First Development version of Boxsim in english language

[UweG]

@Willy_65:

to 1) Yes this is a bug and will be repaired in the next Version.

to 2) I'm a bit confused because Boxsim cannot load two files at the same time. I will try to reproduce this issue this evening.

[UweG]

@mcl2k6: Sorry I have overseen your post.
You do not have to change any setting of the place where the frequency response refers to. This is set automatically when the driver file is loaded.
Possible settings are:
- infinite baffle: automatically set by all new diver files, as their data is already recalculated to the infinite baffle (=half space)
- DIN-baffle: set by some of the elder driver files
- VISATON test enclosure small or large size: set by many of the elder driver files
- box which is simulated: This should be set by you after you imported an own frequency Response measurement of the Driver that was mounted in your box.

[Willy_65]

Good morning Uwe,
1. The setting of the line thickness in the graphs is not saved in the ini file, even if the check mark is set to "use settings for all projects".
Can you tell me which line I can add at the bottom of the ini file? I suppose something like: "parameter" = 0 (or 1 or 2)?

2. If you have 2 projects open at the same time and the first optimizes and then breaks down, pop-up windows will be added to the 2nd project (for which you have also worked on this) upwards regarding to chosen parts, even if you are not optimizing there.
It seems as both open projects are not two separate instances of the programcode.

Thanks,
Willy

[mcl2k6]

I would have a question, as currently I'm a bit puzzled: in the driver selection dialog, what is the purpose of the "Measurement of frequency response is valid for" dropdown?
I've attached two images, one of them shows the original setting with "Open baffle", the other one is for "Box which is simulated".

[UweG]

Is this due to some new measurements taken?

Yes.

In general, are the models provided with the 2.0 version coming from new measurements?

Yes. All driver files that are provided with Boxsim 2.00 are based on measurements carried out in November and December 2018.

[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?

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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