Thanks for the share, I will also give it a listen tomorrow morning.
As for distortion... I think it's also bad with distorted electric guitar! Distortion playing heavy metal will make me run out of the door... fast! It's just unbearable.
Yes, a snare drum will sound totally different played in different rooms. The transient attack, the sustain of the room, all affect the overall tone. When someone tells me "Oh, I've played the drums (or whatever instruments) and I know it should sound like this or that... I make them listen to this video... Same room, but with different levels of treatments... just shows how important it can become, much more than changing speakers and hoping it will sound better!
Difference in room treatment and the sound
As for distortion... I think it's also bad with distorted electric guitar! Distortion playing heavy metal will make me run out of the door... fast! It's just unbearable.
Yes, a snare drum will sound totally different played in different rooms. The transient attack, the sustain of the room, all affect the overall tone. When someone tells me "Oh, I've played the drums (or whatever instruments) and I know it should sound like this or that... I make them listen to this video... Same room, but with different levels of treatments... just shows how important it can become, much more than changing speakers and hoping it will sound better!
Difference in room treatment and the sound
Ok guys, I want to get back a few posts and shoot an idea.
Regarding the M/S EQ and convolution. I think I could be able to do it all in one shot... maybe.
See, for convoluted files using DRC, we've always used mono files, measuring one speaker at a time. We get the left, then the right speaker. DRC processes both files individually and then exports a stereo convoluted filter.
But, there is no interaction between the speakers, as each measurement is taken individually.
I have a pretty good and almost flat stereo mic here at home.
I was wondering, if I'd place the mic where my head is at the listening spot, and I record a stereo sweep, using both speakers... I would get the crosstalk that my L and R ears usually get.
Then, I could separate the L/R stereo file into L mono and R mono files to feed that into DRC. Wouldn't this be more representative of the real world performance of my stereo setup?
I would test this, but I won't have a quiet room for the next couple of days, so I thought I would just say it out loud and see what you guys think of it.
Regarding the M/S EQ and convolution. I think I could be able to do it all in one shot... maybe.
See, for convoluted files using DRC, we've always used mono files, measuring one speaker at a time. We get the left, then the right speaker. DRC processes both files individually and then exports a stereo convoluted filter.
But, there is no interaction between the speakers, as each measurement is taken individually.
I have a pretty good and almost flat stereo mic here at home.
I was wondering, if I'd place the mic where my head is at the listening spot, and I record a stereo sweep, using both speakers... I would get the crosstalk that my L and R ears usually get.
Then, I could separate the L/R stereo file into L mono and R mono files to feed that into DRC. Wouldn't this be more representative of the real world performance of my stereo setup?
I would test this, but I won't have a quiet room for the next couple of days, so I thought I would just say it out loud and see what you guys think of it.
Peace...I was thinking some of you might have a good time listening to this...
[/url]
I am not trying to convince anyone..
That would work, for the stereo phantom part. It's part of what Prof. Edgar Choeiri does. Except, panned music in a stereo file is only present in the side channels. However playing a stereo REW pulse only represents that phantom part (believe me, I tried).
So doing this in convolution is never going to be easy as you'd have to split the stereo into mid and side and convolve, and put it back into stereo. Not impossible, but not easy either.
Thanks for posting the clip it is always good to hear different types of music. I have found good test tracks that way even if I don't really appreciate the content for enjoyment it is still very useful. Have you tried the Mid Side EQ with your arrays?Peace...
I am not trying to convince anyone..
This is the part I would agree on, with some music it is hard to know if they intended it to sound awful or if it is your speaker that is partly to blame
Give it a try and let us know if it works for you. My concern would be that you lose some of the ability to correct the speakers to be more similar to each other by not eliminating the crosstalk at the initial measurement stage.
Maybe you could do it as a second measurement stage and correct the correction with cross talk included.
Not yet.
I am using Foobar 2000 and Audiolense so it is not something I can do easily.
And switching to J River and REW is a daunting task for me. I have been busy making the right amplifiers, preamp/volume and DAC for the system.
Thanks a million. I would love to try it.You don't need to use Jriver or REW so no need to be daunted
I'll send you a PM with what I sent to Byrtt and ra7, you can run it as a VST in foobar, very simple
No problem, will be good to get your feedback when you test it outThanks a million. I would love to try it.
Not very simple @ koldby`sYou don't need to use Jriver or REW so no need to be daunted
I'll send you a PM with what I sent to Byrtt and ra7, you can run it as a VST in foobar, very simple
I was not using convolver VST for my Audiolense filters in Foobar 2000(using gapless convolver) so I downloaded convolverVST.dll from sourceforge.net and placed it in Foobars components folder.
It showed up in foobars components list, but not in DSP manager...Even tried a solution written elsewhere copying libffw3f-3.dll and libsndfile-1.dll to the Foobar 2000 folder..No luck.
I always get these kind of problems ...
I purchased console so I could measure what the audiolense files did to my system, but I could never get it to work...
I don't know what is wrong here, but some gremlins have apparently found a nice home in my PC systems.
Not very simple @ koldby`s
Koldby leave your convolver as it was before, you can mix plugin in types, if it isn't broken then don't try to fix it!
To run VST plugins in foobar you need an adapter, perhaps you don't have this installed?
Go to this page there is a video and a link to the VST adapter, the video will walk you through the process. I have used foobar before with a VST plugin and this is how I did it. Instead of downloading the plugins he linked just use the one I sent you
https://www.dawlab.net/how-to-use-vst-plugins-in-foobar2000-2/
I also run my Mid Side through FabFilter before convolution. I have not tried it after to know what happens but I have no reason to doubt wesayso as to the best place to put it. You can drag the order around in foobar's DSP manager.
I don't think you understand my problem:Koldby leave your convolver as it was before, you can mix plugin in types, if it isn't broken then don't try to fix it!
To run VST plugins in foobar you need an adapter, perhaps you don't have this installed?
Go to this page there is a video and a link to the VST adapter, the video will walk you through the process. I have used foobar before with a VST plugin and this is how I did it. Instead of downloading the plugins he linked just use the one I sent you
https://www.dawlab.net/how-to-use-vst-plugins-in-foobar2000-2/
I also run my Mid Side through FabFilter before convolution. I have not tried it after to know what happens but I have no reason to doubt wesayso as to the best place to put it. You can drag the order around in foobar's DSP manager.
I followed the dawlab.net instructions:
I did download the foobar VST 2.4 adapter and dropped it in foobar components.
It shows up just fine in the "installed Components" in foobar preferences, but do NOT show up in DSP manager as available DSP´s...
wesayso:
None of the two equalizers installed in foobar and available in DSP manager can load the Fabfilter presets...
In the DSP manager preferences there should be Components then under that VSTPlugins
Go in there and check that FabFilter is there if not, add it and then it should be available in the overall list for DSP manager
The Preset will only work with FabFilter, there are other plugins that can do the same thing but the process won't be any different as they are all VST.
If that doesn't work take some screenshots of your DSP manager preferences and maybe I can spot what is missing.
Go in there and check that FabFilter is there if not, add it and then it should be available in the overall list for DSP manager
The Preset will only work with FabFilter, there are other plugins that can do the same thing but the process won't be any different as they are all VST.
If that doesn't work take some screenshots of your DSP manager preferences and maybe I can spot what is missing.
But this is exactly what isen´t there...
Look at these three screenshots:
Attachments
You can't click on the > Arrow in front of components to un-hide the VST plugin app?
It is shown as a right pointing arrow before the Components text: >
While in the video, to load VST plugins it's pointing downwards...
Duuhh-............
There it was.
Thanks wesayso and Fluid.
Now I have it installed, all I need now is time to evaluate it.
It is probably such a small idiotic thing that prevents me from using Console in my setup..
No problem glad you got it sorted.
I'm not familiar with console but I can try and help you with that if you describe what the issue is
I got a little time to listen to the effects the filter makes:
I take the Mozart piece I uploaded as reference:
In the beginning, first and second violins are playing and they are, with the filter, more spread out and and separation is better. There was , without the filter, a tendency to be a hole to the right of the left speaker. With the filter there is a much more even spread.
No effect on the horns when they enter in the back of the stage. I was a little afraid it would foreshorten the field of depth. Not so.
The effects only apply to higher frequencies. The cellos and basses are not affected.
The three pianos also are a little more well defined, but a funny thing is , that the lightness of the leftmost piano is not as pronounced as without the filter.
Just for the record, distinction between the three pianos is not easy, and only there when the play in their upper register, as it is only here, they are directive enough.
The lightness is still there though @4:50 the leftmost plays alone and shortly after the two others join. Here the lightness of the left piano is most pronounced to my ears.
I am looking foreward to investigate this interesting filter in more depth and with a lot of other music, but for now, it is a winner.
Thanks for sharing Fluid and wesayso
I take the Mozart piece I uploaded as reference:
In the beginning, first and second violins are playing and they are, with the filter, more spread out and and separation is better. There was , without the filter, a tendency to be a hole to the right of the left speaker. With the filter there is a much more even spread.
No effect on the horns when they enter in the back of the stage. I was a little afraid it would foreshorten the field of depth. Not so.
The effects only apply to higher frequencies. The cellos and basses are not affected.
The three pianos also are a little more well defined, but a funny thing is , that the lightness of the leftmost piano is not as pronounced as without the filter.
Just for the record, distinction between the three pianos is not easy, and only there when the play in their upper register, as it is only here, they are directive enough.
The lightness is still there though @4:50 the leftmost plays alone and shortly after the two others join. Here the lightness of the left piano is most pronounced to my ears.
I am looking foreward to investigate this interesting filter in more depth and with a lot of other music, but for now, it is a winner.
Thanks for sharing Fluid and wesayso