Help from someone with Bass Box Pro or ?

[highfigh]

I have the free version of WinISD and it's limited in its abilities. What are the pros/cons of the better versions, Bass Box Pro and other popular software packages? Just about everyone I ask has a different opinion and I see some here who swear by what they use. I want to be able to design 2, 2.5 and 3 way systems, with more than just a 2 component 2nd order filter (what I'm able to do in WinISD). I want to be able to do baffle step compensation, Zobel, smoothing networks and L-Pad.

I'm just trying to find out what works well without having to waste time trying something and finding out it's not what I want/need after the fact.

WinISD shows a similar box volume to what Mark (TLSguy) shows in his NASP design, using the Peerless 830874 woofer (http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=8).

I would like to build a pair for a customer, using two of the 830874 and one Peerless BC25SG15-04 http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=222 in each box, with the woofers wired parallel. He's using an Audio Research power amp and it has 4, 8 and 16 Ohm taps, so the impedance won't be a problem.

Ideally, I'd like to have a box design that produces good extension (I'm not looking for 20Hz and it's not needed) has baffle step compensation, the best crossover for the application (WRT Linkwitz-Reilly, or ?) and an impedance compensation network, as needed.

Will Bass Box Pro do this better than WinISD?

Thanks in advance, for any insight on this.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'm far from being expert on the speaker design (I know almost nothing about actually), but I know a thing or two about software...
From what you describing, it sound a lot like the place you need most help with it the x-over design. Imo X-Over Pro from same folk who make Bass box is what you need - http://www.ht-audio.com/pages/XoverPro.html
It imports box designs from Bass Box pro and together both software packages cost mere $209 here:
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=500-927

 

[lsiberian]

I have started using Unibox(it's metric, but a bit more precise on the stuffing factors.

Passive Crossover Designer 7(is great for crossover design I just picked it up recently and can design a lot of things in it. I've not yet gotten into the baffle step options yet. Most are overly complex IMO and measurements are always the best to go on. However realize you need to trace the spl plots for crossover design. This is tedious, but gives you the most accurate models.

 

[Loren42]

I have BassBox Pro and LEAP5. I don't think much of BassBox Pro and X-Over Pro as a useful software package and you probably can't afford LEAP5.

For that kind of money I would consider SoundEasy v17. It is a complete suite (including testing for loudspeakers and drivers) and it does everything you want and more.

The downside is the learning curve. Bass Box Pro is far easier to learn, but since Bass Box Pro skips a lot of important details you really need to know what you are doing when it comes to loudspeaker design. TLS Guy uses it, but as he confessed to me, he fully understands its limitations and knows how to compensate for them.

So, in the end you still need to know what you are doing as a designer and why, but once you have that learning under your belt you will get more value out of SoundEasy by a wide margin.

I should add that the formulas for designing a box are well known and not the magic that makes one software package really better than another. The trick to modeling the drivers' behavior is in the driver's model. Bass Box Pro provides a large list of drivers, but the modeling algorithm relies on published Thiele/Small constants from the manufacture. This is not very accurate and the right way is to measure those parameters yourself.

SoundEasy does not contain a library of drivers. You must create it yourself. The accuracy you get depends on how you do that. If you measure your drivers you will get a result that better matches the real world. Measurement is king.

LEAP5 also relies on accurate driver measurements, but instead of using Thiele/Small constants, LEAP uses the driver impedance curves at various power levels and specific mechanical measurements of the driver's motor to achieve a much higher accuracy with the model. LEAP also can use the standard Thiele/Small constants, but the accuracy is less. LEAP also has one of the better diffraction engines.

Crossover design really needs good measurement data to get it right. Again, the formulas are well understood, but the better data you have for the driver, the better results you get.

If you don't have it yet, get Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Design Cookbook and Joseph D'Appolito's Testing Loudspeakers for a better understanding.

 

[highfigh]

I have BassBox Pro and LEAP5. I don't think much of BassBox Pro and X-Over Pro as a useful software package and you probably can't afford LEAP5.

For that kind of money I would consider SoundEasy v17. It is a complete suite (including testing for loudspeakers and drivers) and it does everything you want and more.

The downside is the learning curve. Bass Box Pro is far easier to learn, but since Bass Box Pro skips a lot of important details you really need to know what you are doing when it comes to loudspeaker design. TLS Guy uses it, but as he confessed to me, he fully understands its limitations and knows how to compensate for them.

So, in the end you still need to know what you are doing as a designer and why, but once you have that learning under your belt you will get more value out of SoundEasy by a wide margin.

I should add that the formulas for designing a box are well known and not the magic that makes one software package really better than another. The trick to modeling the drivers' behavior is in the driver's model. Bass Box Pro provides a large list of drivers, but the modeling algorithm relies on published Thiele/Small constants from the manufacture. This is not very accurate and the right way is to measure those parameters yourself.

SoundEasy does not contain a library of drivers. You must create it yourself. The accuracy you get depends on how you do that. If you measure your drivers you will get a result that better matches the real world. Measurement is king.

LEAP5 also relies on accurate driver measurements, but instead of using Thiele/Small constants, LEAP uses the driver impedance curves at various power levels and specific mechanical measurements of the driver's motor to achieve a much higher accuracy with the model. LEAP also can use the standard Thiele/Small constants, but the accuracy is less. LEAP also has one of the better diffraction engines.

Crossover design really needs good measurement data to get it right. Again, the formulas are well understood, but the better data you have for the driver, the better results you get.

If you don't have it yet, get Vance Dickason's Loudspeaker Design Cookbook and Joseph D'Appolito's Testing Loudspeakers for a better understanding.

The last time I looked at LEAP was in about '96 and even then, it was about $2000. I'm not going to spend that much. If I was a full-time speaker manufacturer, I could justify it but that's not gonna happen now. I was reminded of this suite in a PM and it jogged my memory- I know someone who has the full boat, so I'll call them.

I was planning to get the parameters and compare with the stated specs but I can't see why a manufacturer of drivers wouldn't have better software than people like us. That just doesn't make much sense, to me. Also, I have designed boxes using a set of formulae on a sheet of paper and I'm not interested in repeating that. The first time was in about '87 and I'm glad I don't need to do it that way now. I have had the Loudspeaker Design Cook Book for as long but it's not exactly current.

I have a wholesale account at PE, but the point of this thread was to find out why one program is better than another. I hadn't heard many negatives about Bass Box Pro, although I had used Wayne Harris' TermPro when I did car audio. That's actually what I used when I designed the boxes I'm using now and it worked well. I know PE uses Bass Box but I know they don't always load all of the parameters before pressing the buttons.

 

[Loren42]

The last time I looked at LEAP was in about '96 and even then, it was about $2000. I'm not going to spend that much. If I was a full-time speaker manufacturer, I could justify it but that's not gonna happen now. I was reminded of this suite in a PM and it jogged my memory- I know someone who has the full boat, so I'll call them.

I was planning to get the parameters and compare with the stated specs but I can't see why a manufacturer of drivers wouldn't have better software than people like us. That just doesn't make much sense, to me. Also, I have designed boxes using a set of formulae on a sheet of paper and I'm not interested in repeating that. The first time was in about '87 and I'm glad I don't need to do it that way now. I have had the Loudspeaker Design Cook Book for as long but it's not exactly current.

I have a wholesale account at PE, but the point of this thread was to find out why one program is better than another. I hadn't heard many negatives about Bass Box Pro, although I had used Wayne Harris' TermPro when I did car audio. That's actually what I used when I designed the boxes I'm using now and it worked well. I know PE uses Bass Box but I know they don't always load all of the parameters before pressing the buttons.

"but I can't see why a manufacturer of drivers wouldn't have better software than people like us."

They do have better equipment, but there are two reasons that you get variation.

1. Marketing. Just because they have better equipment does not mean that they will publish the results. European manufactures seem to be more honest, but independent measurements show that many do not publish accurate parameters.

2. Part-to-part and batch-to-batch variation. There is no way to tell how tight their production tolerances are and how much variation over time they have.

How big is that variation? It is significant enough to alter the design.

"I hadn't heard many negatives about Bass Box Pro"

It's not a bad program. It is pretty rudimentary, simple for beginners to use, and produces pretty graphs. Not much value for the money and it has not been updated in the last 5 or so years, but doesn't crash.

Buy what you want to buy. It's your money. Bass Box Pro does not do diffraction modeling. It only models in half-space.

"but the point of this thread was to find out why one program is better than another."

Well, mostly it has to do with modeling accuracy and modeling of the little things like diffraction, environmental space, port resonances, etc. The other is how complete the suite is. Some suites only provide theoretical results. Others take a holistic approach and give you tools to perform the actual measurements and all the tools integrate together in a useful way.

It depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. It is a pretty deep hole and can gobble up a lot of time, resources, and money. Many people just buy a kit or build a published design and spend more time listening to music than others (like myself) that want to do everything from scratch as part of a learning process.

Beyond all of that I don't know what to tell you. It depends on your customer's needs and if they are not critical or demanding, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to invest in heavy hitting tools or learning some of the more advanced things about box and crossover design.

I'd also lean on your friend with the full boat of tools and see if they can help.

 

[highfigh]

"but I can't see why a manufacturer of drivers wouldn't have better software than people like us."

They do have better equipment, but there are two reasons that you get variation.

1. Marketing. Just because they have better equipment does not mean that they will publish the results. European manufactures seem to be more honest, but independent measurements show that many do not publish accurate parameters.

2. Part-to-part and batch-to-batch variation. There is no way to tell how tight their production tolerances are and how much variation over time they have.

How big is that variation? It is significant enough to alter the design.

"I hadn't heard many negatives about Bass Box Pro"

It's not a bad program. It is pretty rudimentary, simple for beginners to use, and produces pretty graphs. Not much value for the money and it has not been updated in the last 5 or so years, but doesn't crash.

I would think that a manufacturer of components for the hobbyist/enthusiast market would want the specs to be as accurate as possible, although I could understand why they might assume a higher level of tech tools in this crowd that would allow them to get their own parameters. For the rest, it's probably "good enough". I know TermPro wasn't geared to exotic crossovers or box types and Bass Box isn't, either.

I could also see how a manufacturer could collect data and take the drivers that fall far enough outside of the allowable range and instead of scrapping them, give it a different part number. However, I have to think they can have enough consistency that it shouldn't be too far off- coil winding isn't exactly new technology. If the cones are injection molded, they should be fairly consistent, too. That leaves the suspension and magnet which, assuming the bids are low enough, could be all over the map.

I'm not trying to make the best speaker ever but I do want good results. I'll call the guys with LEAP and find out if they have their test rig set up. They got sidetracked by the boutique coffee business and started a chain of shops, with their own roasting plant and are supplying a lot of bars, restaurants, etc. One of them decided that he wants to start building speakers again.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have the free version of WinISD and it's limited in its abilities. What are the pros/cons of the better versions, Bass Box Pro and other popular software packages? Just about everyone I ask has a different opinion and I see some here who swear by what they use. I want to be able to design 2, 2.5 and 3 way systems, with more than just a 2 component 2nd order filter (what I'm able to do in WinISD). I want to be able to do baffle step compensation, Zobel, smoothing networks and L-Pad.

I'm just trying to find out what works well without having to waste time trying something and finding out it's not what I want/need after the fact.

WinISD shows a similar box volume to what Mark (TLSguy) shows in his NASP design, using the Peerless 830874 woofer (http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=8).

I would like to build a pair for a customer, using two of the 830874 and one Peerless BC25SG15-04 http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=222 in each box, with the woofers wired parallel. He's using an Audio Research power amp and it has 4, 8 and 16 Ohm taps, so the impedance won't be a problem.

Ideally, I'd like to have a box design that produces good extension (I'm not looking for 20Hz and it's not needed) has baffle step compensation, the best crossover for the application (WRT Linkwitz-Reilly, or ?) and an impedance compensation network, as needed.

Will Bass Box Pro do this better than WinISD?

Thanks in advance, for any insight on this.

Bass Box pro and X-over pro developed from Bullock and White's software, which I first purchased from them on Apple floppies in 1984.

It is good stable software, but as Loren has pointed out has limitations.

It will not support some circuit topologies. The notch filter program does not show in the graphs.

Step loss compensation is easily modeled by getting the slopes you want.

The program has a good data bass of drivers and you can add to it.

As with all programs they will not give you a circuit off the bat that is optimal. You have to clearly understand what each component does and substitute values manually until you get the responses you are looking for.

Your project looks straightforward and I can look at it tonight. Do you want MTM or a two and a half way?

 

[Loren42]

I would think that a manufacturer of components for the hobbyist/enthusiast market would want the specs to be as accurate as possible...

You are free to believe what you want in that regard.

In the end it is your decision and you are the only one that knows your goals and intentions the best. It sounds like your friends with the coffee shops could be a good resource and I think you will do just fine.

TLS Guy is also a generous resource with a lot of good experience.

Good luck!

 

[highfigh]

You are free to believe what you want in that regard.

In the end it is your decision and you are the only one that knows your goals and intentions the best. It sounds like your friends with the coffee shops could be a good resource and I think you will do just fine.

TLS Guy is also a generous resource with a lot of good experience.

Good luck!

Yeah, that comment you quoted from my other post looks ridiculous, even to me, after re-reading it and I wrote it.

 

[highfigh]

Bass Box pro and X-over pro developed from Bullock and White's software, which I first purchased from them on Apple floppies in 1984.

It is good stable software, but as Loren has pointed out has limitations.

It will not support some circuit topologies. The notch filter program does not show in the graphs.

Step loss compensation is easily modeled by getting the slopes you want.

The program has a good data bass of drivers and you can add to it.

As with all programs they will not give you a circuit off the bat that is optimal. You have to clearly understand what each component does and substitute values manually until you get the responses you are looking for.

Your project looks straightforward and I can look at it tonight. Do you want MTM or a two and a half way?

Well, I have a pair with that woofer and a different tweeter, which is in the link. The highs aren't as hot as the graph suggests, according to my RTA tests.
http://www.bluevoice.hu/termekek/hangszorok/peerlessdatas/812687.htm

I let my customer use them and he wants them, although I never intended that pair to be sold- they were just an experiment. The dispersion is good now but in their living room, they could use a bit of help on the low end with some music. Opera and classical sound really good and he's a connoisseur. Jazz generally sounds very good and acoustic bass sounds excellent, as long as the recording techniques are of high standard. Diana Krall's 'Love Scenes' is excellent.

I think a 2.5 way might be the way to go. Good dispersion, a narrow tower would work at either side of the fireplace (I don't want to put them in the corners because one would end up behind the piano) and in this location, the imaging is very nice without having to jump through a lot of hoops doing the setup. To give an example of how important the speakers are to his wife, she had a designer there a few years ago and when he saw the walnut KEF 107 pair, he asked "Can those be painted?".

The existing boxes with the 830874 are 9"D x 13"W x 21"H with a 3"Φ x 7.5"L port. WinISD says this is wrong but the RTA shows different results where I have them. It shows that 16.5L, tuned to 49Hz is the best curve, using one driver. The room is roughly 10'H x 18'D x 26' L and it has a lot of diffusion, so the response is very smooth.

Thanks for your help.

 

[lsiberian]

You are free to believe what you want in that regard.

In the end it is your decision and you are the only one that knows your goals and intentions the best. It sounds like your friends with the coffee shops could be a good resource and I think you will do just fine.

TLS Guy is also a generous resource with a lot of good experience.

Good luck!

Yeah, that comment you quoted from my other post looks ridiculous, even to me, after re-reading it and I wrote it.

yeah, but at 7 am I think we allow for some latitude.

http://audio.claub.net/software/jbabgy/PCD.html

is my favorite crossover tool and is free. As always it will get you in the ballpark, but real life is always different from modeled behavior.