Understanding the state of the DSP market

[SoySalsaPicante]

If a fully uncorrected setup is a 3/10, and a, "perfectly," corrected room setup is 10/10, would not a 5/10 or 6/10, half-assed setup still be better than nothing? Just because one cannot achieve 9/10 doesn't mean a minimal effort for some improvement isn't worth it, as long as they're not making it worse than without.

Or perhaps one could say minimal effort for a 5/ or 6/10 is fine. Lots of effort for a 9/10 is also great. Tons of effort for a 4/ or 5/10 is not worth it at all, though.

Hence why I'd rather just, "press one button and be done," and be happy with my 6/10 setup than have to go get a PhD to pull off a 8/10 with lab grade equipment and software.

To the point someone else made that you only get what you put into it and don't expect more, this is the fairest approach. Don't expect miracles if you don't put in the miracle effort. But at the same time, don't throw in miracle workloads for mediocre results.

 

[Sokel]

I'm no expert.

Don't worry about that, a few are.
And even those few have different views sometimes.

I would let GLM do its thing if I were you and call it a day.

 

[Chr1]

Seems to be me that there are no real "experts" here actually.
Even those with lots of valuable and valid experience, of various DSPs are claiming to get mixed results with little consensus.

Just wish there were tbh.

 

[Keith_W]

Are in-room measurements really that difficult?

I think the answer is yes - it's difficult. If it's for DSP, then understanding what the measurement tells you, and what you can and can not correct, is important. There are two types of measurements you might want to do - quasi-anechoic loudspeaker measurements, and room response measurements of loudspeakers.

For a quasi-anechoic measurement, proper technique is vital. At some point, the wavelengths get so long that it becomes impossible to take a measurement which is uncontaminated by reflections. So you have to do what @gnarly does, take it outside, hope for good weather, etc. There are workarounds, but you have to examine your measurement carefully and make sure that what you are actually measuring is what you think you are measuring.

Room response measurements have a different aim, in this case you want to capture the response of the room. However you do not want to take an unrealistic measurement that captures only one very specific point in space which can not be repeated. So once again, we have techniques to overcome this - spatially averaged measurements, avoidance of overcorrection, and so on.

Not to mention, we have to measure at the correct volume - not so soft that the SNR is poor, and not so loud that we run into the nonlinear range of the speaker.

Room measurements for curiosity are one thing, but room measurements for DSP is another. You have to be careful about what you are measuring, know which part of your measurement can or can not be corrected, know what the limitations are, and when it is time to give up and take your speakers outside.

 

[levimax]

Are in-room measurements really that difficult?

It is easy to take measurements in-room but extremely difficult (bordering on impossible) to get useful and repeatable ones. The problem is all the reflections that the MIC picks up from anything in the room including walls, floor, ceiling, furniture, MIC boom, Mic it's self, as well as the room modes. This make it almost impossible to separate what is the room from what is the speaker. There are "tricks" you can use but they only help a little bit and it depends on the frequency.

 

[levimax]

If a fully uncorrected setup is a 3/10, and a, "perfectly," corrected room setup is 10/10, would not a 5/10 or 6/10, half-assed setup still be better than nothing? Just because one cannot achieve 9/10 doesn't mean a minimal effort for some improvement isn't worth it, as long as they're not making it worse than without.

Or perhaps one could say minimal effort for a 5/ or 6/10 is fine. Lots of effort for a 9/10 is also great. Tons of effort for a 4/ or 5/10 is not worth it at all, though.

Hence why I'd rather just, "press one button and be done," and be happy with my 6/10 setup than have to go get a PhD to pull off a 8/10 with lab grade equipment and software.

To the point someone else made that you only get what you put into it and don't expect more, this is the fairest approach. Don't expect miracles if you don't put in the miracle effort. But at the same time, don't throw in miracle workloads for mediocre results.

With semi-random measurements it is very easy to get results that are worse instead of better. People tend to think "different" is better but that is not always the case.

 

[Sokel]

It is easy to take measurements in-room but extremely difficult (bordering on impossible) to get useful and repeatable ones. The problem is all the reflections that the MIC picks up from anything in the room including walls, floor, ceiling, furniture, MIC boom, Mic it's self, as well as the room modes. This make it almost impossible to separate what is the room from what is the speaker. There are "tricks" you can use but they only help a little bit and it depends on the frequency.

To give an example about pros vs automated or DIY measurements despite protocol, gear, etc, even test signals are way different.

I didn't hear a single sweep during my room (passive) correction (I have to point that out, room, not system, no gear of mine were inside, just a designated area) .

What I heard was bursts and what I found out later is a "Maximum Length Sequence" (MLS) stimulus signal (and I'm not even entirely sure about it as I remember it by heart, it was clearly a two tone signal though) .If they did sweeps I was not there to hear them.

Now, I don't mean sweeps are useless, not by all means. I just want to point out that even the right signals are tools, I'm sure sweeps are too (I use them at my silly measurements after all) and useful data can be obtained. To what extend, I don't know.

 

[Robocop]

I've been playing with REW and minidsp Flex for three years. Have to say this is no easy task. But for the technically able with time on your hands its an interesting road.

One of the biggest problems is learning how to use it. I've spent many hours watched countless videos and read the manuals. There is no one source still, that gives it all to you. ASR and Keith has been very useful after spending many hours trolling threads.

The current video by Martijn of Dutch and Dutch is very good even though its aimed at 8c users and doesn't include subs. Clear and concise.

Personally if you want the best results Acourate is very good, Keith is right on this score. If you don't have time then pay someone to process it. All you do is take measurements. Mitch in Canada is your man although others may be good unknown to me. Perhaps Keith could also take up this role online even with REW.

 

[gnarly]

Seems to be me that there are no real "experts" here actually.
Even those with lots of valuable and valid experience, of various DSPs are claiming to get mixed results with little consensus.

Just wish there were tbh.

i wish there were more experts participating too.
For me, the experts are the authors of the various measurement programs. And the guys in the field actually using them in many varied circumstances.

I've attended quite a few classes held by such experts........and well...... they get mixed results too, and with disagreement on best practices too.
Just the reality of it for now...

 

[gnarly]

What I heard was bursts and what I found out later is a "Maximum Length Sequence" (MLS) stimulus signal (and I'm not even entirely sure about it as I remember it by heart, it was clearly a two tone signal though) .If they did sweeps I was not there to hear them.

Yes....good example.

I've been taught IF the stimulus signal comes from a linear speaker, that MLS is the best stimulus for in-room acoustic measurements. Otherwise it can have seriously compounded errors.
So if you don't know how linear your speaker is, better stick with sine sweeps or time averaged pink.

This is the kind of crap that is real and also gives different results....and a different sound !!

By all means measure and improve sound !! ...just don't think for a second that the results we get are all that excellent.... as they may appear to be.

 

[JanRSmit]

Today a software continually needs to be maintained given the functional/security updates of frameworks and operating systems, and if for any reason he stops to do so... my money are gone in to the trash if something breaks.

Is that also the case for f.i. Rew and Vituixcad?

 

[Sokel]

Is that also the case for f.i. Rew and Vituixcad?

It may be but in the sad case they disappear you don't lose money (for the free version) , only valuable tools.

 

[JanRSmit]

For me, bad data:
is not repeatable,
or varies with relatively small changes in measurement position,
lacks coherence (which is an indicator of multiple arrivals making the data kind of worthless to act on,
or is unsuitable for the task at hand...like trying take take a room impulse response, with a RTA.

I hope by pros, it's meant as proaudio.....live, install, and commercial studio.
Much more consistent there, than home audio, ime/imo.

So good data:
Repeatability: if you mean reproducable then yes.
Dealing with variation as result measurement position variation: yes
Understanding multiple arrivals (always the case) : yes
Calibrated meas-system: yes
Understanding tolerances in results: yes

Where comes the so called pro into play in comparison with a diy person addressing his audio issues in home?

 

[Purité Audio]

I've been playing with REW and minidsp Flex for three years. Have to say this is no easy task. But for the technically able with time on your hands its an interesting road.

One of the biggest problems is learning how to use it. I've spent many hours watched countless videos and read the manuals. There is no one source still, that gives it all to you. ASR and Keith has been very useful after spending many hours trolling threads.

The current video by Martijn of Dutch and Dutch is very good even though its aimed at 8c users and doesn't include subs. Clear and concise.

Personally if you want the best results Acourate is very good, Keith is right on this score. If you don't have time then pay someone to process it. All you do is take measurements. Mitch in Canada is your man although others may be good unknown to me. Perhaps Keith could also take up this role online even with REW.

Martijn’s article is really useful and only the last part, the 8Cs integration with REW is D&D specific.

From great to incredible - REW RoomMatching 2.0 Guide

The sound quality of your audio system is primarily determined by your loudspeakers, and the way your loudspeakers interact with the acoustics of your room. If your loudspeakers and room don't match well, you will not get great sound. Dutch & Dutch products are designed to interface with your...

support.dutchdutch.com

DSP is digital signal processing, so almost covers anything with a digital signal, room EQ is probably more appropriate for in room loudspeaker measurement.
Keith

 

[Sokel]

So good data:
Repeatability: if you mean reproducable then yes.
Dealing with variation as result measurement position variation: yes
Understanding multiple arrivals (always the case) : yes
Calibrated meas-system: yes
Understanding tolerances in results: yes

Where comes the so called pro into play in comparison with a diy person addressing his audio issues in home?

Let's take one example fairly important: distortion.
Find a really good mic (essential as we will see) take a measurement with a sweep at one meter, another at 3 meters and then try FSAF (that's were the good mic comes) with pink/white/whatever noise and compare.

You'll get 3 different results. Which one would you trust?

 

[Purité Audio]

For ‘in-room’ measurements you don’t need a super accurate microphone as we are only interested in the difference between two measurements.
Umik-1 from Mini DSP is really easy to use.
Keith

 

[Sokel]

For ‘in-room’ measurements you don’t need a super accurate microphone as we are only interested in the difference between two measurements.
Umik-1 from Mini DSP is really easy to use.
Keith

You have some reading to do:

FSAF Measurement

Umik-2 is the bare minimum for this.

 

[Purité Audio]

For developing a loudspeaker perhaps for straightforward ‘in-room’ measurements a Umik is perfectly acceptable.
Keith

 

[Sokel]

For developing a loudspeaker perhaps for straightforward ‘in-room’ measurements a Umik is perfectly acceptable.
Keith

No, that's for checking and sanity purposes more than everything.
Is the best way to check if you received what you ordered and it's not broken or something.

Sometimes sweeps do not show that.

 

[3ll3d00d]

Thread seems to have gone way off topic. It seems like "it's hard to take measurements" is actually "it can be hard to know how best to measure if you are measuring in and around the listening position in a room so as to enable your chosen dsp software to function effectively" (which is also commonly the reason why each piece of software has lengthy threads dedicated to it full of posts about the one true measurement pattern/approach for that software)