DATS vs Acoustic Elegance

[johnnyrichards]

I think you are worrying about something not worth worrying about.

[camplo]

Does anyone know what formula DATS uses to calculate BL?

[camplo]

I finally tried a much heavier added mass and received BL measurements that made sense....Now the final MMS is not what you'd think it to be ...If I lower the added mass....then I get the correct MMS and incorrect BL

I thought dats didn't have enough drive to accurately measure larger subs?

- There must be something to this. What should I use if not DATS?

[Chris Roemer]

I'd double-check your DATS by doing a Vas (and BL) calc. by using the "added mass" method.
I would not do this w/the driver "in box", or even on a baffle.

The DATS should be (basically) error-free running the Qs, and Fs determinations.
Really, only Vas can be (a bit) error-prone. Measure the surround "Dia." yourself and plug that in, then try a mass roughly equal to mms. If you go too light, DATS will tell you so. Generally, lighter is better (as long as the results are consistant and your Z-curve is smooth).

[Kornbread]

I thought dats didn't have enough drive to accurately measure larger subs?

[camplo]

I have an issue with my measurements and I am doing all I can to rule out user error on my part...This is a 16ohm version of the Td15m, using what should be a relatively accurate mmd spec for this driver
Next is an 18H+ within the enclosure, with some panels removed to help remove the box some...

I've found a trend that the BL Dats comes up with matches the version of the driver that is of the next available resistance model.... The BL of the 15m above lines up with the BL of the 8ohm version....though mine is a 16ohm version.....the Bl of the 18H+ lines up with the 4ohm version, yet mine is a 8ohm version....

I'm not certain how exactly DATS predicts BL but maybe with this trend, and knowledge of DATs....someone can help me get to the bottom of this?
What ways can I rule out having a faulty DATS?
Thanks in advance