Jump to content

Le Concombre Masqué

  • Content Count

    1677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Le Concombre Masqué

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    UTC+1

Recent Profile Visitors

8200 profile views
  1. messing with LS at different levels + compensation, I settled for something that is cleaner as a 12 dB HRR target. When beefier is welcome... Harman 12dB RMS corrected (1).txt
  2. Right BUT... Let's say I want an in room response resembling Harman's RR1. I suppose (haven't found anything written) that it applies to Steady State for it Low End extends B&K that implies PN + RTA measures, no time-window, no Impulse. So considering MMM as basis makes sense BUT... Here is what happens when applying the convolution impulses obtained by aligning FDW VA to a extended by 1.8 dB @ 100 Hz Low Shelve HRR to the NON FDWed RMS average. There is more presence and brillance that if I perfectly aligned MMM or the close to it NON FDWed RMS average and to my ears it's bett
  3. @Miska Hi Miska, I have experimental sets of convolution in Matrix and Delete does not work (4.18.01) : even after a restart they are still listed
  4. Yes. The nice thing is that it yields highly reproductible results (eventually including artefacts, I recommend using a 6 foot broom stick to avoid interaction with your body). But no Impulse Response. So you need to Vector Average sweeps anyway. Impulse is not as neat because of slight shifts plus, big thing, it does not take advantage of Time Windowing that allows to extract Direct Sound and first arrivals from the Data.
  5. Absolutely. This would be my answer to your post #17853; thank you, I'm looking forward to reading your findings
  6. To wrap it up: To my ears convolutions built upon REW's FDW VA yield better results. Issue dealt with here is : what target curve should be applied to it? The usual suspects such as B&K or EBU that suppose a Steady State measurement by the use of Pink Noise and RTA just don't apply. In my room, aligning REW's FDW VA to a 10 dB Harman Reference Room Target yields convolution impulses that align RMS Average to EBU 3276 and FDW RMS Average to Harman's RR1, give or take 3 dB peaks or dips*. Aligning REW's FDW VA to a 10 dB Harman Reference Room
  7. Here is what happens when applying the convolution impulses obtained by aligning FDW VA to a extended by 2dB @ 100 Hz Low Shelve HRR to the FDW RMS average. There are obviously peaks that differ because of the VA computation but JBL Synthesis target fits it.
  8. The above statement might be accurate per se but aligning FDW VA to HRR could be considered as an alternate method to meet EBU Tech. 3276's operational room response curve. Good reasons for favouring it over aligning measurements made with 1/3–octave filtered pink noise include more relevant measurements, thanks to sweeps, thanks to VA computation, as well as vastly improved Time Domain. Following the general principle of reducing the circle of confusion, that works better with masterings following EBU Tech. 3276's recommendations ; makes sense with classical productions by the main labels. B
  9. I have not used the expression room correction so far. Indeed, when I actually apply HRR to FDW VA I lower very much the target level (at lowest dip level), sculpting the response in a raw block. Harman literature evokes a “circle of confusion” : the Art being created with a supposed CD/download buyer's listening environment, the circle is reduced when the Art is reproduced in the environment it was created. I have actually met one single curve dubbed as a target by people doing research : the JBL Synthesis by Harman. Attached here. It’s easy to see if you introduce it
  10. Here is what happens when applying the convolution impulses obtained by aligning FDW VA to HRR to the RMS average. There are obviously peaks that differ because of the VA computation but a target flat to 2 KHz with the downward tilt above fits it while I don’t like at all the results obtained when creating convolution filters that align RMS Av on such a target.
  11. Here is what happens when applying the convolution impulses obtained by aligning FDW VA to HRR to the FDW RMS average. There are obviously peaks that differ because of the VA computation (and thus what is looked at is different) but RR1 fits it while I don’t like at all the results obtained when creating convolution filters that align FDW RMS Av on RR1. These are not actual measures but REW simulations have a good track record of exacting. Note : I can easily push buttons to flat down to 10 Hz but prefer to respect the natural attenuation of my speakers belo
  12. Here I decide to correct Amplitude on the Vector Average Nowhere in the literature have I found Harman or REW stating that the Harman Reference Room (attached) is the target to apply to FDW VA. Yet it’s my understanding that HRR is the predicted response with Room Gain when you put a flat measuring in anechoic chamber speaker in an ideal room ; and that REW’s FDW VA computes the First Arrivals that should in theory resemble HRR. I may be wrong but it looked promising enough to give it a try. To my ears, in my room with my Full Range active speakers, results
  13. Here are some itching funnies (and ready made for REW targets) I’d like to share. First, Let’s take the same set of Impulse Responses obtained by Sweeps and average* them 3 ways in REW : Frequency Dependent Windowed RMS Average, RMS Average, FDW Vector Average. I add results from Real Time Analysis of Pink Noise measured while Moving Microphone. There have been some changes between MMM and Sweeps times but still there’s a good consistency between RMS Av and MMM results while FDW RMS Av and FDW VA yield radically different results, in my room with my speakers. Hence, you’
  14. Pardon me then for I was far far away of awareness that a GPU was required for a NAA endpoint and furthermore that its load (and CPU's and RAM's) monitoring was critical...
  15. what do the gorgeous gauges read then ? the CPU GPU etc load of the endpoint or of the horsepower PC ?
×
×
  • Create New...