I very often read this and other forums but rarely do I chime in on a topic. Nevertheless, I do have ears, and Acourate is the first system I have EVER encountered (in over 40 years of working with corrected and non-corrected audio systems) which corrects without requiring any further intervention on my part! That's a pretty remarkable endorsement. Do you think that some parameters of complex smoothing could be set by the user and saved as a preset if desired? I do grant that at some point it becomes a completely subjective discussion. Regardless of whether you agree with Uli Brueggemann's particular "psychoacoustic" settings, from my point of view it would be nice to be able to set the parameters of REW's smoothing display so that it would be closer in display to Acourate's choices, if that is desired. I think that the irregularities of the direct response of a tweeter without room reflection issues are audible and of concern. Further investigation is needed, because this is of an impulse-corrected loudspeaker running through a convolver, so it has been considerably "smoothed" before REW could even measure it.Ĭlick to expand.is much too "aggressive" (compared to the perception) below 100 Hz and so needs some smoothing and much too smooth above 1 kHz, does not show as much detail as the ear perceives. 1/6 octave appears to be closer to Acourate's psychoacoustic measurement. The second is REW's display of the same information, variable window. I windowed it very very wide, so none of the actual information was cut off. ![]() First I then had to do a cut n' window because the impulse was far too long for Acourate to display a frequency response. I exported a 2448 impulse from REW, loaded it into Acourate. The first is an image of Acourate's psychoacoustic amplitude response display, using 15 samples at 1 kHz for the variable window. Attached are three images, all of the post-corrected front left speaker, corrected by Acourate. I'm using a 500 ms right hand Hann window in REW. ![]() So I tried the new variable smoothing and my conclusions are (based on listening and visual comparison), that variable smoothing is not smoothed enough below 1 kHz, and oversmoothed above 1 kHz. ![]() If you start with a 500 ms window but you smooth the result is that the same or effectively the same as using a 1 ms window? I don't think so, but I don't have the math to say for sure. ![]() You might ask "so why are you continuing to use Room EQ Wizard?" The answers are simply: To cross check, and because REW offers a more effective distortion measurement, wonderful waterfall displays and is far easier to use than Acourate!Īlso, I really don't know enough about the differences between smoothing and windowing to say with assurance that variable smoothing is a compromise, but it seems that way to me because the ear responds to the direct sound of the loudspeaker above the room's nominal Schroeder frequency and at 20 kHz Jim Johnston says to use a very short window, near 1 ms if possible. My standard of excellence for sonic performance and psychoacoustic accuracy continues to be Acourate and Acourate Convolver. Click to expand.I took a good look at the variable smoothing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |