I run REW tests with a loop back feature trough JRiver, (awesome Windows media player, not so good on Mac or so I heard) and trough convolution engine build within JRiver to my speakers to measure. Is that what you're asking?
It requires 2 soundcards (for me *) to do it. One that basically does little to nothing, onboard card is enough usually and the other is used by JRiver to get the sound out to the speakers. JRiver picks up any signal played to the windows default sound card (the loopback) and runs trough it's DSP processing and sends it to the card configured in JRiver for audio out.
So In REW you set audio out to Windows Default, in JRiver choose loopback Wasapi and JRiver does the rest.
* = With the current version of JRiver I believe they have integrated a JRiver windows driver so you can actually do it with one sound card. Just use the driver from JRiver within REW. I haven't upgraded to the last JRiver yet so that's untested for me.
JRiver is available as a 30 day trail, just download and install.
Was that the question? In that case should be possible
.
Having only 1 soundcard and no loopback option (USB mic), I think that answers things.
With the current JRiver you should be able to send audio trough that soundcard using it's new driver feature. I can't yet but you can play with it for 30 days.
The loopback is a feature within JRiver, I need that to play audio from other sources such as REW. With the new version you should not need it.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=92593.0
The loopback is a feature within JRiver, I need that to play audio from other sources such as REW. With the new version you should not need it.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=92593.0
Last edited:
By correcting the LF phase response. The speaker response doesn't go down to DC (speakers can't do that), but the energy that is there has had its phase equalized flat. Not "minimum phase" BTW, since the low end dropoff below 10Hz would normally cause a +phase response at LF in a min-phase system, but what is there is phase equalized as if gain were flat to DC. One of the things you can only really do with an FIR equalizer. The effect in the bass is to make it sound very unspeakerlike down low. Not louder or bassier, just not obviously from a speaker. (And don't forget that this response will be listener position dependent. A Double Bass Array might be able to get around that, too, but I don't have a room I can do that in...)
Yup. But if a strong 15Hz note were to come along, the output wouldn't be able to hold up since it's just a couple 12" sealed box woofers. Fortunately not many music signals actually do that.
ok, here's a link to the processed track:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2j41z9z6dj7xcr/No photo (corrected).flac?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2j41z9z6dj7xcr/No photo (corrected).flac?dl=0
Well, let's just hope I didn't screw something up along the way. If I didn't, there should be an audible improvement. Probably not what the average person would describe as a huge improvement, but I would expect someone who has already tweaked their system to this extent to appreciate it. The frequency balance is slightly different (being a a straight line), so it may take a few minutes to get used to that.
Complete control through DRC, or you could just apply a digital eq of your choice (outside of DRC) to a flat correction file.
edit: maybe you could do the initial listening through usb (in case there is something we could improve) before you start going through the hassle of burning cds...
edit: maybe you could do the initial listening through usb (in case there is something we could improve) before you start going through the hassle of burning cds...
Last edited:
Yes it can. You can shape it however you like with some work.
Do you have a target in mind? After trying different targets I ended up finding the straight line the most balanced in my room. With the ever so slight change around ~ 1500 Hz. Basically a gradual slope that's a bit above the straight line at 1500 Hz. About the same as a PEQ applied to a straight line with Frequency: 1500 Hz, gain 1.5 dB and q of 0.2. That tends to give a bit more depth to the stage.
Do you have a target in mind? After trying different targets I ended up finding the straight line the most balanced in my room. With the ever so slight change around ~ 1500 Hz. Basically a gradual slope that's a bit above the straight line at 1500 Hz. About the same as a PEQ applied to a straight line with Frequency: 1500 Hz, gain 1.5 dB and q of 0.2. That tends to give a bit more depth to the stage.
OK, here we go.
I A/B'ed twice. Corrected/Uncorrected/Corrected/Uncorrected
These are first and rather raw impressions only for a sample of only one.
Generally, I thought both sounded terrific (uncorrected and corrected). To a untrained listener, hearing each a few days apart, they may not even notice the difference.
OK, the differences.
SOUNDSTAGE
1) I thought the corrected version did better at image location. The panning across the stage horizontally was better defined and smoother.
2) But I thought a little bit of depth was lost. Not much though.
AMBIANCE
1) The corrected version seemed to have lost some of the recordings natural ambiance. The ability to sense the recording room seemed a bit more limited. But the "air" around the instruments was as good, or maybe improved. Yet, decay off the symbols seemed shorter.
2) It reminded me a bit of Steven Wilson's remasterings of the Yes material in the sense that in some fashion, things sounded more precise, but at the expense of sounding a bit more processed and a bit less natural in terms of feeling the recording environment.
TONE
1) I liked the EQ. This surprised me for I have grown accustomed to what it sounds like without the correction. I particularly liked what I heard below the vocal range. For illustration, the below graph represents the corrected (green) vs uncorrected (red) FR plotted together
The added warmth from 100hz -300hz or so was welcome. And by comparison, the uncorrected bottom (35-65hz or so) seemed a bit overly strong.
I A/B'ed twice. Corrected/Uncorrected/Corrected/Uncorrected
These are first and rather raw impressions only for a sample of only one.
Generally, I thought both sounded terrific (uncorrected and corrected). To a untrained listener, hearing each a few days apart, they may not even notice the difference.
OK, the differences.
SOUNDSTAGE
1) I thought the corrected version did better at image location. The panning across the stage horizontally was better defined and smoother.
2) But I thought a little bit of depth was lost. Not much though.
AMBIANCE
1) The corrected version seemed to have lost some of the recordings natural ambiance. The ability to sense the recording room seemed a bit more limited. But the "air" around the instruments was as good, or maybe improved. Yet, decay off the symbols seemed shorter.
2) It reminded me a bit of Steven Wilson's remasterings of the Yes material in the sense that in some fashion, things sounded more precise, but at the expense of sounding a bit more processed and a bit less natural in terms of feeling the recording environment.
TONE
1) I liked the EQ. This surprised me for I have grown accustomed to what it sounds like without the correction. I particularly liked what I heard below the vocal range. For illustration, the below graph represents the corrected (green) vs uncorrected (red) FR plotted together
The added warmth from 100hz -300hz or so was welcome. And by comparison, the uncorrected bottom (35-65hz or so) seemed a bit overly strong.
Last edited:
jim1961,
Great write-up. I like what you have to say here and I especially like knowing that I didn't screw it all up. My advice at this point would be to repeat the comparison at different times of the day and perhaps over several days. I would be happy to process any other tracks for you in the meantime. DRC is a powerful thing and I think it's easy to overdo it but a little bit can go a long way.
Personally, I like accurate timbre and fast decay time. Ambience (is it ambiance?) is a welcome thing and I definitely enjoy it on some recordings but it's not what communicates to the musician in me. On my system, using the correction strength I used for your track, I believe I hear only improvements. Happy listening!
--Greg
Great write-up. I like what you have to say here and I especially like knowing that I didn't screw it all up. My advice at this point would be to repeat the comparison at different times of the day and perhaps over several days. I would be happy to process any other tracks for you in the meantime. DRC is a powerful thing and I think it's easy to overdo it but a little bit can go a long way.
Personally, I like accurate timbre and fast decay time. Ambience (is it ambiance?) is a welcome thing and I definitely enjoy it on some recordings but it's not what communicates to the musician in me. On my system, using the correction strength I used for your track, I believe I hear only improvements. Happy listening!
--Greg
So all in all, not a bad first attempt! I'm glad to hear that. Some of the changes you heard might even be more correct than before, even if you did like the previous state of things.
A couple of thoughts on the depth issue. The FR has changed and that can change the perception of depth. See above where I said a gradual knee at ~1500 Hz can help with that.
Second: Greg did mention a change to the Haas Kicker. For making the correction it shouldn't be in the measured impulse. It will be there during playback again.
The ambience is a bummer though, you'd want to keep that. We'll have to find out why it was different.
A couple of thoughts on the depth issue. The FR has changed and that can change the perception of depth. See above where I said a gradual knee at ~1500 Hz can help with that.
Second: Greg did mention a change to the Haas Kicker. For making the correction it shouldn't be in the measured impulse. It will be there during playback again.
The ambience is a bummer though, you'd want to keep that. We'll have to find out why it was different.
This is really cool - nice work guys! This is the sort of story we need to hear to give those of us who haven't had enough motivation to try DRC to do it. I am still a bit too busy with my other stuff to start, but surely, I am getting closer. I think once Gmad and Wesayso post the "DRC Howto" thread, it may set me over the edge to try...
Great writeup by Jim...
Great writeup by Jim...
Said another way, the DRC version seemed to bring out the instruments more, but subtract the room or the effects that make it sound like its in a room.
I agree about timbre, but I think slower instrument decay adds to the sense of being in a larger space. No right or wrong here. Just making a distinction.
On the whole, if I could have the EQ benefits without affecting anything else, I would like it better. Dont know if that helps from your stand point of tuning the DRC.
Last edited:
This approach definitely has some merit. Hopefully that was obvious from my response. But I also think that most peoples rooms are not treated as far as mine and therefore have a greater need, and would benefit more, from DRC than me.
If we look at DRC as room correction, then DRC implemented in untreated rooms may make a night and day difference, rather than the mild to moderate change I have thus far observed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.