REW vs Acourate?

[SwissBear]

Hi tboooe,

 

I do not quite share the comments of Keith_W regarding Acourate: this product is, in my opinion, very versatile and can accommodate the needs/expectations of the beginner as well as those of the expert. Just follow step by step the tutorial of Mitch and you will be safe. Do not try to innovate with the settings; just keep the default ones and you will produce very good corrections. Also, Uli, the developer of Acourate, is very helpful and friendly.

 

It might be worth noting that the corrections brought by Acourate are a little more 'micro-managed' than the ones brought by REW. In the amplitude domain, here is a comparison of two impulses, one produced by Acourate (green and red) and the other one by REW/rePhase (black and blue). You will notice that the Acourate impulse is providing more active correction than REW. This can be adjusted of course.

 

The same is true in the time domain, but I leave up to you to discover that.

Good choice for Acourate, and you can always keep REW and develop your knowledge in the time domain to master rePhase and compare which corrections you prefer

[SwissBear]

Hi Keith,

 

I probably misunderstood the statement which was quoted by tboooe. Glad we are on the same page

[SwissBear]

Not sure. Phase issues are difficult. But this is definitely worth a trial

[SwissBear]

@tboooe,

 

Acourate allows you to make time domain corrections even if you do not change the passive cross-overs of your speakers for active cross-overs.

Here are the changes I made to my speakers in this field, without touching anything to the HW.

 

The impulses have considerably been improved by Acourate:

and the phase has also been improved:

[SwissBear]

thank you...can you please explain how you make time domain changes?

You have nothing to do. This is part of the standard Acourate correction process.

[SwissBear]

The only thing you have to do is, when generating the correction impulses, to decide the width of the window you want to use to correct the excess phase of the system. This is part of Macro 4.

 

You can refer to the web site of Acourate (http://www.audiovero.de/en/acourate.php), and look at the description of the product:

You will notice that the possibility to create digital (active) cross-overs is part of the 'Further functions' paragraph, whereas the Timing errors correction via phase correction is part of the 'Solution', ie standard features.

[SwissBear]

You haven't described how you hope to use the DSP filters. IMO, FIR filters are always superior to IIR ones, IF you take care when creating them. If you plan on using digital crossovers and you have sufficient computer power, it's rare for a minimum phase filter to outperform a linear phase one.

 

Hi Michael,

 

Could you please elaborate on this ?

 

Here are the links to rePhase:

- tutorial (Guide to Speaker/Room Correction Using Freeware and JRiver)

- forum (rePhase, a loudspeaker phase linearization, EQ and FIR filtering tool - Page 130 - diyAudio)

 

I do not have any experience replacing passive cross-overs with active ones. But my experience using rePhase as part of a room correction suite with REW as an alternative to Acourate has taught me that aiming at minimum phase corrections was the only way to get rid of pre-ringing and that linear filters were a significant source of pre-ringing. Here is an illustration of this: rePhase, a loudspeaker phase linearization, EQ and FIR filtering tool - Page 130 - diyAudio

[SwissBear]

I bet John Mulcahy would argue otherwise. He's pretty smart so I wouldn't debate him on the issue. :-)

 

John has agreed to develop an interface between REW and rePhase (rePhase, a loudspeaker phase linearization, EQ and FIR filtering tool - Page 128 - diyAudio). This might be the sign that he does not disagree with the interest of making time domain corrections as well