Analyzer Software Overview

[dennis h]

A bunch of us have signed up to purchase Jen's Analyzer( See GB for RTX6001 Audio Analyzer in group buy section)

What software and why should we be acquiring ? (Yes I know it depends on what you want to measure so a if you want to measure this you need that would be helpful)

Lots more questions to come...
tia
dennis h

 

[soongsc]

I was hoping it will work with SoundEasy.

 

[dennis h]

Soundeasy

I was hoping it will work with SoundEasy.

So what does Soundeasy do that you wish to use it for ?(other than you may already have it)

I will add it to the list to investigate...
tia,
dennis h

 

[soongsc]

Yes. I have used it for maybe 10 years now, mostly for loudspeaker measurement, various impedance measurements, and electronics frequency response measurements, etc. For some reason, the latest update changed to using WASAPI, I have not been able to get it to work with any of the USB cards I have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diyaudnut]

I had posted a few i'm aware of on the original thread and couple more added by Altor

here are several software options available out there. All support ASIO interface to soundcard like device.

1. ARTA (limited freeware, paid full version)
2. REW (freeware)
3. SpectraplusSC (30-day trial, paid full version)
4. Dr Jordan design (paid full version)
5. HpW works (paid full version)
6. Virtins (30-day trial, paid full version)
7. AudioTester (paid full version)
8. Rightmark Audio anaylzer (paid full version)

Wave Spectra Ver. 1.51E (ASIO, up to 384), (freeware)
WaveGene Ver. 1.51E (ASIO, up to 384, up to 8 channels) (freeware)


Most of the above paid versions support some sort of trial versions as well.

I have tried out REW, ARTA and trial versions of virtins and SpectraPlus

SpectraPlus is very feature rich and has an easy to use interface. But is quite expensive.
SpectraPLUS-SC Product Options

ARTA is reasonably priced and offers a lot of the features

REW remains most accessible though a bit limited compared to the above two.

Virtins was a puzzle to try.

I havent tried the rest on the list, though a lot of members here seem to use them

 

[soongsc]

RMAA also has a freeware version


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mbrennwa]

The Jensalyzer should work with any software that can use an USB audio interface (and that's pretty much all the audio testing sofwtare packages I am aware of, except maybe MLSSA and CLIO systems). I'll use it with MATAA.

 

[anatech]

I think that just knowing what all is available will allow many of us to make an informed decision. Some notes pertaining to flexibility and ease of use are welcome. There is a difference between what a hobbyist might want and someone who is using it for work.

-Chris

 

[1audio]

I would like impressions from anyone who has used any of these packages.
Let me add Praxis from Bill Waslo (discontinued) PRAXIS INFORMATION

We should also add links for the software:
ARTA (limited freeware, paid full version) ARTA Software
REW (freeware) https://www.roomeqwizard.com/
SpectraplusSC (30-day trial, paid full version) SpectraPLUS - Home Page : Acoustics and Vibration : FFT Spectrum Analyzer : SpectraPlus.com
Dr Jordan design (paid full version) Audio Realtime Analyzer for Windows platform using FFT and MLS
HpW works (paid full version) Home
Virtins (30-day trial, paid full version) PC USB Oscilloscopes, Spectrum Analyzers, Signal Generators, Audio and Acoustic Analyzers, Data Acquistion | Virtins Technology
AudioTester (paid full version) audioTester
Rightmark Audio analyzer (paid full version) Latest News. Audio Rightmark
Wave Spectra Ver. 1.51E (ASIO, up to 384), (freeware) ???????? ???????????? WaveSpectra
WaveGene Ver. 1.51E (ASIO, up to 384, up to 8 channels) (freeware) ?????????? WaveGene
(English help for these: gtkc.net - WaveSpectra / Wavegene English help )


You can also use (for real money) National Instruments Audio Test - National Instruments Or Listen https://www.listeninc.com/

None of these will give you a magic answer without effort. You will need to do the work.

I use Praxis mostly and like its flexibility and the long list of features. However its no longer supported (Bill Waslo stopped when the development system it was created with became obsolete). Praxis has a steep learning curve it seems.

I have used ARTA a little and can use the spectrum analyzer function and Steps. The latest version fixed the scaling issue so its always on 5 or 10 dB steps. It still lacks some of the scale shifting/weighting features I'm used to (maybe buried in menus) and multiple cursors. Arta does do windowed response for speakers but the process is a little obscure and i could not find the delay correction to get meaningful phase response.

I tried Audiotester and it also has a learning curve. It has a lot of flexibility and features. I had an issue with scaling that went away with a system restart but they all have these issues.

 

[soongsc]

There used to be a site that had a pretty comprehensive list. Can't seem to find it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CharlieLaub]

I have used ARTA a little and can use the spectrum analyzer function and Steps. The latest version fixed the scaling issue so its always on 5 or 10 dB steps. It still lacks some of the scale shifting/weighting features I'm used to (maybe buried in menus) and multiple cursors. Arta does do windowed response for speakers but the process is a little obscure and i could not find the delay correction to get meaningful phase response.

There is a pretty extensive manual for ARTA/LIMP/STEPS. Have you read it thoroughly to find answers to these questions or did you just poke around? RTFUM should be step number one...

I use ARTA for all my loudspeaker measurements. I use gated impulse responses with the swept sine stimulus (have heard that MLS stimulus is also good). After creating the frequency response from that you can scale it (add/subtract a fixed number of decibels) using the Edit>Scale (if I am recalling correctly the menu names) and entering the amount to add to the existing response. This is helpful for e.g. moving some point in the frequency response to 0dB and then seeing the deviations from that. You can enter any decimal format number (e.g. 1.234) to scale the response, so I first use the cursor to find the SPL at the point I want to be at 0dB and then I scale all the data by this SPL. You can also change the SPL range of the plot and the SPL labels automatically change from 10dB to 5dB to 2dB to 1dB... There is a little set of controls to the right of the plot for this purpose, and for moving the curve "up and down" within the plot (maybe that is what you meant by scaling???).

You can select what to show in the frequency response window. For phase you can show a number of options. I assume by what you wrote that you want to take the phase as measured and subtract the transit time (delay) manually. That's possibly as well and I have done this in the past but I cannot recall how off the top of my head and I am currently traveling and don't have a copy of ARTA handy. You could always select "show minimum phase response" and ARTA will automatically generate this for you so that you do not need to manually subtract out the delay, however, this is not the same as measured phase minus delay so it depends on which you want in the end.

 

[1audio]

Each of these software packages has a number of features and a unique user interface. Learning how to use them is not real easy and switching can be quite difficult. I have a Clio system which is quite powerful but its structure and UI are quite different so I stick to what I know.

Maybe we need a chart listing features and limitations plus a few screen shots. That may get beyond what anyone here is up for or can even be done in a forum.

 

[jan.didden]

I think that a (steep) learning curve is unavoidable if you want performance and flexibility. Searching for something that does the thinking for you and gives answers without you having to learn is a waste of time.
Granted, some packages are better than others but even the professional ones need upfront investment. Even firing up an AP for the first time is overwhelming to say the least.

Jan

 

[1audio]

A learning curve is inevitable in this stuff. Unfortunately there are many ways to present the data and many more ways to control the presentation of the data. This leads to some of the challenges.

Two phases to learing- first is the basic of the electricals or the acoustics, then how the program presents and what controls you have over the presentation.

PC layout programs have similar issues. Spice simulators have less of this since most have the same internals (Berkeley Spice) and put UI's over the core software.

How can we get and present info to make comparisons easier?

Add Holm impulse HOLM Acoustics to this list.

 

[diyaudnut]

Here is a battery of tests that member Tom offers on his website.

Hope he doesnt mind me presenting it here with due credit.
(image from https://www.neurochrome.com/performance-measurements/)

Few questions:
Does AP software provide features which are not available in the software packages listed earlier?

Does AP equipments have special hardware features that allows additional tests/software features to be implemented?

What are these features compared to JensH's RTX analyzer?

One i can think off is notch filters to remove fundamentals?

 

[diyaudnut]

Another question I had is related to noise floor measurements.

I confess i dont understand all details, but i'm happy to learn. I hear FFT based packages can be misleading for obtaining noise floor measurements.

What is the optimal way to use RTX analyzer and any of the software tools to make noise floor measurements?

Virtins had a sound-card based oscilloscope in its suite, which was able to display low level noise in the time domain, with average, peak detects etc.
Is that a reliable measurement?

 

[diyaudnut]

Another question:

I havent seen many tools offer a good muilti-tone test.
I feel its a good test for loudspeakers and audio electronics, as real music is not single tones, but a complex and time varying mix of frequencies.
IMD results from a multi tone test might offer more insight that harmonics distortions from a swept sine test??

I tried a dual tone test on my loudspeaker and the spectrum was hideous.

 

[mbrennwa]

How can we get and present info to make comparisons easier?

You could start a page with a feature comparison table in the diyAudio Wiki.



Gesendet von meinem D5803 mit Tapatalk

 

[HpW]

Another question I had is related to noise floor measurements.

I confess i dont understand all details, but i'm happy to learn. I hear FFT based packages can be misleading for obtaining noise floor measurements.

The question is the FFT algorithm itself, its how a large or very large FFT RMS array is presented on the x-axis of your screen. This means, ordinary SW uses only the peak reading (as the peak Detector mode) what is required to show the harmonic's.

In case of noise, no FFT Window have to be applied and the Detector mode has to be Average (Do not mix up spectrum average and Detector Average).

For clarification see picture below.

I havent seen many tools offer a good muilti-tone test..

Or simple build your own IM's, while for bass speakers different frequencies are required. Here my Five IM Cluster. See picture below using my Multi-Sine using upcoming DSD Generator and PCM acquisition on RME ADI-2 Pro.

To the questions about AP:

- The have a tracking notch filter build
- The FFT resolution is limited (lower 2^n spec's)
- Desktop integration ??
- Have in addition an 2 Mhz ADC
....

Hp

 

[1audio]

There are several AP's and they are different. the APx515 is very similar to the RTX in that its an good ADC/DAC and it has some additional capabilities. the APx555 is a very different beast with lots more stuff and way more expensive. Also at AP your funding the software development which is a big task. And you do get good support if you buy into the products. In a manufacturing environment AP makes a lot of sense.

The multi-tone clusters are very useful for finding some issues, usually in transducers. Most decent electronics rarely show issues that don't show elsewhere. In transducers you can see all manner of mechanical stuff crawling out of the noise. Best done with coherent averaging if you can. I'm attaching a spreadsheet of selections for spectral contamination testing that was crafted to ensure that neither harmonics nor IM products would overlap with fundamental tones.