• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Software tools for building better DIY speakers

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
From a discussion that started in a speaker review,thought it would be helpful to have somewhere to share what tools you might be using to design and test speakers. Currently, I use Bassbox Pro, REW and XSim. Bassbox is only one I paid for and is getting a little old. My designs are mainly subwoofers and has done well for that. Would like to replace Bassbox eventually. Anyone else care to share?
 

Wafflesocks

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
29
Likes
43
I have used winisd for sub modeling.

Arta for measurements (and you can even make a jig for driver specs)

Pcd for crossover design.

I have heard a lot of amazing diy designs, only build 2 from scratch so far.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
VituixCAD is an outstanding software for processing measurements and simulating crossovers.

When I simulate subwoofer boxes, I use the Unibox sheet for Excel. I have always gotten good agreement between simulated and measured enclosure Q and resonance.

Other key tools:
1) measurement space.
2) turntable for polar measurements
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,086
Location
.de, DE, DEU
One of the best (and free) tools for passive and active loudspeaker crossover development is VituixCAD. It also comes with some very helpful tools.
Even with this tool it is possible to do simple simulations for loudspeaker baffle.

A tool for crossover development with simple simulation of complete loudspeaker cabinets supported by the loudspeaker manufacturer Visaton is Boxsim 2.0. Most Visaton loudspeaker measurements in infinite baffle are already included in the program. With it you can easily simulate your own (Visaton) loudspeakers. Unfortunately the current version is only available in German.

For high quality simulations of complete loudspeakers ABEC is suitable (complete docs are in English). In the free version projects cannot be saved, but for DIY the use of this version is sufficient.
In order to create reliable simulations with the program, however, you should expect weeks or months of self-study.

Included in the program is a software for displaying the simulation results VACS and a program for simulating rotationally symmetric drivers, wave guides and horns in an infinite baffle AxiDriver.

There are several threads in a German forum:
- Introduction in ABEC (...and of course it's in f.. german ;))
- The helpful simulation of a 2-way loudspeaker with a wave guide. I will attach the file to the post here.
- A description how to determine the directivity and the early reflections for the simulations from ABEC in the viewer VACS. Attach the two pdf-files to the post - unfortunately it is written in German, deepl.com helps.
- A short introduction to AxiDriver with an example simulation for a horn - file attached.
- Many results for simulations done in ABEC show how powerful this tool is for the DIY loudspeaker developer.

:eek: Don't let the amount of information overwhelm you :eek:
 

Attachments

  • Buendelungsmass in VACS.pdf
    261.8 KB · Views: 349
  • LS_Early_Reflections_in_VACS.pdf
    168 KB · Views: 201
  • ABEC_Template.zip
    1.6 MB · Views: 154
  • Beispiel Axidriver.zip
    473 KB · Views: 134
Last edited:

Biblob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
633
Likes
600
I read everywhere that high Q resonances should be limited i.e. resonances caused by the cabinet. Are there any (free) tools that can simulate the behaviour of a woofer pressurising a particular cabinet?
I know Solidworks and Comsol are able to do this, but I don't really want to spend tens of thousands on this as a amateur DIY'er.

If someone can share me information or best practises, that would be great. I already started a thread on Constrained Layered Damping where helpfull information has been shared. But actual guidance or best practises based on scientifical research still is hard to find.

One (amateurish) project showed how bracing and different materials are helpfull: http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/index.php/projecten/12-kast-materialen-onderzoek
 

Biblob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
633
Likes
600
Now to contribute to the topic, I use Vituixcad and REW as well. And to create FIR-filters I use RePhase. Lots of helpfull information on the diyaudio.com forum on this.

To design a active, multi-amped speaker, @pos posted a guide:
So here is how you can do it (among many other possible scenarios) :
- For each driver (with several measurement per driver, as discussed above), use minium-phase EQ to get the amplitude reasonably flat within the pass band (the more you can trust your measurement(s), the more precise you can go, hence the reasonably)
- Use the "compensate" mode in the minimum-phase filters tab to flatten the natural high-pass and low-pass of your driver by trial and error (you need a measurement with a low noise floor, as it will quickly realize when playing with that feature...).
- at that point you should have a linear amplitude and phase (in the pass band and around, depending on your noise floor). If you don't then adjust your "compensate" settings, and also play with the "time offset" option in the measurement tab. You should not have to use phase EQ.
- Do not operate your driver with this kind of correction of course: this is only a temporary state!
- Apply the desired linear-phase high-pass and low-pass filters, and make sure you do not exceed the capabilities of the driver (excursion down low, breakups up high, directivity, etc.).
- Check the correction curve with the measurement bypassed to make sure it does not get too high in amplitude (for example if the target high-pass filter is much lower or with a shallower slope than the natural one...).
- For good measure, use the main volume attenuator in the "general" tab and make sure your correction does not exceed 0dB (amplitude offsets will have to be dealt with at some other place, for example in the crossover engine or in the amplifier...).
- Always use complementary slopes for your crossed-over drivers (ie LR of identical slopes on both sides, "reject high" on both sides, "reject low" on both sides, etc.). Try to avoid brickwall filters as these will add additional constraints for complementarity (same number of taps, etc.). If you need steep slopes you will be better off with high order LR "shapes".

When generating the impulse, if you do not have constraints on the number of taps (which should be the case if you are using jriver on a descent computer) you should use the "middle" centering option, and a large number of taps (64k should be more than enough for any realistic situation). With that many taps you can use a gentle windowing algorithm such as Hann, Blackman or Nuttall, without loosing much precision or steepness. You can also handle the delays inside rephase, directly specified as distances, eg "middle+3cm" to compensate for your driver's geometrical offsets (you can check that afterward with the "inverse polarity" method, seeking for the deepest null at the crossover point)

Once each driver is EQed and filtered that way you can add them together in your convolution engine.
I think Jriver will require a different set of impulses for each sampling frequency it might have to handle...
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA

Wolf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
557
Likes
589
Location
Indiana
I use Unibox or Jeff Bagby's WBCD, both for use in MSExcel.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
I use Unibox or Jeff Bagby's WBCD, both for use in MSExcel.

Thanks for sharing. Am not familiar with Unibox.

Despite its age, as long as they keep updating the driver database, will continue with Bassbox. My next project will likely use PCD or Vituix for system design. Really depends on whether the speaker is active or passive or a hybrid.
 

Wolf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
557
Likes
589
Location
Indiana
WBCD will be able to add in the active components onto the box design.
 

Biblob

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
633
Likes
600
Somasonus, the designer of some excellent waveguides posted his discoveries regarding box construction methods, CLD and difference in ports.
Box Construction Methods

Very interesting read.
 

Wolf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
557
Likes
589
Location
Indiana
Somasonus is just the name of his website. Brandon is his first name, and his handle is augerpro. Yes, he has done some extensive work regarding cabinet construction and waveguide usage. He is thorough in his approach.
 

tktran303

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
683
Likes
1,179
If you want to reduce the port resonance significantly, this speaker needs to be tuned to at least 46 Hz. The f3 would then be around 52 Hz. Does not seem very low for a high excursion woofer, but should be able to squeeze a bit more with some eq. :cool:

Hi Rick,

I don’t focus too much on F3 to be honest, not much port resonance cashing dips in frequency response. The sonic consequences much less than the visual consequences.

There’s a few reasons for this for the latter, in the former, Toole et. al found that F3 has little to do with sonic preferences, but the anechoic F10 does. This is probably due to the way a speaker in an indoor environment interacts with the room, Schroeder frequency etc,

I think historically F3 was used because it was easier math in the days of slide rulers…

What really matter in the 21st century (cheap ASP/DSP and small high power amplification) is excursion limited SPL, and the Purifi 6.5 has that in spades.

Cleaner and louder than the 15W/8530K00 and SEAS W18 or ScanSpeak 18W … and in a smaller box.

you really need to spend 50% to 100% more (SEAS W19NX or ScanSpeak 18WE) to be comparable
 
Last edited:
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Hi Rick,

I don’t focus too much on F3 to be honest. There’s a few reasons for this. But the short version is that in ordinary rooms, Toole found that the anechoic F10 is more important to listener preference, due to the effect of room in the bass.
I think historically F3 was used because it was easier math in the days of slide rulers…

Yes, whether f3 or f10, the room plays a major role. I state f3 for comparison purposes, but have found that many claims cannot be reproduced. Bass extension is also affected by the crossover and often is not taken into account in many box calculators. When I state, I am not taking into account the crossover or the room, just the cabinet, woofer, damping and the port. These are BassBox Pro defaults.
 

tktran303

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
683
Likes
1,179
Yes Bassbox Pro is not very accurate IMHO.

I much prefer Unibox
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Yes Bassbox Pro is not very accurate IMHO.

I much prefer Unibox

Am moving towards VituixCAD, but do have not seen another box calculator that predicts the vented pipe resonances as readily as Bassbox. As for accuracy, have not had any issues in 3 decades of vented speaker design. Recently, the passive radiator modeling seemed to struggle.

Anyway, we are off veering off topic and, if you want to discuss further, should take this discussion elsewhere. :cool:
 
Last edited:

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,403
Likes
5,296
Location
Somerville, MA
Am moving towards VituixCAD, but do have not seen another box calculator that predicts the vented pipe resonances as readily as Bassbox. As for accuracy, have not had any issues in 3 decades of vented speaker design. Recently, the passive radiator modeling seemed to struggle.

Anyway, we are off veering off topic and, if you want to discuss further, should take this discussion elsewhere. :cool:

The ML King mathcad workbooks have a bass reflex model which I'd bet is very accurate.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,515
Likes
7,026
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Yes Bassbox Pro is not very accurate IMHO.

I much prefer Unibox

Unibox vented calcs are the same math as Bassbox. The only difference is the default value for Ql. See here when this came up previously: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hm-purifi-6-5-woofer-target.17973/post-583527

Whereas I am not questioning Unibox accuracy, it is older and am like to rely on software that is actively being maintained. Although Bassbox is older, it still being updated. This is what I like about VituixCAD too. Also, both have driver databases that allow for evaluations when you do not have the driver or the driver measurements.
 
Last edited:

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,497
...have not seen another box calculator that predicts the vented pipe resonances as readily as Bassbox.
Hornresp? There's a definite learning curve with UI & workflow, so start with the wizards & docs! Once learned, this seems to be the tool used by the most experienced sub designers at DIYA, Data-bass, etc. Many programs sim basic sealed/BR/PR boxes. Hornresp goes the next few steps, adding support for varying expansion ratios, tapped horns...
 
Top Bottom