Ok I am just making sure that I got this right.
I can either change the base .drc file and then just keep the one batch script that runs it, or I can change the batch script and whatever with the "--" before it will override the .drc file correct?
You can do it that way there is nothing wrong with it. When you want to create 4 or 5 versions of the same filter with slight changes to 4 or 5 parameters it is easier to do it with an altered batch script.As I am using the first approach (changing the .drc and keeping one base batch script)
This is equivalent and an acceptable work flow is it not?
For me minimum phase is the right target to aim for but I don't think you can easily ascribe punchy to any particular parameters, you really need to experiment and see what you prefer.Also, I have heard lots of people say that getting minimum phase in the bass and longer filter lengths especially help in the bass.
I am mostly looking to get nice tight punchy bass with DRC (and yes some general room correction as well)
In the screenshot above you can see the parameters I changed, these are the main ones that affect phase correction.Anyways, changing the EPLowerWindow and ISPELowerWindow and EPFinalWindow would be how much low end phase correction it is correcting correct?
MP applies to minimum phase and RT to ringing truncation. Unless you switched on Ringing Truncation the related parameters will not do anything. The EP window exponent will have the biggest effect here. Going with a lower window exponent reduces both the time as well as the frequency extents so going low will really just begin to turn it off rather than concentrate it. You can set an upper frequency limit for the excess phase correction so that it is concentrated in the lower frequencies and doesn't apply across the whole frequency range.And then changing the MPWindowExponent and RTWindowExponent is how much it focuses it computation / correction on the low vs high end. So if I primarily want to correct the phase in the bass then I would change the values to less than 1 (1 being linear, 0.2 being heavily weighted toward the low end). Would that be the right way of starting things off?