First Development version of Boxsim in english language

[UweG]

I'm writing this thread in english although this is a german forum, because it is related to an english topic and especially dedicated to those whose language skills in english are better than in german.

On the one hand, I want to give a chance to test the new Boxsim also to those, who prefer the english version of the program. On the other hand I am not a native english speaker and thus I am always a bit unsure if my translations are commonly used english language and would be well understood also by people not speaking german language.

And here it is: Boxsim 1.991EN

[UweG]

Hello Uwe G, are there any plans on dual chamber bass reflex simulation?

Actually not. Main focus actually ist the enhancement of the simulation of the directivity.
Up to now I stopped upcoming ideas to deal with housings of higher complexity than a simple Helmholtz resonator when I had no idea how the user should enter all the resonance frequencies and damping properties of such a system.

[mcl2k6]

Actually not. Main focus actually ist the enhancement of the simulation of the directivity.
Up to now I stopped upcoming ideas to deal with housings of higher complexity than a simple Helmholtz resonator when I had no idea how the user should enter all the resonance frequencies and damping properties of such a system.

OK, thank you for your answer!

[Willy_65]

I'm writing this thread in english although this is a german forum, because it is related to an english topic and especially dedicated to those whose language skills in english are better than in german.

On the one hand, I want to give a chance to test the new Boxsim also to those, who prefer the english version of the program. On the other hand I am not a native english speaker and thus I am always a bit unsure if my translations are commonly used english language and would be well understood also by people not speaking german language.

And here it is: Boxsim 1.991EN

Hello UweG, I have been using Boxsim 1.991 for about 3 weeks now and I am a fan of it. I always worked with version 1.2, which I was already very satisfied with.
I have the impression that the optimization takes a bit longer (with 1 year old Intel Core i5-8500 computer - 16Gb memory) but that the results are more accurate. I once had to cancel the optimization because she was already working for 2 hours. That was with a 3-way system with 2nd order, third and fourth order filters. On top of that a resonance improvement in both low and middle range. furthermore, an impedance leveling for all 3 areas.
Furthermore, no problems and if you know version 1.2, the switch is low threshold.
However, I now realize that all projects that I have made in the 1,991 can no longer be used from 24 December. That is why I make them (the most important ones) now in version 1.2 with the crossover data of 1.991.
What happens from the end of the trial period? Will there be a new final version recently?

P.S. My English is also from Google translate from Dutch.

[UweG]

Hello Willy,

thank you very much for your feedback. I appriciate it.

I have the impression that the optimization takes a bit longer (with 1 year old Intel Core i5-8500 computer - 16Gb memory) but that the results are more accurate.

This is true also with other computers. The optimization strategy of the versions after 1.20 is a bit different and optimizes a bit more in one step, but this takes a bit more time. I often abort the optimizer manually when I see, that the main part of the optimization seems to be done.

The version 1.991 is a test version. This is the only reason why it is limited in time. I just do not want to support bugs in the software that have been repaired long time ago. Since the first introduction of 1.90 in December 2017 there was only one day where no version was running because I forgot to update in time. As I am actually in vacations, I spend a lot of time with the new Boxsim. The current plan is:
- new version 1.993 or 1.994 next weekend, still time limited and only in german language, but with all features of the final version.
- before christmas: Final Version 2.0. Running without time limit. German and english language.
You can be sure that Boxsim 1.991 will not run into the time limit and no update will be available. Even if we would find a bug that cannot be repaired until christmas, I would delay the final version but then of course provide an update with another test version.

[Willy_65]

Thank you UweG for the clear explanation. I am now also confident that I can continue with 1.991E until the final V2.0 is released.
Also thanks for all the work you put into it and for the excellent and unique result!
Regards,
Willy

[UweG]

Thanks to all who have tested also the english version of Boxsim 1.991.
Since now the final new version 2.00 is available:

Boxsim 2.00 in german language

Boxsim 2.00 in english language

[Willy_65]

Thanks to all who have tested also the english version of Boxsim 1.991.
Since now the final new version 2.00 is available:

Boxsim 2.00 in german language

Boxsim 2.00 in english language

Good morning UweG,
Thanks for de new version!

Is it normal that the new driverfiles give such a difference between V1.99 and V2.0?
The crossover circuits are identical.

[UweG]

No and yes and no.

No, V2.00 should produce almost the same results on axis and similar results off axis, if you use exactly the same driver files.

Yes, the driver files have changed. If you use the old driver files with 2.00 you'll get very similar results compared with 1.991.

No, I tried to simulate a similar box with the same chassis files (new and old), but the difference I get goes in the same direction, but is smaller. Could you please upload the BPJ file for the 1.991 project. I will check what happens when I'm updating the drivers.

[Willy_65]

I have supplied the "BPJ" from V1.991.
Every time I load a driver, I also click "Calculate Re .. and Le .. from impedance response" and then OK.
I also loaded the new drivers without doing that but the result is still worse than in V1.991.

[UweG]

Hello Willy,

thanks for the file. When I load it in 1.991 and 2.00 and always refuse any update of the drivers, I almost et the same results. There is about 0.2 dB more in the lower frequencies in 2.00. That is what I expected.

when I'm now updating the drivers, that means "Load new driver from file.." and then choose the new driver file, in fact the result is what you already got.
I clicked "set current project as reference", before I updated the driver files. So we see the simulation from 2.00, but with the old driver files in the background (in lighter colors).

Obviously the drivers ave changed over the year since 2005 and 2008. May also be that the W200S-4 had some issues with the setup in the old measurement.

[Willy_65]

So the only solution is: re-run optimization with the new drivers (these are the most correct ones, I hope).
My way to run and apply the calculation of RE .. Le, after the driver load, is ok?

[UweG]

It is o.k., but not neccessary. This function is primarily for use after you imported another impedance response, if you do your own measurements.

[Willy_65]

Ok, I thought that also adjustments were made on the basis of the used box dimensions, so the volume of the box and also the used port.

Let's go then

[mcl2k6]

Hello Uwe G,

Thank you for the final 2.0 version! I'm looking forward to check it out.
One immediate observation from my side is that the W170S/8 model shows a flatter frequency response in the 100Hz-500Hz region. The old one presented some dips around 200Hz.
Is this due to some new measurements taken?
In general, are the models provided with the 2.0 version coming from new measurements?