Differences in convolution engines?

[andersole]

What would be the difference in convolution engines, for instance loading the Acourate filter files in JRiver, vs Foobar2000 or even just using Acourate Convolver?

[audiventory]

Does you mean "convolution engine" as "resampling filter"?

[malarz]

What would be the difference in convolution engines, for instance loading the Acourate filter files in JRiver, vs Foobar2000 or even just using Acourate Convolver?

 

 

Very interesting question, I'm very interested too

[malarz]

Does you mean "convolution engine" as "resampling filter"?

 

IMO, it's about something using the BruteFIR filters for *DRC purposes.

*DRC = Digital Room Correction

[scintilla]

Really, there should be little to no difference. Most plugins are running zero-latency and offer automatic zero-stuffing. Probably the biggest difference among them is the user interface. I use Liquid Sonics Reverberate Core and the in-built convolver in HQPlayer with the same acourate-based correction filters. I find HQP much easier to work with personally.

[beautox]

I would have thought that there should be little or no difference. But that's not what I am finding at the moment.

 

I use Acourate and Acourate Convolver. The other software I use is Roon into HQplayer (and then into Acourate Convolver - a 3 part chain, where HQP upsamples to 192khz and then the convolver does correction).

 

I have also tried the HQplayer convolution engine, using the same filters, and it doesn't sound remotely the same. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong here, but the bass for instance is well down on the HQP engine.

 

Basically the Acourate Convolver sounds better, and that's before using the flow function.

 

I've tried both 32 and 64 bit wav files (for the impulse response files) in HQP . Anyone tried the same, or know what I might be doing wrong?

[scintilla]

I've found rather significant differences in sound with HQP set to different dithers and filters. I wouldn't discount that in making comparisons. A convolver should be transparent by nature. When you look at the math on paper, it doesn't give you a lot to critique about variability of outputs, even with real-world implementations.

[beautox]

I know what you mean. I've tried the various filters and dithers and can hear differences. I have my own faves.

 

But the differences I'm hearing between the two convolution engines are bigger than that. Real obvious. Makes me think that maybe the hqplayer conv engine is not handling the files quite right. One thing is that the gain is quite different on the two engines. I have a filter say that has 1dB gain. Set in Acourate it does that, and you put in -1dB gain it won't clip. On HQP the same filter needs -3dB or more to prevent clipping.

 

One thing is the acourate convolver takes different files (CPV, created by acourate). You save the same filter as a pair of mono wav files using the sample rate you are feeding to HQP, as the convolver is first thing.

[planner]

I would have thought that there should be little or no difference. But that's not what I am finding at the moment.

 

I use Acourate and Acourate Convolver. The other software I use is Roon into HQplayer (and then into Acourate Convolver - a 3 part chain, where HQP upsamples to 192khz and then the convolver does correction).

 

I have also tried the HQplayer convolution engine, using the same filters, and it doesn't sound remotely the same. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong here, but the bass for instance is well down on the HQP engine.

 

Basically the Acourate Convolver sounds better, and that's before using the flow function.

 

I've tried both 32 and 64 bit wav files (for the impulse response files) in HQP . Anyone tried the same, or know what I might be doing wrong?

 

I'm using the same chain with Roon to HQPlayer to AcourateConvolver. Except that I added Jplay in final output. I have to same experience as you do where I find AcourateConvolver produces a cleaner and more transparent sound compared to HQPlayer convolution engine alone. The same results I had with JRiver as well. So I don't think you have done anything wrong.

 

I recently added the Acourate Cleaner to my system and the results are fantastic

[malarz]

I'm using the same chain with Roon to HQPlayer to AcourateConvolver. Except that I added Jplay in final output. I have to same experience as you do where I find AcourateConvolver produces a cleaner and more transparent sound compared to HQPlayer convolution engine alone. The same results I had with JRiver as well. So I don't think you have done anything wrong.

 

I recently added the Acourate Cleaner to my system and the results are fantastic

 

Concerning JRiver, you mean that there are important differences between JRiver Convolver versus AcourateConvolver ?

[planner]

Concerning JRiver, you mean that there are important differences between JRiver Convolver versus AcourateConvolver ?

 

How important it is would depends on individual. When I first tried AC with JRiver, I was scratching my head as I didn't expect to hear any difference. Previously I was using the same exact Acourate filters with JRiver convolution engine. And yes, there is a clear difference. Sound is cleaner and more transparent, less fatigue as well. AC is a clear winner for me.