After getting a reasonable result with the above I want to play with correcting phase with digital room correction.
Anny helpful suggestions? I don't know when I'll be able to make the measurements. I live at a busy street and there's lots of noise during the day. But at night time I have my family to consider. Low tones do make it trough the whole house. Still the evenings seem like the better solution as there's a lot lower noise level. I wish I had a basement to play with like Halair.
AUDIOLENSE, AUDIOLENSE and AUDIOLENSE
Wesayso - regarding damping of the front wall there are many simple DIY solutions out there with high WAF-factor. Think printed fabric covering Rockwool on a frame. You can choose your own image etc.
In my room I have on the front wall an area equal 7pcs of 3" thick Rockwool 120x60cm, suspended out from the wall 1" (4"/100mm total depth). You dont have to go that deep, even a decent absorber of 1-2" can do much in the higher frequencies.
The room (20sqm) have a total of 16 btw)
In my room I have on the front wall an area equal 7pcs of 3" thick Rockwool 120x60cm, suspended out from the wall 1" (4"/100mm total depth). You dont have to go that deep, even a decent absorber of 1-2" can do much in the higher frequencies.
The room (20sqm) have a total of 16 btw)
Last edited:
Is it not your boy picture hanging on the wall? Print same or similar photo over a 120x60cm frame, hung in landscape mode. It will look cool!
Totally agree with you on this and a similar plan of attack will be done here. Wife said, Oh is that all? Ok
Hmm.
Didn´t know this.
Do you know why people would change?
Better filter algoritm?
Easier to work with?
I am very satisfied with audiolense in connection with my line sources.
Koldby
Acourate has a different algorithm, though I'm sure good results can be had with both. A lot would have to do with target and measuring windows.
What do you use as measuring windows in Audiolense? The default 5/5 cycles? And do you use a single measurement or more (multi-seat option) and average? Just read some interesting posts on the Audiolense forum and it looks like a good and capable solution. Do you do both frequency correction and time correction?
Also, would the 2 channel version be adequate? I believe you run subs below your lines. Or are you using the XO version of Audiolense.
I guess I could play with the demo and correct 90 seconds of a song. The measurement tool sure seems like a good solid tool with the frequency dependent windowing. I might even be able to measure with Audiolense and import the impulse to REW to play with PEQ filters. REW doesn't have the frequency dependent time window (yet).
What do you use as measuring windows in Audiolense? The default 5/5 cycles? And do you use a single measurement or more (multi-seat option) and average? Just read some interesting posts on the Audiolense forum and it looks like a good and capable solution. Do you do both frequency correction and time correction?
Also, would the 2 channel version be adequate? I believe you run subs below your lines. Or are you using the XO version of Audiolense.
I guess I could play with the demo and correct 90 seconds of a song. The measurement tool sure seems like a good solid tool with the frequency dependent windowing. I might even be able to measure with Audiolense and import the impulse to REW to play with PEQ filters. REW doesn't have the frequency dependent time window (yet).
Is it not your boy picture hanging on the wall? Print same or similar photo over a 120x60cm frame, hung in landscape mode. It will look cool!
While it could do something good for the room it won't be at a first reflection point. That's what I meant. On the opposite wall I have a big poster I've been Eyeing to convert to a damping panel. Right now it's got a reflective acrillic glass front. It looks like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'd like to somehow recreate that on a damping panel. It's 100 x 153 cm
Not yet, but I'll see what I can do. Right now just looking for ways to soften the first reflections. Acoustic is not bad at all as with most old houses (build in 1927).
Last edited:
Found an interesting read on the Audiolense forums:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/audiolense/f3u_A2aVr70
Had been on that forum before but now that I'm close to actual measurements I looked at it again and found the above very educational.
Part 2:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/audiolense/qRRr-2gQogI
Basically it's about audio mastering engineer Bob Katz trying out JRiver and Audiolense.
I believe he moved on to Acourate (due to input problems that were solved with the separate player Acourate has). Non the less a very good read.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/audiolense/f3u_A2aVr70
Had been on that forum before but now that I'm close to actual measurements I looked at it again and found the above very educational.
Part 2:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/audiolense/qRRr-2gQogI
Basically it's about audio mastering engineer Bob Katz trying out JRiver and Audiolense.
I believe he moved on to Acourate (due to input problems that were solved with the separate player Acourate has). Non the less a very good read.
LOL!!I wish you all a ROCKING 2015!
Nice David Lee Roth imitation...
Also a very happy 2015 to all of you!
I have done excatly that in my home theatre:
Kino Fyrholm - Danish HT - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com
You can use Spoonflower to make a print of the image in the size you want on some cutton fabric.
Wishes for a brillinat 2015...
koldby
I can sympathize with anyone who has tried to wrap their head around the whole target response thing. Siegfried Linkwitz recommends a high shelf cut that corresponds to the head related transfer function while Bob Katz and bruel & kjaer recommend putting a knee in the response (albeit at different frequencies).
I think part of the problem is that what we call a "flat" response is just one which has equal energy in a bunch of equally sized frequency bands and that this may not correspond to the way we actually perceive tonal balance. REW, even when set to "remove smoothing", is still showing the frequency response after it has been smoothed or averaged into 1/48 octave bands. This is pretty different, however, than what you would see without the averaging, and I'm pretty sure it's no guarantee that a response made to look flat in this manner will actually be perceived as flat.
I have made measurements of (and subsequently generated filters for) different speakers in different rooms and the results of the system corrected with a typical "flat" target always look messy when viewed in a spectrum analyzer (Voxengo Span) without band averaging; they appear ragged and with somewhat of an elevated response in the upper midrange/treble. I used to define my target response file with a downward tilt so that the unsmoothed response looked better, and that seemed to improve the sound with most recordings as well. Apparently, our brains do something like connecting the peaks in the frequency response as well as weighing the average level of the frequency bands.
Now I just rely on the (optional) pyschoacoustic target response stage included in the newer versions of Sbragion's DRC. It does a much better job of creating a filter with perceived neutrality. The corrected system response won't look extremely flat in REW, but actually looks well behaved when viewed (without averaging) with a spectrum analyzer. Sure, bright recordings (Van Halen) still sound too bright, but everything is listenable and the best recordings sound stellar.
As far as time domain windowing in DRC goes, this is the main difference between the standard configuration files and it's really the only thing that needs to be considered since all the other parameters are basically optimized already. I prefer the "ERB" configuration file in which the windowing curve is based on psychoacoustics. It's not a tremendous amount of correction from a technical standpoint yet it's very effective and the sound remains "lively" without any "sweetspot" worries.
Thanks for the reply gmad...
Glad you responded here as I'd hate to clutter up the Hypercube thread any further with Line Array nonsense.
One of my worries with DRC-fir is how to get it to cut the midrange (lots of energy in the ~155 Hz and boost the low end and top end. It needs a lot of EQ to resemble something "looking" flat. Would I have to use a target that is configured/ aimed at lower SPL to get the midrange down or do I need to look into the variables that define the average SPL.
My current EQ curve is based on the published EQ curve of the line arrays from member OPC (link):
It clearly shows what I mean. Excessive energy available in the 155 Hz area and cut there with about 9 to 10 dB. But a 15 dB boost at 20 Hz ( I have max boost, almost 14 dB, at 30 Hz right now and cut off like a HPF below that). I believe the standard parameters in DRC calculate average SPL in the 100 to 10000 Hz? That would not give a good number in my case. I need to get the target (whatever the target might be, that's not the main thing yet) to slice the graph somewhere between 70-80 Hz and 5 KHz. Cutting the middle and boosting both other ends. In Audiolense one can move the target visually over the measured response. Not sure how to do that with DRC. The raw line array is a very different animal from normal speakers before EQ.
Glad you responded here as I'd hate to clutter up the Hypercube thread any further with Line Array nonsense
.One of my worries with DRC-fir is how to get it to cut the midrange (lots of energy in the ~155 Hz and boost the low end and top end. It needs a lot of EQ to resemble something "looking" flat. Would I have to use a target that is configured/ aimed at lower SPL to get the midrange down or do I need to look into the variables that define the average SPL.
My current EQ curve is based on the published EQ curve of the line arrays from member OPC (link):
It clearly shows what I mean. Excessive energy available in the 155 Hz area and cut there with about 9 to 10 dB. But a 15 dB boost at 20 Hz ( I have max boost, almost 14 dB, at 30 Hz right now and cut off like a HPF below that). I believe the standard parameters in DRC calculate average SPL in the 100 to 10000 Hz? That would not give a good number in my case. I need to get the target (whatever the target might be, that's not the main thing yet) to slice the graph somewhere between 70-80 Hz and 5 KHz. Cutting the middle and boosting both other ends. In Audiolense one can move the target visually over the measured response. Not sure how to do that with DRC. The raw line array is a very different animal from normal speakers before EQ.
Last edited:
With Sbragion's DRC, there is no need to worry about any of that - the filter will boost and cut whatever frequencies it needs to. If you want a response that measures flat in the typical way, bypass the psychoacoustic target stage, and if you want a response that sounds flat, leave it engaged.
The peak limiting start and end frequencies in the DRC config files are 100 and 10000 by default and I think for your system you could change those to 64 and 8192 (they're supposed to be about an octave short of the low and high freq limits of the system).
The real issue for you is the sheer amount of eq boost/cut that needs to be performed. You could do it all with DRC by cranking up the peak limiting max gain to its highest value of 4. The drawback here is that you will be sacrificing 4 bits of resolution just to level the Line Array playing field (not necessarily the end of the world). The other option would be to invest in a professional analog stereo constant-q graphic equalizer, dial in your Line Array compensation curve, and consider it to be part of the speaker system. You would be starting out with a fairly well behaved system before you even run your measurement sweeps.
The peak limiting start and end frequencies in the DRC config files are 100 and 10000 by default and I think for your system you could change those to 64 and 8192 (they're supposed to be about an octave short of the low and high freq limits of the system).
The real issue for you is the sheer amount of eq boost/cut that needs to be performed. You could do it all with DRC by cranking up the peak limiting max gain to its highest value of 4. The drawback here is that you will be sacrificing 4 bits of resolution just to level the Line Array playing field (not necessarily the end of the world). The other option would be to invest in a professional analog stereo constant-q graphic equalizer, dial in your Line Array compensation curve, and consider it to be part of the speaker system. You would be starting out with a fairly well behaved system before you even run your measurement sweeps.
That last bit of advise would be similar to what I was originally planning to do. EQ first (I'd still like to do it digitally from within JRiver or a plugin within JRiver) and then let DRC sort the rest out. If that works out I could experiment with the different curves or config's. Only need to figure out how to run the sweeps trough JRiver or do that manually with REW or Audiolense. If I have the time I'll do it both ways. I can run Audiolense in Demo and convert 90 sec of audio to get a feeling what that would sound like.
Lot's to experiment with. I'm set on measuring afterwards with filters engaged to see the differences in results anyway. It seems like a fun learning experience. I just looked into the erb config files, one of the main difference is the different frequency dependant windows. Seems short though at 20 Hz. Normal config has a 500 ms window (10 cycles) at 20 Hz comparable to the Audiolense settings Bob Katz went for, while the ERB has a very short 65 ms window at that same frequency. Hardly more than one cycle at 20 Hz.
I'd say that would result in more light handed EQ down low.
Lot's to experiment with. I'm set on measuring afterwards with filters engaged to see the differences in results anyway. It seems like a fun learning experience. I just looked into the erb config files, one of the main difference is the different frequency dependant windows. Seems short though at 20 Hz. Normal config has a 500 ms window (10 cycles) at 20 Hz comparable to the Audiolense settings Bob Katz went for, while the ERB has a very short 65 ms window at that same frequency. Hardly more than one cycle at 20 Hz.
I'd say that would result in more light handed EQ down low.