HOLMImpulse: Measuring Frequency & Impulse Response

Jump to Latest
Pano

Pano

Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
DcibeL said:
What parts of Holm can you not achieve with REW or ARTA?
Click to expand...
For me there are several things that HOLM does better than REW.
  1. Sound cards. HOLM is better than any measurement software I've ever used at dealing with sound cards. REW seems very clunky in that regard.
  2. Timing. HOLM needs no second channel or acoustic markers to measure time. It is very accurate and repeatable at measuring time offsets. The time lock feature is extremely useful and easy. This might be related to point #1
  3. Phase. Because of the difficulties in timing, I've never gotten a useful phase measurement from REW. In HOLM, it's just there and makes sense. This is probably related to point #2
  4. Measurement import. HOLM can compare any two files and show the FR difference. Unlike REW that needs a very specific format of sweep and even then often refuses to import even it's own sweeps. HOLM does care as long as the files are at the same sample rate. You can compare two sweeps, a sweep and an impulse, an impulse and a sound or even two songs. It's a handy feature.
  5. Impulses. It is called HOLM Impulse for a reason. :) The way HOLM handles impulses feels more solid and useful than other softwares.
That said, REW has made very important improvements over the years, and gets better all the time. But its funky need of a specific timing reference is still a big handicap IME. That's the main part of HOLM that REW could do well to adopt. I used to use ARTA quite a bit, but haven't in years so am not up to date on it. I liked it a lot, but would normally turn to HOLM for routine work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom