This speaks to what I said to wesayso in that I think far more benefit will be realized in untreated rooms than in heavily treated ones.
Case and point:
This is the GD of someone elses room. DRC could make a HUGE difference here.
Last edited:
Just an observation looking at the before and after graph. With DRC, the response is down 1 or 2 dB at 10 kHz which may be the cause of the decreased room ambience.
If you take a 2nd kick at it, my suggestion would be to tilt the target up by 1 dB at the high frequency end point so it gets closer to the 10 kHz you are listening to in the uncorrected response. Just saying based on experience, and of course there is no right or wrong
If you take a 2nd kick at it, my suggestion would be to tilt the target up by 1 dB at the high frequency end point so it gets closer to the 10 kHz you are listening to in the uncorrected response. Just saying based on experience, and of course there is no right or wrong
Just an observation looking at the before and after graph. With DRC, the response is down 1 or 2 dB at 10 kHz which may be the cause of the decreased room ambience.
If you take a 2nd kick at it, my suggestion would be to tilt the target up by 1 dB at the high frequency end point so it gets closer to the 10 kHz you are listening to in the uncorrected response. Just saying based on experience, and of course there is no right or wrong
Actually, I was thinking something similar. In FR terms, what I liked about what DRC did was <500hz mostly. Not so much on the top end.
Done remotely is very cool!
There are a number of recommended fr targets, some alternatives here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...at-vs-accurate-hi-fidelity-4.html#post4258668 But they are all pretty close to each other and with DRC, it is pretty easy to A/B to see what your preference is.
I ended up with a flat target to 1 kHz, and using 1 kHz as a knee, straight line to -6 dB at 20 kHz. As an ex 10 year recording/mixing engineer, my goal was to achieve as perceptually flat as a frequency response at my listening position. However, that is my preference for my system in my room. But looking at your fr and the target guidelines, we are all in the ball park and it is a matter of fine tuning for ones preference.
One real tangible benefit of DRC that is underplayed is the ability to ensure both the left and right speakers have as close to identical matching fr's at the listening position as possible. This really makes a difference in imaging. Have fun!
There are a number of recommended fr targets, some alternatives here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...at-vs-accurate-hi-fidelity-4.html#post4258668 But they are all pretty close to each other and with DRC, it is pretty easy to A/B to see what your preference is.
I ended up with a flat target to 1 kHz, and using 1 kHz as a knee, straight line to -6 dB at 20 kHz. As an ex 10 year recording/mixing engineer, my goal was to achieve as perceptually flat as a frequency response at my listening position. However, that is my preference for my system in my room. But looking at your fr and the target guidelines, we are all in the ball park and it is a matter of fine tuning for ones preference.
One real tangible benefit of DRC that is underplayed is the ability to ensure both the left and right speakers have as close to identical matching fr's at the listening position as possible. This really makes a difference in imaging. Have fun!
I think this is the reason I saw some improvement in horizontal image location and panning smoothness.
I forget the exact numbers, but I recall researching it and found that even a 2db or 3db difference between left and right magnitude could cause a noticeable image shift.
To this end, controlling 1st reflection points in the room is a better solution than DRC IMO. The comb filtering caused by such reflections just cant be undone. Improved a bit, sure.
The question in my case, where 1st reflection points are well dampened already is whether DRC improves things further (I think so), and enough to justify employing DRC (jury still out).
Along these lines, making sure the speakers energy arrives at the same time is equally important.
As can be seen here, even small (0.2ms) differences could shift things noticeably.
Last edited:
The window Greg uses on your REW measurement is a 4 cycle window. That's a very short window and at everything above say 1 KHz it would only correct the speaker, even in most rooms.
It may be called Digital Room Correction but don't get hang up on a name here. You'll never get results like yours in a bad room. But you can improve results in your room!
We only need to find out a few tweaks for a next try. Easy to do that in the software world. No need to wait for components to arrive here.
It may be called Digital Room Correction but don't get hang up on a name here. You'll never get results like yours in a bad room. But you can improve results in your room!
We only need to find out a few tweaks for a next try. Easy to do that in the software world. No need to wait for components to arrive here
.
The window Greg uses on your REW measurement is a 4 cycle window. That's a very short window and at everything above say 1 KHz it would only correct the speaker, even in most rooms.
It may be called Digital Room Correction but don't get hang up on a name here. You'll never get results like yours in a bad room. But you can improve results in your room!
We only need to find out a few tweaks for a next try. Easy to do that in the software world. No need to wait for components to arrive here
I dont understand FFT and all those DSP parameters in order to tell you what specifically to change. Having taken a glance at the DRC-DIR page, I was overwhelmed by it all.
I meant just a change in the target FR....
edit: You mean you didn't master the DRC instruction manual over morning coffee?
I need to consider where I am at. The FR target you already applied was close enough to my liking to get a feel for what DRC does and can do.
Sure, +1 or +2db by 10k (a knee at 5K to flat?) might marginally be more to my liking.
But not enough difference to go through the whole process again.
No, what I am considering now is whether it would be worth it to me to get the software and reburn 50 or 100 (5 or 6 CD's worth) of my favorite tracks.
I'd suggest downloading JRiver, setup your USB soundcard and giving that a try with
the convolver that's in there. Rip a few CD's to disk and play with it.
Might even try to run REW trough the convolver to see what's happening to the measurements.
You wouldn't have to redo much, but it'd be more fun if you were at the steering wheel yourself.
Different targets do sound very different! Even one dB difference in slope is very different overall.
Getting to play with it is the fun part. It's way more powerful than a lot of other stuff out there..
the convolver that's in there. Rip a few CD's to disk and play with it.
Might even try to run REW trough the convolver to see what's happening to the measurements.
You wouldn't have to redo much, but it'd be more fun if you were at the steering wheel yourself.
Different targets do sound very different! Even one dB difference in slope is very different overall.
Getting to play with it is the fun part. It's way more powerful than a lot of other stuff out there..
Last edited:
Greg, Can you help me understand the process a bit better?
Q1) OK, you took my system mdats. Somehow, those mdats became a blueprint of sorts for the DRC. Can you explain simply what that involved?
Q2) If I am understanding this correctly, the room measured mdats are essential to the process?
Q3) So basically, if I change the room response in any significant way, one would have to remeasure (make new mdats), and plug them into the DRc all over again to establish a new correction blueprint, yes?
Q1) OK, you took my system mdats. Somehow, those mdats became a blueprint of sorts for the DRC. Can you explain simply what that involved?
Q2) If I am understanding this correctly, the room measured mdats are essential to the process?
Q3) So basically, if I change the room response in any significant way, one would have to remeasure (make new mdats), and plug them into the DRc all over again to establish a new correction blueprint, yes?
The soundcard is a Integrated Realtek ALC662 Audio on the mother board. Its a piece of junk. I wouldnt trust it to do the task that would asked of it.
I do have PCI Express x16 and x1 expansion slots where by I could put a decent soundcard. If I could find one with coax out, I could go directly into my DAC.
Last edited:
Just use the same USB thingy you use for REW?
And do you have optical in on the DAC? That would be my choice as it would isolate any noise that could go from PC (power supply) to DAC.
Getting a decent PCI express card with optical out would be easy too I believe.
I have an onboard rubbish thingy, an Asus Xonar Essence ST (old PCI standard) and a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC.
The DAC goes from the optical out of the Asus to the DAC.
Asus -> Amplifier results in noise even though it's a more than decent card.
But to play with loopback, I can choose the onboard as default, use the Asus in JRiver and loopback feature in JRiver picks up the sound send to the onboard and routes it trough Jriver to the Asus. In that case the onboard card doesn't do anything. But it needs to be there.
So if you have the USB link to DAC and an onboard soundcard you did have 2 sound devises after all.
And do you have optical in on the DAC? That would be my choice as it would isolate any noise that could go from PC (power supply) to DAC.
Getting a decent PCI express card with optical out would be easy too I believe.
I have an onboard rubbish thingy, an Asus Xonar Essence ST (old PCI standard) and a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC.
The DAC goes from the optical out of the Asus to the DAC.
Asus -> Amplifier results in noise even though it's a more than decent card.
But to play with loopback, I can choose the onboard as default, use the Asus in JRiver and loopback feature in JRiver picks up the sound send to the onboard and routes it trough Jriver to the Asus. In that case the onboard card doesn't do anything. But it needs to be there.
So if you have the USB link to DAC and an onboard soundcard you did have 2 sound devises after all
.
Last edited:
The computer only has 1/8" audio outs and USB period. The DAC USB inputs are inferior (use a different internal chipset).
Believe me, there is no way to do this correctly without adding a coax out to the computer.
I know, but a soundcard that has optical out isn't hard to find. And it would give better isolation from PC noise to the Dac. Coax might be alright though
but I know optical works without noise.
The other ramblings from me were only to figure out if you could use REW with a convolver to your DAC, looks like you can (already).
but I know optical works without noise.
The other ramblings from me were only to figure out if you could use REW with a convolver to your DAC, looks like you can (already).
OK. I get what your saying.
I am thinking in terms of some permanent link from the computer to the DAC for playing all my music. And that would be best via coax. Soundcards with coax out are not hard to find either.
Its just a matter of deciding the cost benefit analysis. I am also not sure the computer-soundcard-DAC option would sound the same as the convolved CD burned file playing on the CD player.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.