also harmless while optimizing, and normally 'with sub' should be checked while optimizing to avoid too high gain at sub frequencies.
Member
Joined 2003
Yes, currently just "LFX=1.162 in equation 9 is generally regarded as "with sub" just because the full score hits 10.0, as long as I know.
Equation 10 is rarely used (I personally have never seen it) so I don't know but I think LFX=1.162 and LFQ=0.5 in equation 10 are also appropriate.
Some use f6=20hz because f6≒14.5 Hz is a bit impractical though.
(looks not maintained anymore but Loudspeaker Explorer is using f6=20 as the perfect sub)
By the way, interestingly, Dr Sean Olive himself said that if he could do the research over again, he would like to scale the equation so that the highest rated speaker reached 10.0 or 100.
Thank you for quick fix!
I personally do not need the first constant modification if the bug is fixed.
2.0.88.2 (2022-07-30)
Main
- Absorption dB of Front wall duplicated as read-only for Left wall in Room tab.
- Multipliers of LFX and LFQ included in first parameter of custom equation to avoid drop of rating when 'With sub' is unchecked.
Quick reminder for @Noviceman that multipliers of equation 9 or 10 can be copied to custom equation by pressing Shift or Ctrl key while clicking Equation 9 or 10 radiobutton.
Sorting of drivers is not yet done. I need to investigate is multi-selection and sorting possible and how.
I have some difficulties to understand why comparing of spinoramas and preference ratings of commercial speakers is interesting or important. It's simply too much simplified to be decent benchmark for sound quality. In addition, patent application has too many ambiguities/illogicalities to be plausible. Weight in discussion and applications for plotting preference rating (such as Loudspeaker Explorer or review table on ASR) is quite overblown imo.
I'd also like to read Olive's comments about slope-dependence of NBD_PIR, SM_PIR, SM_SP etc. With equation 9 slope-dependence is needed for SM_PIR because it's the only parameter including useful target for slope, and PIR of good speaker has slope ~ -1. Respectively, NBD_PIR cannot have slope-dependence because it would prefer flat horizontal PIR. Slope-dependent SM_ON with R^2 does not work so it must be a bug in equation 10. So removing slope-dependence of SM_PIR for example with custom equation of VituixCAD without including slope (SL_ON, SL_LW or SL_PIR) is a mistake allowing any tilt and totally crap sound balance as long as SM_ parameters are close to 1.0. This problem is possible to see by optimizing XO parameters affecting to both tilt and smoothness.
2.0.88.3 (2022-07-30)
Main- Added Move driver up and down arrow buttons to Drivers tab.
This enables moving one row up/down at a time.
Thank you, that is a great tip!
I am interested more in the directivity itself.
The directivity, especially horizontal, strongly influences my perception of sound imaging so I'd like to grab a rough correlation between the directivity (wide, narrow, constant, tilted, shelved, etc.) and my perception.
There are quite a few great studio monitors which I've heard and some consumer loudspeaker as well.
They would help me as an anchor and hopefully, I will be able to aim at the target directivity with solid confidence (or less anxiety at least).
Indeed, the absence of SM_ON is very problematic.
Even if a loudspeaker with not brilliant would reach 9.0 with sub just by Eqing the PIR to stupidly straight.
I think a loudspeaker with a good directivity would be carefully designed so that it would have nice SM_ON as well, and probably this bias removed SM_ON from the principal component of the preference rating.
Dr Olive also commented that the equation is not intended for development, never used as a design tool, and shows just a correlation to the preference of existing models.
Oh, thank you very much!
Member
Joined 2003
Early access is here: https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/v5-20-10-early-access.10787/
That is probable, but as I said, Olive's original equation 9 with slope-sensitive SM_PIR (calculated as PEARSON^2 or RSQ in Excel which prefers slope=-1) and slope-sensitive NBD_ON (which prefers slope=0) are able to detect totally wrong tilts so it's valid for evaluation of sound balance and coloration - at least compared to modifications where slope-sensitivity is totally removed from SM_PIR without adding SL_ON or/and SL_LW.
I hope he meant that PR is not inclusive enough for designing. Original PR with eq 9 is easy and quite adequate for fine tuning sound balance and coloration with XO parameters, but designer should ensure that overall balance and other properties such as linearity/compression, multi-source effects i.e. diffraction, total directivity, smoothness of directivity with acoustical design etc. are taken care of.
Maybe, but Listening distance and Reference angle are primary parameters for geometry and acoustic response calculation so it's better that they have own text boxes. Entering X,Y would be indirect duplicate. Room tab is simplified decoration with low importance for speaker design. For example I never use it.