I use modules developed for DADiSP software to get filter results for use on raw data.
If it would help some one here ----
https://www.dataq.com/resources/pdfs/datasheets/DADiSP-Filters.pdf
Thx-RNMarsh
If it would help some one here ----
https://www.dataq.com/resources/pdfs/datasheets/DADiSP-Filters.pdf
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Anyone going beyond FFT? Like PSD to emphasis certain freq/noise or Cepstrum for echo cancelling/reducing for your room acoustics and other apps.
DADIsP module: DADiSP Products: Modules: AdvDSP Full Description
Just one of many app note example use for PSD .... http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/AN-1067.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
DADIsP module: DADiSP Products: Modules: AdvDSP Full Description
Just one of many app note example use for PSD .... http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/AN-1067.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Plenty of free solutions for all this. The essential functionality of both Matlab and Mathematica are all available for free including a very powerful multi-dimensional plotting environment.
EDIT - What's your idea of cheap? $1995 + $495 add-on simply to open .wav files! In fact dozens of $495+ add-ons to enable useful commands. This is "someone else is paying the bills" software.
Last edited:
You demonstrate a common thinking about engineering. Some would rather design some circuitry say, test equipment and its circuitry, while i just want to use the test equipment to learn/measure how other things are working/performing. For example, I dont want to know how to design an oscilloscope but I do want to use it for test and measurements. Same with DADiSP.... use it because its packaged in one box and i can use it to measure all sorts of things, correlations etal. I dont want to get bits and pieces of hardware and software here and there for free and spend my time that way. I am willing to pay for the instrument to be done and working as a package deal. I am willing to pay for that rather than DIY just like we do with built hardware and its feature options.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
No comment on what is affordable or value for time and effort and wants and needs of others. Some are working, some are retired and some are rich and some are poor. The thought that opening a wav file for 2500 usd is kind of stupid. Maybe you think I am that stupid person who would? Otherwise, whats the point in that statement?
THx-RNMarsh
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Richard, I read Scott's response similar to my reaction to your question. Dadisp is a software at a cost and sophistication that it might well be a good investment if I knew I needed it. It's simply too expensive to speculate on not knowing whether it's useful or not. You're certainly free to do as you wish with your money.
And its learning curve is not zero either. For the same personal amount of time invested, I'd rather expand my knowledge into many of the very good open-source analytical software packages.
That is fine and certainly the prevailing way here on a DIY site. But dont tell me I am a fool for my interests and how I spend my money vs my time. I have far more interests in electronics than analog audio and so I invest in a wide variety of test gear. I dont make it myself... even if I could do it all. Designing or modifying an FM tuner would be one. RF transmitters for another. Acoustics for another. Or just curoius experimenting... like doing a test re skin effect. or testing for field affects, coupling Ground paths over pcb plane etc.
The investment in a high-end LP system is a substantial one also. More than 2K usd IMO. So all this complaining about costs of Anything is simply about personal choice based on many factors none of which should be up for judgement.
I started with computers before the PC .. before the Commodor. before the public Internet. Professionally, toggling in, bit by bit. word by word to boot-strap up a OS to run experiments. Learned many programming languages. I now hate software on anything but prof level... most consumer level software is junk and a frustrating time waster. I dont go there anymore. The learning curve on DADisP is short. Its canned software all the way thru and it better work right from the git-go or I dump it. Which I have done many times.
If you have only a one time use or one session for using some software and never again... that is another thing. I do that often with hardware.... tests and measure and then sell it. But some software is high-level programming/GUI ... which is why Windows et al got popular. Thats for me. But no judgment for those who want to be writing code or learning yet another syntax to make things work for you. To each his own.
With Love,
Richard - pontificating and luxuriating from my balcony on the 30th floor in sunny downtown Bangkok.
The investment in a high-end LP system is a substantial one also. More than 2K usd IMO. So all this complaining about costs of Anything is simply about personal choice based on many factors none of which should be up for judgement.
I started with computers before the PC .. before the Commodor. before the public Internet. Professionally, toggling in, bit by bit. word by word to boot-strap up a OS to run experiments. Learned many programming languages. I now hate software on anything but prof level... most consumer level software is junk and a frustrating time waster. I dont go there anymore. The learning curve on DADisP is short. Its canned software all the way thru and it better work right from the git-go or I dump it. Which I have done many times.
If you have only a one time use or one session for using some software and never again... that is another thing. I do that often with hardware.... tests and measure and then sell it. But some software is high-level programming/GUI ... which is why Windows et al got popular. Thats for me. But no judgment for those who want to be writing code or learning yet another syntax to make things work for you. To each his own.
With Love,
Richard - pontificating and luxuriating from my balcony on the 30th floor in sunny downtown Bangkok.
Last edited:
I was criticizing a pricing model that I though was a bit stone age why take it personally? It's nice to have a neat packaged solution but frankly posing the problem and taking appropriate input data is 90% of the issue. You can get garbage in garbage out with the most sophisticated software. The reality is speaker crossovers and room equalization use a small subset of the mathematical world and a lot of people have put stuff out there for DIYers to use for free.
I though this is primarily a DIY site, it doesn't take much savvy to realize folks don't hang out here to talk about their yachts and $250,000 sound systems.
Fine that you think the pricing model is not a good value compared to the free stuff. Though all those program files contained in modules save me and others a lot of my time. That is how I look at it... all with one GUi and syntax to learn. I'm not a mathematical programmer and dont intend to become one. Well integrated and sorted Canned math software works for me. At least on the level I play. Which usually isnt too deep until i get Very interested. But I learn never the less. Sometimes more and sometimes less. Electronics has always seemed like a hobby for me. Now doing a great job facilitating, coordinating and managing technical people and large technical projects or business is much harder and more challenging for me. Which I still do at age 70. And, since people DNA changes very slowly experience counts a lot in what I do best. It adds up over time. Nothing learned in my realm becomes obsolete.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out what you pointed out. I suppose.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
If you have 15+ years experience with a package then fine, same as if you have a lot of time invested in matlab none of the free alternatives quite hit the spot and not all your carefully crafted files may run, but for messing around with vinyl rips using the recipe Scott has given (with all the files ready to run) seems a no-brainer.
Now flipping it the other way have you ever wondered why you haven't invested in an AP? Would save hours in testing over the single frequency setup you have at the moment. Or even the Virtins suite which SY loves so much. $500 for the complete suite of everything or buy as you need. Even the $99 std edition does a lot. All of which you could do with Python scripts but at that price if you don't have years of python hacking behind you would seem tempting.
There are may points on the continuum of time vs money for testing and analysis and looking at them all makes for interesting discussion.
Now flipping it the other way have you ever wondered why you haven't invested in an AP? Would save hours in testing over the single frequency setup you have at the moment. Or even the Virtins suite which SY loves so much. $500 for the complete suite of everything or buy as you need. Even the $99 std edition does a lot. All of which you could do with Python scripts but at that price if you don't have years of python hacking behind you would seem tempting.
There are may points on the continuum of time vs money for testing and analysis and looking at them all makes for interesting discussion.
Has anyone over here used PSD in audio work?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_get_SNR_of_an_acoustic_signal
THx-RNMarsh
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_get_SNR_of_an_acoustic_signal
THx-RNMarsh
People here use it every day as in noise power V^2/Hz or A^2/Hz. Power spectral density is a fairly basic and fundamental signal processing concept how would you suggest "using" it?
It would have sufficed to say DADisp is a nice spreadsheet face on the classic academic body of signal processing literature. It is only a tool, you have to know what to input to get any meaningful results. What would you say to someone who wants to design SOTA amplifiers but does not want to have to learn any electronics? The time involved in learning to "drive" other tools is trivial compared to solving a fundamentally new problem. For instance including reflections in room correction is not a solved problem and experts disagree as to whether you would even want to do such a thing.
https://www.dsprelated.com/freebooks/sasp/Sample_Autocorrelation.html#sec:sacorr
I agree it is only a tool and one needs to understand the tool as well as what it is being used for. Having said that, my goal is not to find some new element in the universe nor even design anything, usually.
BTW -- I have studied and measured that room reflection issue for decades and have my conclusions about it which seems to work extreamly well for my goals. All using known measurement methods. Peoples goals or expectations are different so no one room treatment makes all happy campers. Though there is now convergence occurring on the subject.
But I am always looking for new tools to see what else could be done better or learn what the trade-offs were and then maybe redo things to meet my goals better. . .
-RNM
I agree it is only a tool and one needs to understand the tool as well as what it is being used for. Having said that, my goal is not to find some new element in the universe nor even design anything, usually.
BTW -- I have studied and measured that room reflection issue for decades and have my conclusions about it which seems to work extreamly well for my goals. All using known measurement methods. Peoples goals or expectations are different so no one room treatment makes all happy campers. Though there is now convergence occurring on the subject.
But I am always looking for new tools to see what else could be done better or learn what the trade-offs were and then maybe redo things to meet my goals better. . .
-RNM
Last edited:
so your study of room reflection has taken you from a narrow beamwidth dipole to a wide dispersion controlled directivity horn. That's about as far a leap as one can make in one upgrade other than the MBL Rugby balls*, and one would assume would require totally different room treatment? How have you changed things, other than cutting a bit off your sideboard?
*If I said football that would confuse the 80% of the world for whom football is not men in helmets.
*If I said football that would confuse the 80% of the world for whom football is not men in helmets.
I covered the same territory in my article, it turns out a simple two pass IIR gets ridiculously close to perfect even at 44.1kHz. Last two are looking pretty similar. Wayne does have some issues when you get past the audio stuff.
EDIT - Come on George it's nice if folks read your stuff but you could go to the horses mouth.
In the mess of my place I had lost that L.A. volume 10 with your article. Today doing some cleaning up I found it and I started reading it again.
Even with this little hands-on experience I have gained with the last days tests, I understand the content of the article much better than the first time I read it.
As the results sound promising (*), I will work with your recommendations for a while.
(*) Here are three files with a vinyl rip
Equipment as in post# 89507
The analog file is a recording at the Bugle output.
The IIR and FIR files are from a recording at the head preamplifier output, amplified and equalized using Audacity.
If you enjoy the content, tell me if you hear any difference.
Analog RIAA eq:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hycjtlhro4k6o7v/analog%20RIAA%20preamplifier.wav?dl=0
FIR linear phase RIAA eq:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/patjx5d7ei88hpm/FIR%20linear%20phase%20RIAA.wav?dl=0
IIR minimum phase RIAA eq:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/14senz3tb3xfc2o/IIR%20minimum%20phase%20RIAA.wav?dl=0
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.