Obviously DRC gurus and freaks will disagree, but imho, question is that you cannot trust any in room measurements, because what you see on the curve ( both amplitude and phase) simply is not what you hear, and the awfull garbagge collected by the mike at the listenning position is in great part simply ignored by our auditory system, making any correction at best redundant.
Local corrections on the other hand do make sense, like room modes smoothing, same for very smooth corrections (1/3 oct and less) of the power response related to boundary effects, or very detailed corrections of drivers resonances, etc.., all these being classical minimal phase ones. But detailed amplitude or phase corrections related to room reflections issues is total nonsense.
in a word though local corrections of well identified problems do make sense, global approaches based on macro guided room response inversion process ( DRC,Dirac, etc...) is only snake oil for the geek hearted audiophiles...
Btw, Rephase is an exception among these tools as it allows local corrections and does not require a global inversion process: You apply the eqs you consider necessary, and only these, and at your own risks. Though obviously, i don't like the name Rephase, because it tends to suggest that Phase matters more than amplitude. Which obviously is wrong, though terribly fashionnable and geek friendly...
Local corrections on the other hand do make sense, like room modes smoothing, same for very smooth corrections (1/3 oct and less) of the power response related to boundary effects, or very detailed corrections of drivers resonances, etc.., all these being classical minimal phase ones. But detailed amplitude or phase corrections related to room reflections issues is total nonsense.
in a word though local corrections of well identified problems do make sense, global approaches based on macro guided room response inversion process ( DRC,Dirac, etc...) is only snake oil for the geek hearted audiophiles...
Btw, Rephase is an exception among these tools as it allows local corrections and does not require a global inversion process: You apply the eqs you consider necessary, and only these, and at your own risks. Though obviously, i don't like the name Rephase, because it tends to suggest that Phase matters more than amplitude. Which obviously is wrong, though terribly fashionnable and geek friendly...
Last edited:
This statement is very reasonable to me, and I do DSP correction. Automatic room correction blindly done can be harm, and linear phase EQ causes pre-echo, of course.
In my experience, correction should be done manually, based on the speaker response in anechoic chamber. I don't think one can make bad sounding room good with DSP. Only reasonably flat RT60 room is worth correcting with DSP. Overuse of the linear phase is also bad, IME. Room correction has a lot to learn, and I'm still learning...
Obviously DRC gurus and freaks will disagree, but imho, question is that you cannot trust any in room measurements, because what you see on the curve ( both amplitude and phase) simply is not what you hear, and the awfull garbagge collected by the mike at the listenning position is in great part simply ignored by our auditory system, making any correction at best redundant.
Local corrections on the other hand do make sense, like room modes smoothing, same for very smooth corrections (1/3 oct and less) of the power response related to boundary effects, or very detailed corrections of drivers resonances, etc.., all these being classical minimal phase ones. But detailed amplitude or phase corrections related to room reflections issues is total nonsense.
in a word though local corrections of well identified problems do make sense, global approaches based on macro guided room response inversion process ( DRC,Dirac, etc...) is only snake oil for the geek hearted audiophiles...
Btw, Rephase is an exception among these tools as it allows local corrections and does not require a global inversion process: You apply the eqs you consider necessary, and only these, and at your own risks. Though obviously, i don't like the name Rephase, because it tends to suggest that Phase matters more than amplitude. Which obviously is wrong, though terribly fashionnable and geek friendly...
Now why would you lump DRC-FIR along with something like Dirac...
With DRC-FIR you can make all the choices of what's corrected, how it is corrected and what is left alone by the user. The many variables available let you do that without having to worry about over correction or even pré ringing. If you know or are willing to learn where to look.
DRC-FIR isn't a push button automated system, the user has as much control as one would like to have. You don't have to linearize phase, it's an option like any other. I'd rank it up there with RePhase as a very useful tool. Of coarse as with RePhase there will be a learning curve.
I guess it will be a long long road to go before DSP gets more credit. Used with care it will be hard to beat though... For now it means you got to figure out how to use it yourself as automation of these steps usually still leads to disappointment.
I am a bit twisted against the Digital Room Correction concept. Sounds overpromising to me, like hair grow helps... And same for Rephase, as a name or selling proposal ( though it's free)...
I personnally use Acourate i consider a fantastic toolbox for fir tweaking eqs or xovers, though people normally use it for automated o semi automated DRC. I have little interest for this use though.
As for Dirac, if at least it could be used as an humble eq toolbox...
Last edited:
You do know that Dr. Uli Brueggemann was quite an active participant when Dr. Denis Sbragion created DRC-FIR right?
You don't have to use it as a room correction tool. For that part I'd rather use plain simple damping panels etc. (lol). I use it mainly to correct my speakers. And yes... a little room correction at lower frequencies, but that part is mostly done by myself using PEQ's.
As with everything, the results highly depend on how you use the tools.
You don't have to use it as a room correction tool. For that part I'd rather use plain simple damping panels etc. (lol). I use it mainly to correct my speakers. And yes... a little room correction at lower frequencies, but that part is mostly done by myself using PEQ's.
As with everything, the results highly depend on how you use the tools.
+1 Wesayso
I will assume they were attempting to make things sound better purely with software though. They don't say is "Don't EQ" but rather, don't "EQ AND re-phase."
But it sounds as if they rehashed old knowledge. I don't have PowerPoint so I'm afraid the details of the presentation will remain obscured to me. I wonder if they realize how much pre-ringing a basic speaker crossover introduces? Hahaha.
By the way, with bass traps you CAN equalize the nulls.
Best,
Erik
I will assume they were attempting to make things sound better purely with software though. They don't say is "Don't EQ" but rather, don't "EQ AND re-phase."
But it sounds as if they rehashed old knowledge. I don't have PowerPoint so I'm afraid the details of the presentation will remain obscured to me. I wonder if they realize how much pre-ringing a basic speaker crossover introduces? Hahaha.
By the way, with bass traps you CAN equalize the nulls.
Best,
Erik
Regarding phase corrections, i also think that importance of pre echo is widely overated too. Correcting the group delay of a cabinet ( ala M.Gerzon) sounds good to me, giving better bass, though is also generates pre echo which i personnaly never noticed. Or maybe it's a sound effect i like...
The first versions of rephase were dedicated to phase linearization only, hence the name. It then slowly evolved into a more generic FIR tool, with EQs, filters, yada yada, but the name remained. I would not see the point in changing it now (or then).
It is certainly not intended to be a fashionable gimmick
The first versions of rephase were dedicated to phase linearization only, hence the name. It then slowly evolved into a more generic FIR tool, with EQs, filters, yada yada, but the name remained. I would not see the point in changing it now (or then).
It is certainly not intended to be a fashionable gimmick
No problem, i admit my own interest regarding phase eq led me to Rephase, Acourate, and any Fir filtering tool in general. Probably, like many, have been under the influence of readings like JMLC powerpoints about the importance of phase distorsion, quasioptimum filterering, dolby lake fir linear phase processors, etc...In a word because i have been a linear phase freak...
Last edited:
GDO - The Meridian Quality Authenticated standard that some DAC manufacturers are beginning to implement. The raison de etre (sorry for the spelling) of that is to correct pre-ringing, post-ringing, mid-ringing, phase shifts and dispepsia.
Best,
Erik
Ok, i suspected about Meridian but was unsure about you were alluding to this, because my post was strictly about group delay eq of a bass cabinet...
Bit perfect and perfect step reproduction. Buff, to step, i spet, spat...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.