I tried a similarly ambitious software effort for loudspeaker design over 10 years ago, and I can attest that it is possible to make significant progress on your own, but that it is unlikely that anyone will join you in your efforts.
There are at least 6 stumbling blocks that will make it difficult to get others to join:
1) You must have an over-arching architecture in mind for the components. The component model that I used for PSD is shown below. That diagram defines how the components interact and the data that passes from one component to another. I had to refer to this diagram fairly often while building PSD and ASD.
2) You need to define a shared data model, and get every developer to use it and maintain it. The data model provides a common "language" for sharing parameters and defines the standard units. The data model I used for PSD is here: www.audiodevelopers.com/Software/Online_help/Shared/Object_model.htm
3) You will need to get some agreement on the implementation approach. For example, I started to play around with 3D audio modeling using Visual Studio and WPF, which has built-in 3D libraries. But then I started to get interested in the ray-tracing features of the new video cards, which would probably provide much needed acceleration of 3D audio rendering.. Obviously, there are other 3D libraries used in other disciplines, but getting people to agree on a common approach when there are so many new shiny technologies is a challenge.
4) Agreeing on a common HMI approach is always a challenge. The web-based HMI is good solution, but it's not how a lot people like to develop code.
5) It will really help to do some use-case analysis to get a clearer idea of how these tools would be used. Modeling is fine for simple, well defined problems, but for some complex designs experimental measurements might be the only accurate way to characterize loudspeaker behaviors. For example, the cabinet vibration problem has a very large number of variables, such as the type of wood, wall thickness, amount of bracing, amount of energy transfer through the cabinet feet, relative dimensions of the cabinet walls, number of corners, etc. Since it is impractical to design a model that accounts for all of these parameters, you would want to identify the "class" of problems for which the model would be useful. Those constraints would get identified in the use-case modeling.
6) A lot of people who might have joined you 10 or 15 years ago are now interested in other loudspeaker technologies that aren't on your list. For example, I think active speakers are the only way to go, and I am enamored with line array designs, especially ones with electronic curvature. Also, I am impressed by what people are doing with 3D printers--that's opening an exciting new set of possibilities for high SAF designs. Maybe 15 years ago I would be interested in modeling cabinet resonance modes, but I don't have any interest in that now. I like the idea of using more 3D analysis for audio design, but most of the topics on your list aren't ones that I still find interesting.
There are at least 6 stumbling blocks that will make it difficult to get others to join:
1) You must have an over-arching architecture in mind for the components. The component model that I used for PSD is shown below. That diagram defines how the components interact and the data that passes from one component to another. I had to refer to this diagram fairly often while building PSD and ASD.
2) You need to define a shared data model, and get every developer to use it and maintain it. The data model provides a common "language" for sharing parameters and defines the standard units. The data model I used for PSD is here: www.audiodevelopers.com/Software/Online_help/Shared/Object_model.htm
3) You will need to get some agreement on the implementation approach. For example, I started to play around with 3D audio modeling using Visual Studio and WPF, which has built-in 3D libraries. But then I started to get interested in the ray-tracing features of the new video cards, which would probably provide much needed acceleration of 3D audio rendering.. Obviously, there are other 3D libraries used in other disciplines, but getting people to agree on a common approach when there are so many new shiny technologies is a challenge.
4) Agreeing on a common HMI approach is always a challenge. The web-based HMI is good solution, but it's not how a lot people like to develop code.
5) It will really help to do some use-case analysis to get a clearer idea of how these tools would be used. Modeling is fine for simple, well defined problems, but for some complex designs experimental measurements might be the only accurate way to characterize loudspeaker behaviors. For example, the cabinet vibration problem has a very large number of variables, such as the type of wood, wall thickness, amount of bracing, amount of energy transfer through the cabinet feet, relative dimensions of the cabinet walls, number of corners, etc. Since it is impractical to design a model that accounts for all of these parameters, you would want to identify the "class" of problems for which the model would be useful. Those constraints would get identified in the use-case modeling.
6) A lot of people who might have joined you 10 or 15 years ago are now interested in other loudspeaker technologies that aren't on your list. For example, I think active speakers are the only way to go, and I am enamored with line array designs, especially ones with electronic curvature. Also, I am impressed by what people are doing with 3D printers--that's opening an exciting new set of possibilities for high SAF designs. Maybe 15 years ago I would be interested in modeling cabinet resonance modes, but I don't have any interest in that now. I like the idea of using more 3D analysis for audio design, but most of the topics on your list aren't ones that I still find interesting.
Comment