Recent content by 3ll3d00d

no - see https://github.com/HEnquist/camilladsp/issues/74 there is a web ui that lets you load different configs, as far as I recall that means restarting the audio pipeline so it's never going to be zero latency. as an aside, on windows the main problem, for me at least, with camilla is that...

Assuming freeze gain wasn't selected then the relative height difference (between initial and later) could be due to a sharper/tighter initial step which is what you may get from a different phase correction. Compare the step responses to see if that is the case.

No, this is nothing to do with dynamics, it's just the strength of the overall impulse at different point in time. Were these two measurements taken with the "freeze gain" option selected? if not, they're not directly comparable to each other, only relative to the initial impulse of the same...

I would measure with both drivers active quasi anechoically and mic facing the tweeter to start with

Probably https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-have-juicy-meats-steaks-the-food-lab-the-importance-of-resting-grilling is the reference to Kenji mentioned in the video, this comes to the opposite conclusion. It's pretty unconvincing tbh given the way he hand waves away the confounding articles by...

I think you're missing my point speaker/driver correction requires a measurement of the speaker itself which, for most people and most speakers, means some form of quasi anechoic measurement. Quasi anechoic measurements are taken by capturing the speaker with as long a reflection free zone as...

I don't think it seems like overthinking it, more like conflating different concerns. I'll leave the HRTF part to one side as I have no idea about that aspect. The other part (furniture etc position) seems to go back to what are you trying to correct? if you think that the point of higher...

If you were correcting for HRTF (I don't) then shouldn't it be treated as per linearisation given that your head doesn't change with the room? Moving furniture seems to me to be just another step towards approximating a quasi anechoic measurement without actually taking one.

it is what I was referring to, there's no difference at all. You can calculate them offline, load them as biquad coefficients and compare the responses yourself if you want to verify it. precision down to 10Hz or so is fine on the floating point units, the old fixed point ones have significant...

Yes. Some products also support fir filters.

Given you can do all of this precisely in software, this looks like a preference for physical knobs and dials. If it's not that, what practical advantage do you think this would provide?

Given the wording of the OP, I assumed "regular peq iir" referred to "things that can be entered via the minidsp gui" which are basically the usual suspects (peaking, shelf, low/high pass of various types).

A regular filter is implemented as 1 or more biquads, it's just a user friendly/convenient way to specify a filter. Allowing you to input the biquads coefficients directly is useful because you can then specify whatever filter you like (that can be implemented using biquads)

It was commented on earlier in the thread, it's typically just a minimum phase response which is what acourate aims for itself and which helps you get that nice sharp step response (which is also what people typically look at when reviewing acourate correction results).

in audible terms, I think we're basically talking about pre echo outside or in the middle of the room should do