Look for VituixCAD measurement manual. If you perform messurements and convert impulse responses into frequency responses keeping the windowing same between all files, like the manual suggests, the timing info is preserved in the data and you dont need to fiddle with acoustic offsets and related issues, they are already included in the data.
Perhaps you knew this, still wanted to make the remark for future readers.
And yeah, DSP has far more positives for sound quality than negatives, even counting in cost of extra amplification and cabling, especially with great tools like VituixCAD where its immediately obvious what can be EQd and what not
ps. your listening window response looks ragged for tweeter part, I suggest to compromise the on axis response and find nice of axis response instead (5-20deg), eq for smoother listening window and power response for better sound. On-axis contains all acoustic issues of the construct and is not good candidate for optimization, unless acoustic issues are taken care of. Or perhaps you already have.
Perhaps you knew this, still wanted to make the remark for future readers.
And yeah, DSP has far more positives for sound quality than negatives, even counting in cost of extra amplification and cabling, especially with great tools like VituixCAD where its immediately obvious what can be EQd and what not
ps. your listening window response looks ragged for tweeter part, I suggest to compromise the on axis response and find nice of axis response instead (5-20deg), eq for smoother listening window and power response for better sound. On-axis contains all acoustic issues of the construct and is not good candidate for optimization, unless acoustic issues are taken care of. Or perhaps you already have.
Last edited: