Hello,
If you plan to use Foobar, you need convolverVst and have to create a txt configuration file for the 2x4 ways:
ConvolverVST
and Yegor Petrov's dll "foo-vst" to integrate convolverVST inside foobar dsp path
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=84947
cdt
I wasnt able to locate the exact post, so pardon me for repeating it.
Here are some steps Pos had recommended earlier in the thread. Worked pretty well for me, but there are always more measurements and experimentation that can continue.
From Pos:
"On the other hand linear-phase crossovers are much easier to deal with.
In fact even if you want to end up with a minium-phase crossover it is easier to do it linear-phase and then reintroduce the phase shifts (for example the HP of your system, down low, for which some feel phase linearisation introduces audible problems...).
So here is how you can do it (among many other possible scenarios) :
- For each driver (with several measurement per driver, as discussed above), use minium-phase EQ to get the amplitude reasonably flat within the pass band (the more you can trust your measurement(s), the more precise you can go, hence the reasonably)
- Use the "compensate" mode in the minimum-phase filters tab to flatten the natural high-pass and low-pass of your driver by trial and error (you need a measurement with a low noise floor, as it will quickly realize when playing with that feature...).
- at that point you should have a linear amplitude and phase (in the pass band and around, depending on your noise floor). If you don't then adjust your "compensate" settings, and also play with the "time offset" option in the measurement tab. You should not have to use phase EQ.
- Do not operate your driver with this kind of correction of course: this is only a temporary state!
- Apply the desired linear-phase high-pass and low-pass filters, and make sure you do not exceed the capabilities of the driver (excursion down low, breakups up high, directivity, etc.).
- Check the correction curve with the measurement bypassed to make sure it does not get too high in amplitude (for example if the target high-pass filter is much lower or with a shallower slope than the natural one...).
- For good measure, use the main volume attenuator in the "general" tab and make sure your correction does not exceed 0dB (amplitude offsets will have to be dealt with at some other place, for example in the crossover engine or in the amplifier...).
- Always use complementary slopes for your crossed-over drivers (ie LR of identical slopes on both sides, "reject high" on both sides, "reject low" on both sides, etc.). Try to avoid brickwall filters as these will add additional constraints for complementarity (same number of taps, etc.). If you need steep slopes you will be better off with high order LR "shapes".
When generating the impulse, if you do not have constraints on the number of taps (which should be the case if you are using jriver on a descent computer) you should use the "middle" centering option, and a large number of taps (64k should be more than enough for any realistic situation). With that many taps you can use a gentle windowing algorithm such as Hann, Blackman or Nuttall, without loosing much precision or steepness. You can also handle the delays inside rephase, directly specified as distances, eg "middle+3cm" to compensate for your driver's geometrical offsets (you can check that afterward with the "inverse polarity" method, seeking for the deepest null at the crossover point)
Once each driver is EQed and filtered that way you can add them together in your convolution engine.
I think Jriver will require a different set of impulses for each sampling frequency it might have to handle...
"
Here are some steps Pos had recommended earlier in the thread. Worked pretty well for me, but there are always more measurements and experimentation that can continue.
From Pos:
"On the other hand linear-phase crossovers are much easier to deal with.
In fact even if you want to end up with a minium-phase crossover it is easier to do it linear-phase and then reintroduce the phase shifts (for example the HP of your system, down low, for which some feel phase linearisation introduces audible problems...).
So here is how you can do it (among many other possible scenarios) :
- For each driver (with several measurement per driver, as discussed above), use minium-phase EQ to get the amplitude reasonably flat within the pass band (the more you can trust your measurement(s), the more precise you can go, hence the reasonably)
- Use the "compensate" mode in the minimum-phase filters tab to flatten the natural high-pass and low-pass of your driver by trial and error (you need a measurement with a low noise floor, as it will quickly realize when playing with that feature...).
- at that point you should have a linear amplitude and phase (in the pass band and around, depending on your noise floor). If you don't then adjust your "compensate" settings, and also play with the "time offset" option in the measurement tab. You should not have to use phase EQ.
- Do not operate your driver with this kind of correction of course: this is only a temporary state!
- Apply the desired linear-phase high-pass and low-pass filters, and make sure you do not exceed the capabilities of the driver (excursion down low, breakups up high, directivity, etc.).
- Check the correction curve with the measurement bypassed to make sure it does not get too high in amplitude (for example if the target high-pass filter is much lower or with a shallower slope than the natural one...).
- For good measure, use the main volume attenuator in the "general" tab and make sure your correction does not exceed 0dB (amplitude offsets will have to be dealt with at some other place, for example in the crossover engine or in the amplifier...).
- Always use complementary slopes for your crossed-over drivers (ie LR of identical slopes on both sides, "reject high" on both sides, "reject low" on both sides, etc.). Try to avoid brickwall filters as these will add additional constraints for complementarity (same number of taps, etc.). If you need steep slopes you will be better off with high order LR "shapes".
When generating the impulse, if you do not have constraints on the number of taps (which should be the case if you are using jriver on a descent computer) you should use the "middle" centering option, and a large number of taps (64k should be more than enough for any realistic situation). With that many taps you can use a gentle windowing algorithm such as Hann, Blackman or Nuttall, without loosing much precision or steepness. You can also handle the delays inside rephase, directly specified as distances, eg "middle+3cm" to compensate for your driver's geometrical offsets (you can check that afterward with the "inverse polarity" method, seeking for the deepest null at the crossover point)
Once each driver is EQed and filtered that way you can add them together in your convolution engine.
I think Jriver will require a different set of impulses for each sampling frequency it might have to handle...
"
Hi folks.
I would like to build a rather automated RR measuring and filter generation process on my RPI installation using an UMIK-1 incl. mike correction .
I'd like to run the entire process from commandline (script) as much as possible.
I'm wondering if the post-processing and filter generation can be done from commandline (script) with re-phase. (I think with DRC, which is a complete different story, it could be done)
On the Logitechmediaserver brutefir would be running as convolver. The filters would be copied over there.
Has anybody done something like that? Any hints are appreciated.
Thx
I would like to build a rather automated RR measuring and filter generation process on my RPI installation using an UMIK-1 incl. mike correction .
I'd like to run the entire process from commandline (script) as much as possible.
I'm wondering if the post-processing and filter generation can be done from commandline (script) with re-phase. (I think with DRC, which is a complete different story, it could be done)
On the Logitechmediaserver brutefir would be running as convolver. The filters would be copied over there.
Has anybody done something like that? Any hints are appreciated.
Thx
Yes of course, the Guys from Abacus have designed Aroio and with AcourateCV you can built Filters, all running on 96khz...
rePhase is not the Software, that will do this things for you.
That's exactly the approach I'm looking for.
Thx for pointing me there.But.
I would like to do it on my own. And I don't want to use commercial software such as Accourate. Nor I want to use other images than mine or e.g PicorePlayer or Moode.
If possible I'd like to use RePhase just for generating the filters.
Basically I
1. need to record the sweep incl. mic calibration
2. process the sweep
3. generate the filters with Re-Phase - headless
4. distribute and activate the filters on LMS
and all that by pushing a single button on the PI.
I could think of preparing certain filter profiles (e.g. weak, balanced, aggressive) with RePhase beforehand. This probably won't get me perfect results. But things might get better a little. There are several commercial devices out there doing it this way.
rephase would have to supply certain commandline options to run it headless.
A commandline could e.g. look like this:
rephase -p "weak" -r "recording441.wav" -fr "filter441r.wav" -fl filter41l.wav
(-p = profile)
Is something like that thinkable?
Thx
Are you trying to automatically generate correction settings for a given measurement?
If that is what you are looking for then rephase is not the right tool.
It could be possible to add command line option to generate a FIR from a given settings file, but the interest would be quite limited I guess.
If that is what you are looking for then rephase is not the right tool.
It could be possible to add command line option to generate a FIR from a given settings file, but the interest would be quite limited I guess.
No.
Yep that's what I'm thinking of. I'd have to store and use different settings-files for different grades of filters beforehand. You might call these settings macros.
If I recall it correctly Accourate also introduced macros a while ago to ease up the process.
Speaking for myself.
The interest is quite limited because the stuff is just too complex. And everytime you change anything in the room or system you have to redo all this.
People use these correction filters without any hesitation if rather automated processes are in place on e.g. AV receivers/processors.
I do also think Abacus is going into that direction (And I guess Uli Brueggeman realized to sell much more licenses ( stripped down ) this way).
The simpler things get the more people will use it.
If then something that easy - and hopefully still benefitial - would be integrated into a widely spread distro like Moode Audio or similar, interest might even grow.
Cheers
Last edited:
To get a feeling what rePhase does, i think you should create a Filter by yourself.
rePhase does not have *any* automated Processes, that is why it is so interesting to get a cooperation with REW (@POS BTW is there any Work in Progress? if you are looking for Testers....)
For your needs complete Commandline Tools like DRC or PORC will be more suitable, at least because they are available at the Moment.
For PORC take a look at MINIDSP and be aware to use the latest Fork. Earlier Forks did not process the Target Curves.
(Be aware that the Result is depending on the Measurement (the processed WAV. File), in case the Level of your Measurement is too low, the Results in PORC and DRC are like "singing in a Bathroom". )
Regards
rePhase does not have *any* automated Processes, that is why it is so interesting to get a cooperation with REW (@POS BTW is there any Work in Progress?
if you are looking for Testers....)For your needs complete Commandline Tools like DRC or PORC will be more suitable, at least because they are available at the Moment.
For PORC take a look at MINIDSP and be aware to use the latest Fork. Earlier Forks did not process the Target Curves.
(Be aware that the Result is depending on the Measurement (the processed WAV. File), in case the Level of your Measurement is too low, the Results in PORC and DRC are like "singing in a Bathroom"
. )Regards
Last edited:
I see. The wrong tool for my purpose.
Thx for letting me know.
I looked at DRC some time back. I wasn't really happy with the final results I achieved and let it go. It also seems there hasn't been any update/evolution in 4 years.
The process was pretty straight forward and "headless" though.
Not sure why REW is needed. For sure things won't become easier with REW.
Anyhow. Thx for the feedback.
Thx for letting me know.
I looked at DRC some time back. I wasn't really happy with the final results I achieved and let it go. It also seems there hasn't been any update/evolution in 4 years.
The process was pretty straight forward and "headless" though.
Not sure why REW is needed. For sure things won't become easier with REW.
Anyhow. Thx for the feedback.
Hi,
Ultimate Equalizer ( Bodzio Software ) has all processes automated - for EQ, it uses Hilbert-Bode Transform.
You do not need any other software to complete the whole task you are trying to accomplish.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
Hi SwissBear,
It is implemented and seems to work (has been since the day the REW beta was released), but at first I was waiting for some feedback from John (copy/paste functionality), and then I also wanted to add some more features along the way.
I did not had time to add them, so I should probably just release the current version as is when time permits...
It is implemented and seems to work (has been since the day the REW beta was released), but at first I was waiting for some feedback from John (copy/paste functionality), and then I also wanted to add some more features along the way.
I did not had time to add them, so I should probably just release the current version as is when time permits...
Hi John,
No problem, I was not clear enough: I wanted to say that at first I was considering pushing a new release right off the bat, but then I considered other options and got sidetracked, and then I got to work on other things, and then...
See, that's even less clear now
Damn language barrier...
Thank you for implementing this export functionality in REW, this is much appreciated. I am sure many users will find it useful!
No problem, I was not clear enough: I wanted to say that at first I was considering pushing a new release right off the bat, but then I considered other options and got sidetracked, and then I got to work on other things, and then...
See, that's even less clear now
Damn language barrier...
Thank you for implementing this export functionality in REW, this is much appreciated. I am sure many users will find it useful!
I'm having problems using Rephase with the new miniDSP HD.
So I run a measurement of the driver, no crossover. Then I go to rephase to flatten the response and phase and introduce a LR8 lowpass at 1000Hz. I'm happy with the calculated curve so load the filter into miniDSP and run a measurement, results above. The preview look in the miniDSP software looks like the measurement, not like the calculated curve in Rephase.
I tried changing the number of taps and tried LR4 and other types of crossover. I ask for 1K and get around 2K. Any idea what is causing this?
So I run a measurement of the driver, no crossover. Then I go to rephase to flatten the response and phase and introduce a LR8 lowpass at 1000Hz. I'm happy with the calculated curve so load the filter into miniDSP and run a measurement, results above. The preview look in the miniDSP software looks like the measurement, not like the calculated curve in Rephase.
I tried changing the number of taps and tried LR4 and other types of crossover. I ask for 1K and get around 2K. Any idea what is causing this?