ASR Acourate users

[Salt]

Say "NO" Acourate. This is mammoth dung. Use Dirac

Lack of understanding some difficulties does not mean that automated solutions could be generally preferred ...

 

[landco]

Lack of understanding some difficulties does not mean that automated solutions could be generally preferred ...

As far as I know, not a single comparative blind test has been published... Dirac VS Acourate.
Therefore, all claims that Acourate has any advantage are not based on anything.

 

[AudioJester]

I have dirac ART in another system. Until pc version is released not keen on buying more hardware to run ART.
Have been an Acourate user for 10 plus years.

Just trying to see if I can use a usb dac and separate usb mic for measuring.

 

[landco]

Dirac differs from Acourate as a cooked dish differs from a semi-finished product.
In the first case, you are sold the creator's vision for high-quality sound, in the second case, you are sold... semi-finished product
No one knows, except for the creator of Acourate, how his program should work.
Unless you are ready to pay for the trip of the program owner so that he can set up your audio system for you personally.

 

[AudioJester]

Dirac differs from Acourate as a cooked dish differs from a semi-finished product.
In the first case, you are sold the creator's vision for high-quality sound, in the second case, you are sold... semi-finished product
No one knows, except for the creator of Acourate, how his program should work.
Unless you are ready to pay for the trip of the program owner so that he can set up your audio system for you personally.

Ok, you have made your point multiple times. Time to move on with life?

 

[3ll3d00d]

If you want to start a thread on "why I have an axe to grind against acourate" then you should go and do it. This isn't answering the question from the poster about a umik1 though.

 

[landco]

Ok, you have made your point multiple times. Time to move on with life?

It's just time for some people to admit that Acourate is no longer about audio, it's just a business by inertia.
The world went ahead, and Acourate stayed in 2010.

 

[stigger]

It's just time for some people to admit that Acourate is no longer about audio, it's just a business by inertia.
The world went ahead, and Acourate stayed in 2010.

I purchased Acourate a couple of months ago and am absolutely happy with it. It allows me to make exactly those experiments that I want to make, while abstracting away most of the manual busywork that's boring and prone to errors.

If Acourate is not the right tool for you personally, the tool is not at fault.

 

[Keith_W]

I was trying to output from pc via usb to Okto dac (has its own ASIO driver) and measure using a usb Umik1. Can not configure for this. Any suggestions?

Uli insists on ASIO for taking measurements, which means that the output and input have to be on the same device - i.e. you need an interface and an XLR microphone, USB microphones won't work. The reason is to avoid latency jitter caused by having ADC and DAC on separate channels which create timing errors. But there are two workarounds for this.

1. Measure the impulse response in REW. Use REW's "Estimate IR delays" function and adjust the impulse accordingly, then export it as a .WAV. Make sure you use the same sample rate as what you plan to use with Acourate. Import the .WAV into Acourate, and save it as "Pulse48L/R.dbl". Continue working as normal.

2. Use VB Audio Matrix. VB Matrix allows you to use multiple devices and aggregate them into one. It's a bit of a bother to set up - essentially you create a virtual ASIO device, and assign channels to different hardware devices. For e.g. your Okto 8 can be Channels 1-8, and your UMIK1 can be Channel 9. Keep track of your channel assignments and input them into Acourate's logsweep recorder. Make sure you check the "Add Dirac" tickbox in the logsweep recorder, which inserts a Dirac delta pulse (similar to REW's timing chirp) during recording. After that, open "logsweep_rec.WAV" and look for the Dirac pulse. Measure the timing between the Dirac pulse and the main impulse to determine the error, then rotate Pulse48L/R to match.

Disclaimer: I have never tried either of these methods. In particular, I am only guessing at how the Dirac pulse function in Acourate works. I could go and try it myself and I would really know the answer then, but i'm a bit lazy

 

[john61ct]

@landco Your repetitive bot-like comments add nothing to what the rest of us are here for. You've expressed your opinion, now please move on, and don't come back unless you have something to say that is actually helpful.

 

[UliBru]

I was trying to output from pc via usb to Okto dac (has its own ASIO driver) and measure using a usb Umik1. Can not configure for this. Any suggestions?

The Okto DAC allows a combined AES/USB operation mode. This means that the device sends a digital input signal thru USB to the connected PC and it outputs PC signals sent thru USB to the DAC. So you can use a another simple soundcard or ADC with mic preamp + phantom power and spdif/AES output and connect it to the Okto. By this solution the Okto will adapt to the ADC clock and you avoid the usual timing errors of the Umik1.

 

[dped90]

I purchased Acourate a couple of months ago and am absolutely happy with it. It allows me to make exactly those experiments that I want to make, while abstracting away most of the manual busywork that's boring and prone to errors.

You seem to be making a significant comparison between the apparent ease, efficiency and perhaps smaller learning curve of Acourate and which other software to accomplish which specific tasks? Might you be comparing it to REW?
While Amir has this wonderful thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...om-measurement-tutorial-for-dummies-part-1.4/

Surely, you can't be comparing it to DIRAC, as according to landco so much of that software is essentially automated via algorithms. Or am I wrong about DIRAC's learning curve too, as I've yet to try using any such software?

 

[Keith_W]

You seem to be making a significant comparison between the apparent ease, efficiency and perhaps smaller learning curve of Acourate and which other software to accomplish which specific tasks?

I don't think any Acourate user is going to tell you that Acourate is easier to use than automated software. I don't use it because it's easy, I use it because it's powerful and flexible. You can design any filter you can imagine. You aren't locked to any particular workflow. You can correct any system and any configuration. It's just a matter of coming up with a plan to tackle your project and whether you can take sensible measurements or not.

 

[dped90]

Compared to most here and at diyaudio.com I’m not necessarily a dummy but certainly ignorant of how to utilize this software for measuring and learning how to treat my problematic room. Dr. Earl Geddes’ assistance has been invaluable in helping me design my two-way speaker using Marcel Batik’s A450D waveguide. https://at-horns.eu/A460D.html
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-design-the-easy-way-ath4.338806/post-8218038

But if paraphrasing him accurately, Earl has cautioned that I need to remove reverb from my room and reduce its modal range events by attenuating low frequency energy. While preferring multiple subs in all cases (I have four) to achieve smooth bass response, Earl said that bass traps are often useless to achieve the LF damping that rooms like mine need. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/search/2597305/?q=bass+traps&c[users]=gedlee&o=date

Heavy (e.g. royale velour) pleated draping-and placed 3 to 4” from the wall is prescribed.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/problem-with-bass-in-basement-room.270311/post-4237356

But doing so in my barely larger than average living room here on obscenely overpopulated Long Island would be highly impractical, even hazardous. While likely frowned on here as it is at diyaudio.com, when I searched [ Difference between DIRAC ART and live] AND found this https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=150042.0 and searched [ what is a soffit bass traps ] ,it looks like ART, combined with this specific kind of bass trap and might provide sufficient LF damping.

But even if so, are there any downsides to this approach?

 

[john61ct]

Noob understanding here, but for just measuring to tweak physical room treatments, no need to climb the steep Acourate learning curve, REW is the standard, much better documented, huge help community.

The point of Acourate is generating complex filters for active Digital room correction.

 

[EngineerNate]

I don’t think anyone else short of Trinnov is doing something comparable to ART right now, but you also can’t design an active crossover in Dirac and that’s very straightforward in Acourate. Different tools for different purposes.

 

[stigger]

You seem to be making a significant comparison between the apparent ease, efficiency and perhaps smaller learning curve of Acourate and which other software to accomplish which specific tasks? Might you be comparing it to REW?
While Amir has this wonderful thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...om-measurement-tutorial-for-dummies-part-1.4/

Surely, you can't be comparing it to DIRAC, as according to landco so much of that software is essentially automated via algorithms. Or am I wrong about DIRAC's learning curve too, as I've yet to try using any such software?

Correct, I've learned how to use REW first. In my opinion, which tool to pick depends on how much control do you want:
- REW - full control, 100% manual operation, you can do anything, if you understand what you are doing. If you don't, you have to follow guides/tutorials
- Acourate - full control is still available, but in addition to that tasks related to crossover/room correction are automated, giving you consistently amazing results. Instead of worrying about making a mistake in the endless loop of "arithmetic" operations, you can think in terms like "I wonder how everything will sound if I move the crossover frequency from 80 Hz to 87 Hz". Doing this particular kind of experiment is much easier with Acourate than with REW.
- DIRAC - never used it, but I assume that it's fully automated and you can't control much. If you don't feel the need to have that control, then I'm sure it's a great tool for the purpose

 

[Keith_W]

Noob understanding here, but for just measuring to tweak physical room treatments, no need to climb the steep Acourate learning curve, REW is the standard, much better documented, huge help community.

The point of Acourate is generating complex filters for active Digital room correction.

It would be more accurate to say that REW is primarily a measurement tool which can be pressed into service for creating minimum-phase DSP, and Acourate is a specialized linear-phase DSP and simulation tool. Acourate is also better at designing filters for multi-driver active systems. Whilst Acourate can take measurements, its focus is more on filter design so it lacks a few of REW's features, for e.g. no spectrogram, no waterfall, no CSD, etc. But it can also take measurements that REW can't, for e.g. you can create your own test signal and use it in Acourate's loopback recorder.

If you want linear-phase with REW, you will need rePhase. Whilst it IS possible to do everything that Acourate can with REW/rePhase, it would be incredibly tedious. Let's say you have an 8 way active speaker system, and you want to generate DSP crossovers for each driver, with individual driver corrections and time alignment.

With Acourate: one step to generate crossovers. Then measure each driver, and use the driver linearisation macro (two steps for each driver). Measure all the drivers together, then do room correction (5 steps).

With REW/rePhase: generate each crossover individually (one step for each driver). Measure each driver, then export to rePhase. Generate the driver correction, then export back to REW. Now you have a problem: REW has no built-in convolver. How are you going to measure a 4-way speaker with all the drivers playing together? One option is to remeasure each driver individually with a time reference and then sum them. Or you will need another third party software. Write a .CFG file for your convolver, then load all the filters you created in rePhase. Measure the 4-way speaker, then invert over a target curve. I have lost count of how many steps this requires. Once you have your inversion, convolve the inversion with each individual filter (8 of them). Then either re-measure or convolve each filter with the measurement to check the step response for pre-ringing, once per driver.

It would take you more than a week, and that's assuming you don't make any mistakes and have to start again. Acourate is not the fastest, but I would be able to complete a project from scratch in half a day. Other options are even faster, e.g. Audiolense lets you complete the whole project from start to finish in less than an hour since even more of the process is automated. With Audiolense, you spend most of your time on the setup screen telling it what you want, then you set up your mic and walk away. When you come back, there are a few more dialog boxes, then your filters are ready.

 

[ob1]

I have dirac ART in another system. Until pc version is released not keen on buying more hardware to run ART.
Have been an Acourate user for 10 plus years.

Just trying to see if I can use a usb dac and separate usb mic for measuring.

Hi @AudioJester ,

I have been using Acourate for 6 years or so for room correction for my 2 channel set-up (passive speakers). I have always used a Umik1 and have been pleased with the results, that is after reading Mitch's books and having some guidance from Mitch and Uli, both have been very supportive.

Most of the time, the timing issues were not a problem for my application, but on some instances, I was having difficulty obtaining valid measurements.

Not so long aso, Asio4all has stopped working for me and I was almost ready to resign buying and external mic ADC, phantom power, etc. once again, Uli was very generous and helped me setup Flexasio from long time member Etienne Dechamps : https://github.com/dechamps/FlexASIO/blob/flexasio-1.10b/CONFIGURATION.md

Using Asio4all allows me to perform my measurements in Acourate, of course it does not solve the timing issues.
I am not confident I could support you, but if need be, I invite you to pm me and I will at least try to give you a hand

 

[john61ct]

Thanks again Keith

Let's say you have an 8 way active speaker system, and you want to generate DSP crossovers for each driver

To me "active speaker" means the amp is built in, handling multiple drivers per box. Are you using the term differently here?

My goal is to use passive boxen only, and they need to be very space efficient, max 1cuft.

Above bass frequencies handled by commercial 2- or 3-way units, mid-bass couplers and mono trueSubs likely DIY.

Each box powered by its own amp.

I've been planning HP/LP filters as below & between the intended FR of each of those boxen, whether just one active driver or multiple.

Should I be thinking of bi-amping or tri-amping instead? To my mind, too difficult / complex for my taste...