Jump to content

mitchco

  • Posts

    734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Retained

  • Member Title
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

50652 profile views
  1. Thanks @Schlagerfor your note. I should mentioned that Focus Fidelity Designer was also reviewed here at AS. DRC Designer is used in conjunction with Denis Sbragion's DRC for creating room correction filters: http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/doc/drc.html I have used this DSP software before and is very good! There is a long thread on diyAudio that goes into it's usage of both DRC and DRC Designer for folks that want to roll up their sleeves and play with it: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/275730-convolution-based-alternative-electrical-loudspeaker-correction-networks.html I mention this as I don't have time for a formal review, but their is a lot of good information on the diyAudio thread.
  2. @RacerxnetSorry, not yet. It is on my todo list, but I don't have an ETA as I am currently working on other DSP projects. One can download and install HLC in bypass mode to ensure the entire signal path works for the intended scenario(s). If that works then one can purchase a license key and activate HLC. I offer a 14 day money back guarantee so if it is not to your liking, I will happily refund the entire amount. Kind regards, Mitch
  3. Hi, @mitchco
    a friend @DuckTollerwho probably already know introduced me to you. I would like your advice on the set up of my speakers. 

    Thanks in advance

  4. Hi @sig8I could not say. Perhaps reach out to the Audiolense product support forum: https://www.avnirvana.com/forums/audiolense-user-forum.89/
  5. Yes, mouse click on the big Filterbank buttons to switch filters. I could implement keyboard shortcuts, but I have not looked into it yet.
  6. On my website and in the operations guide describes, "Why Hang Loose Convolver." In the case of JRiver, the VST3 plugin is used for both Mac and Windows versions of JRiver. The setup and configuration is described in the operations guide.
  7. Hi @Confused Yes there are a number of industry specifications for what the operational room response should look like. Here are a couple: EBU Tech 3276, Listening conditions for the assessment of sound programme material: monophonic and two–channel stereophonic. ITU-R BS.1116-3, Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems Bruel and Kjaer, Relevant loudspeaker tests in studios in Hi-Fi dealers' demo rooms in the home etc. They are all fairly similar - flat response to 1 or 2 kHz and then a downward slope of varying degrees depending on the directivity index of the loudspeakers used and how much HF energy illuminates the room with reflections. Similar to Dr. Floyd Toole, The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems Sean Olive has an interesting study on: Dr. Sean Olive, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products Downloading the presentation is a worthwhile read. Note slides 24 and 25. The straight line, but downward tilt of 20 Hz to around -9 or -10 dB at 20 kHz is the most preferred in the study. And as seen in slide 25, that downward tilt is perceived by our ears to be a flat response. It is a bit counter-intuitive, but a measured steady state flat response at the listening position is not the preferred response. It will sound overly bright with seemingly no bass. My preference is for the downward tilt. It sounds the most balanced not only frequency response wise, but also the vocals and instruments in the mix sound "where they should be." I find the flat to 1 or 2 kHz tends to sound a bit bass light, which is why folks will add bass below 100 Hz as referenced on Page 17, Figure 14 in Toole's paper referenced above. I also find that the vocals, strings, guitars for example, are pushed a bit forward in the mix with that type of target. But at that level of accuracy and precision, especially if you are within +- 3 to 5 dB tolerance, it really is personal preference at this stage. Hope that helps. Kind regards, Mitch
  8. Hi @romaz and @Zaphod Beeblebrox My wife and I were mountain biking in Whistler last week when I wrote that and we just got back today as the massive heat is upon us. Roy, I recalled incorrectly. We tried a number of corrections and I forgot about the partial correction. I am not sure if this changed or not, but a good partial correction frequency would be between 300 and 400 Hz. I would also revisit the True Time Domain (TTD) correction as running it without and then with, you will see in the simulations that you can lower the low frequency group delay in your room with TTD on. This will be perceived as a clearer, more defined bass response. I totally get the need for more bass :-) But it looks like in the new charts, it is starting to roll-off at 40 Hz, down -5 dB at 30 Hz and -10 dB at 20 Hz. In my chart, it is -3 dB at 20 Hz. Keep the bass bump that you like, but you may want to extend the response to get the low bass that the Wilsons are capable of. @Zaphod Beeblebrox re: Note: PGGB-EQ uses the frequency response information only to create a new EQ filter, it does not use time correction nor does it resample the filters. Does that mean PGGB-EQ is not compatible with excess phase correction? Or does it mean it does not change the excess phase correction that is built into the FIR filters and remains intact? Kind regards, Mitch
  9. Hi Roy, thanks for mentioning my name and service. It's too bad we never got to try a partial correction on your system. I am pretty sure this is the reason why you feel the the filters are not transparent. I have examined the filters extensively produced by Acourate, Audiolense and recently Focus Fidelity, and there are no technical issues with the filters produced. As a comment, I do notice low frequency preringing in the Audiolense frequency response chart you have posted. Can you post the step response chart so we can have a look. Or feel free to send me the measurement and I would be happy to have a look. Kind regards, Mitch
  10. Hi @BlimanThank you for purchasing my book. Attached are two procedures, one written by Uli and the example by Bob Katz. I have not had time to try these, but are on my way too long todo list. If you run into issues, Uli is helpful on his forum. I thought I would link Bernt's Audiolense forum as well since there has been a recent change of venue. Good luck! Time Alignment of Drivers by Sinewave Convolution.pdf time_alignment_by_sine_wave_convolution_-_example.pdf
  11. Hi @skatbelt Chris and a few others tried out the filters and I asked if anyone could hear a shift of the centre image when engaging the filter. The reports back are the that the centre image did not shift. So it would seem from a practical standpoint any driver matching differences are not audible. I listened to and measured fairly extensively while shifting the SR1a's in different positions on my head, including varying the angles. The SR1a is amazingly consistent through the range that fits comfortably. In Chris's article, I show a set of measurements where one was centered and the other two at the ends of up and down on the ears from a headphone wearing perspective and you can see the frequency response is very consistent. Given that they are open baffle type headphones, there is no concern about the bass response varying depending on the seal. One can see that in the measurements and I noted that while listening.
  12. Hi @Confused Agree with the preferred in room response. Consider a loudspeaker that measures flat in an anechoic chamber and then placed in a room. When measuring loudspeakers in typically reflective listening rooms the resulting steady-state room curves exhibit a smooth downward tilt. It is caused by the frequency dependent directivity of loudspeakers (i.e. cones and domes) - they are omnidirectional at low bass frequencies, becoming progressively more directional as frequency rises. More energy is radiated at low than at high frequencies. This is the cause of the downward tilt. With headphones, there is no room or frequency dependent directivity (relatively speaking).
×
×
  • Create New...