I've got to quote myself here, pretty pleased with seeing the results of the APL TDA measuring software on my home brew correction. Mr. Raimonds Skuruls encouraged me to try a demo of his high resolution measuring software. It would show more resolution than REW's wavelet view.

So I decided to take up that challenge (as it felt as a challenge for me, I did try and find my own way to audio nirvana, his software could prove me wrong)

So I decided to take up that challenge (as it felt as a challenge for me, I did try and find my own way to audio nirvana, his software could prove me wrong)

Source of post: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/284916-room-correction-speaker-correction-what-can-we-do-dsp-power-now-availabl-2.html#post4579120So I decided to take the plunge. I was a bit scared at first. What if this software would prove my DSP processing to be wrong. Anyway, I decided I could learn a thing or two just by trying it.

I started as usual, outlining my microphone in REW, making sure my mic is in the sweetspot.

The resulting Wavelet graph in REW:

Next I moved on to the demo version of APL. Installed the required software, including the Matlab compiler and ran a few tests.

At fist I did get odd results at 96000. So I decided to try 48000. My difficulty was getting APL to run trough JRiver's processing. Not the fault of the APL software, just needed to find out how to get it to work. If you look at the uncorrected graph, I was seeing a lot of that. Until I found the right key to get it to run trough JRiver's correction.

Once I got there, confirming the audio route visually in JRiver I got these screen grabs:

And in 2D view:

Mr. Raimonds Skuruls, would you say this is a reasonable result, now viewed in higher resolution?

I did already say I recognised much of my own priorities in your paper. A way of looking at this audio problem, actually. I enjoyed reading the discussion you had with Toole. I recognised a lot of it in my own rationale, where I differed from Toole's opinion. At least what he did make public in his paper.

I just used different software to get this, the stuff I had available to get me there. To me it does look like it works either way. As it should!

Even the listening impressions you quoted from a client(*) did sound very familiar . So I figured I should be alright running the Demo. Now you can see the minimum phase behaviour I spoke of at the low end. More pleasing than linear phase down to DC.

To show what my result is without my FIR correction:

I keep claiming on this forum this stuff really works, I hope more people do try it.

(*) = on the Prosound website

Fun Demo! Thanks for the opportunity. Basically it seems we agree on a lot of grounds. At least I like to think that. It took me the bigger part of this your to get this. Using a lot of my time to find what works and what doesn't. Spitting trough all graphs in REW to find my answers and using DRC-FIR outside of it's intended scope. The better the measurements became, the more pleasing sound I got. With all genre's I listened to.

No brute force correction that only works at a single position. I'm using short frequency dependant windows (as short as I could get away with) to do the correction.

Disclaimer: All measurements were made in a "live" living room at the listening position. What I show here is a Stereo measurement of my corrected line arrays in my room. Corrected with REW, DRC-FIR and JRiver and a lot of work!

Last edited: