@ajc9988 Wow, you jumped straight in there with that comsol question didn’t you? 🤣
I’d be interested in that too by the way since I’ll be using that program at uni next year 😂.
I was just going to say, simulation isn’t the be all and end all. Whilst accurate to the models, the models can never fully represent what is built in real life, no matter how complex the model, especially in acoustics and more specifically DIY. This is why we then build prototypes, test them and sometimes make adaptations, effectively you get the law of diminishing returns from software. Specifically, when DIYing a loudspeaker, it’s typically MDF, the MDF panels can be joined in many ways (changing how the deflection occurs), many different qualities of MDF exist, meaning the properties of the material vary(rigidity, damping), the tolerance of joins, etc, etc. I’m sure you see my point, they all move away from ideals used in modelling software. Therefore (in my opinion), there is something as too far in terms of trying to achieve simulation accuracy when doing DIY loudspeakers.
…anyway, I digress (as per usual) 😂
Totally agree in terms of DATS being super useful and the manufacturer values not always being the most accurate (particularly cheaper models as tolerance typically worsens as the driver gets cheaper due to manufacturing costs, from what I’ve seen online). Still saving up for one myself though 😅
A piece of software I use called LTspice also simulates a some resonances from box geometry (well their affect on the frequency response anyways). I have a video planned for that, but it will come out after my tutorial on using it to build transmission line enclosures. So no idea on when that’ll be released 😂. (I find it interesting since it actually helps you make a sealed box with less resonance since you can design a sealed transmission line).