But he has had integrity so far.
I would be more prone to trusting one man, than a large company with many moving parts and people coming and going.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Which is the best DSP option: DIRAC vs Acourate vs Audiolense vs RePhase vs ?
- Thread starter JRS
- Start date
But he has had integrity so far.
I would be more prone to trusting one man, than a large company with many moving parts and people coming and going.
There are many orphaned corporate products out there.... my 2014 Integra DTR 70.4 is not repairable as the replacement board I need is no longer available.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
As I alluded to in my post, it's not his integrity i'm worried about. It's his mortality.
Which is the best DSP option: DIRAC vs Acourate vs Audiolense vs RePhase vs ?
Why not put Mathaudio Room EQ in. From a financial point of view it is the only free DSP combined with Foobar2000 with excelent results.
Last edited:
Fair point point, but if his work is good, then supporting it does some common good as it provides alternatives and competition in the marketplace.
Probably somewhat similar to people buying early Tesla cars.
But it is your money, and both approaches make sense.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
I have a few friends who use both Acourate and Audiolense. I am an Acourate user, and I have now had the opportunity to watch very closely as my friends use Audiolense. This is a very brief comparison of the pros and cons of Acourate vs. Audiolense.
Price: Acourate €340 (EU countries) €286 (non-EU countries); Audiolense XO €370 (international customers). Acourate gives you a lifetime license. Audiolense is a lifetime license for the current version only, extended support and upgrades are €78/year.
Ease of use: Acourate is more difficult to use, and forces you to undergo multiple iterative processes. For example, time alignment requires you to generate filters, manually delay each filter, perform the sweep, then look at where the peaks are to determine the relative delays with respect to each other. Audiolense automatically spits out the delays. With Acourate, it takes me an hour to perform time alignment. With Audiolense, the same task is accomplished in 5 minutes.
To make a measurement of a 3 way speaker setup, in Acourate you first generate the crossover. Then you create a .WAV file with all the channel routing built in. Load the .WAV file into the logsweep recorder, and a full spectrum sweep is taken. You are not able to look at the measured response of each individual driver unless you specifically load the XO for that driver. With Audiolense, after you generate the crossover and assign channels, AL will perform one sweep for each driver starting and ending one octave above and below the bandpass frequencies.
Acourate has a limitation of 6 curves which can be loaded at once. This can be annoying if you need to work on multiple curves at once, because you have to unload and reload curves all the time. There seems to be no limit to how many curves Audiolense can load (there might be a limit, but I don't know what it is. But I have seen about 16 curves loaded up at the same time).
Acourate presents you with multiple steps and dialog boxes that you need to look at with every step. Audiolense has a "set and forget" system where you make all the settings and it does not ask you again unless you specifically go in and change it. Acourate's method is slower, but forces you to look at the settings. Audiolense is faster and more convenient, but has more scope for user error because you might forget to check the settings.
Features: Both Acourate and AL have the ability to generate crossovers, perform driver correction, time alignment, and overall room correction. Both allow you to specify amount of windowing, excess phase correction, and so on. Both are able to generate FIR and IIR filters. Both have 128k taps.
The target curve designer in Audiolense is superior to Acourate. It allows virtually unlimited adjustment points which can be easily added with mouse clicks.
Audiolense lacks a microphone alignment tool. It also lacks the ability to generate other types of crossover apart from it's own built-in crossover which looks like a Neville-Thiele. By comparison, Acourate is able to generate Linkwitz-Riley, Butterworth, Neville-Thiele, and Horbach-Keele crossovers.
Audiolense is unable to perform verification measurements. To do that, you need to load filters into a third party convolver and use REW.
The new version of Acourate has a feature called ICPA (Interchannel Phase Alignment) for bass frequencies. Traditionally we measure left and right speakers separately and do not consider how they interact as a stereo pair. ICPA takes care of that problem. I do not know if AL has this feature.
Support: Both have their own support forums. Uli (Acourate author) is active on his forum and answers any questions, no matter how silly (and I have asked my share of silly questions). He is also really responsive. Bernt's forum is much larger, and he is less active on his forum. Questions on that forum are usually answered by advanced users. I haven't interacted with Bernt so I don't know how responsive he is.
Sum-up: Acourate is more feature rich, allows you to do more corrections, and is more versatile. It is also cheaper. Audiolense gives you more convenience features and because of this, you can accomplish tasks much faster with Audiolense.
Price: Acourate €340 (EU countries) €286 (non-EU countries); Audiolense XO €370 (international customers). Acourate gives you a lifetime license. Audiolense is a lifetime license for the current version only, extended support and upgrades are €78/year.
Ease of use: Acourate is more difficult to use, and forces you to undergo multiple iterative processes. For example, time alignment requires you to generate filters, manually delay each filter, perform the sweep, then look at where the peaks are to determine the relative delays with respect to each other. Audiolense automatically spits out the delays. With Acourate, it takes me an hour to perform time alignment. With Audiolense, the same task is accomplished in 5 minutes.
To make a measurement of a 3 way speaker setup, in Acourate you first generate the crossover. Then you create a .WAV file with all the channel routing built in. Load the .WAV file into the logsweep recorder, and a full spectrum sweep is taken. You are not able to look at the measured response of each individual driver unless you specifically load the XO for that driver. With Audiolense, after you generate the crossover and assign channels, AL will perform one sweep for each driver starting and ending one octave above and below the bandpass frequencies.
Acourate has a limitation of 6 curves which can be loaded at once. This can be annoying if you need to work on multiple curves at once, because you have to unload and reload curves all the time. There seems to be no limit to how many curves Audiolense can load (there might be a limit, but I don't know what it is. But I have seen about 16 curves loaded up at the same time).
Acourate presents you with multiple steps and dialog boxes that you need to look at with every step. Audiolense has a "set and forget" system where you make all the settings and it does not ask you again unless you specifically go in and change it. Acourate's method is slower, but forces you to look at the settings. Audiolense is faster and more convenient, but has more scope for user error because you might forget to check the settings.
Features: Both Acourate and AL have the ability to generate crossovers, perform driver correction, time alignment, and overall room correction. Both allow you to specify amount of windowing, excess phase correction, and so on. Both are able to generate FIR and IIR filters. Both have 128k taps.
The target curve designer in Audiolense is superior to Acourate. It allows virtually unlimited adjustment points which can be easily added with mouse clicks.
Audiolense lacks a microphone alignment tool. It also lacks the ability to generate other types of crossover apart from it's own built-in crossover which looks like a Neville-Thiele. By comparison, Acourate is able to generate Linkwitz-Riley, Butterworth, Neville-Thiele, and Horbach-Keele crossovers.
Audiolense is unable to perform verification measurements. To do that, you need to load filters into a third party convolver and use REW.
The new version of Acourate has a feature called ICPA (Interchannel Phase Alignment) for bass frequencies. Traditionally we measure left and right speakers separately and do not consider how they interact as a stereo pair. ICPA takes care of that problem. I do not know if AL has this feature.
Support: Both have their own support forums. Uli (Acourate author) is active on his forum and answers any questions, no matter how silly (and I have asked my share of silly questions). He is also really responsive. Bernt's forum is much larger, and he is less active on his forum. Questions on that forum are usually answered by advanced users. I haven't interacted with Bernt so I don't know how responsive he is.
Sum-up: Acourate is more feature rich, allows you to do more corrections, and is more versatile. It is also cheaper. Audiolense gives you more convenience features and because of this, you can accomplish tasks much faster with Audiolense.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
I should have added: ultimately Audiolense is a tool for speaker and room correction. It is good at its job and it accomplishes tasks quickly and efficiently.
Acourate (as the author describes it) is an audio toolbox. You can use the tools in any sequence or any combination that you want, and you can do things that you can't do in Audiolense. For example, I helped a friend last night design an asymmetrical crossover (LR1 high pass, LR4 low pass). You can also do NT2 high pass, and LR4 low pass, or any combination that you like. You can incorporate a VBA (I am not sure if Audiolense lets you do that). It is powerful and flexible. The price you pay is that it is less efficient and less automated than Audiolense.
Acourate (as the author describes it) is an audio toolbox. You can use the tools in any sequence or any combination that you want, and you can do things that you can't do in Audiolense. For example, I helped a friend last night design an asymmetrical crossover (LR1 high pass, LR4 low pass). You can also do NT2 high pass, and LR4 low pass, or any combination that you like. You can incorporate a VBA (I am not sure if Audiolense lets you do that). It is powerful and flexible. The price you pay is that it is less efficient and less automated than Audiolense.
Thank you for that comparison, and the level of detail you provided.
I've looked at both of those products quite a bit, as I'm always interested in a "better mousetrap" FIR generator.
My primary task with FIR is to generate files on a driver-by-driver basis, for quasi-anechoic speaker setup.
Come to think of it, my only task really...the few times I compared global FIR correction across an entire speaker, to the driver-by driver method, the global was plain worse.
And I've yet to venture into room correction.....
I've looked at both of those products quite a bit, as I'm always interested in a "better mousetrap" FIR generator.
My primary task with FIR is to generate files on a driver-by-driver basis, for quasi-anechoic speaker setup.
Come to think of it, my only task really...the few times I compared global FIR correction across an entire speaker, to the driver-by driver method, the global was plain worse.
And I've yet to venture into room correction.....
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Really interesting to read about your journey and that you have ended up with MEHs. I’d love to read more about them. Is there a thread on here or elsewhere (DIYA?) about them?Sounds like we have similar audio backgrounds/stories. For 30 years I was a hi-fi "high end" addict. Read all the mags, auditioned all the stores in NYC...big electrostat/ribbon/planar fan....with all the $$$ electronics, moving coil setups, yada yada. Wouldn't touch EQ with a 10 ft pole LOL.
Detoured into top drawer prosound stuff for live sound, most expensive speakers I ever bought, but they included amplification and processing.
Amazed at how close they sounded to my electrostats in term of clarity, so i studied what was going on in prosound. Made me feel like a child in elementary school, comparing what i had learned from 30 years of hi-fi, to the practical real engineering behind proaudio. A guy named Danley i had never heard of (lol) posted some plans for a killer sub (Labhorns) on Prosound forum about 20 years ago. I built some and have been DIY ever since.
I've built 30-40 speakers over the last 7 years, ranging from conventional designs, to coaxials, to all sections horn loaded, to CBTs and straight line arrays, to MEHs, and of course more types of subs. Honestly, i haven't heard any commercial design, hi-fi or prosound, that would be worth much $ to trade up from my latest MEH build. I'm thrilled really.....
I do think a big part of the DIY speaker process, or at least my process, is mastering measurements and applying appropriate DSP, first on the driver by driver level, and then at the xover summation level. I know the speaker manufacturers, both home and pro, no doubt build better boxes in terms of pure acoustic engineering with their knowledge base, driver experiences, and testing facilities. But they are also hamstrung a little in terms of what they can do with processing, given the application of there products. Few can afford the latency that comes with FIR. Many commercial installs need passives due to difficult servicing locations. Live sound can tolerate delay. Even HT has problems with video sync i hear. This is where i believe some DIYers have a real advantage, if they are music only (can tolerate latency) and can master it.
Anyway, now it's enough of my rambling. Cheers to a fellow DIYer !!
Those BlieSNa look really sweet...good luck
Thanks for the interest.
Yeah, I've posted so much on DIY...my various MEH versions..I've about worn out my welcome with them.. lol....
Here's the latest two versions...
Syn-11… a one-horn 5-way
About 2-3 weeks ago I got inspired by ncbluetj's BASH build which uses 4-15" !! https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-b-a-s-h.391536/page-6#post-7190481 Decided to see if I could retrofit a pair of 18" to an old synergy prototype....looked like it could work, providing a box could be...
Syn-10
It's a continuation of the last project i posted "Syn 9: a change in direction" https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/syn-9-a-change-in-direction.375161/ But that thread already has three different versions of Syn 9 in it to confuse things. So having made a further change to the last...
And a pict of them...
white horn or right is syn-11;
Blue is syn-10. Just yesterday finished the sub under it.
Taking down the stereo syn-11 rig, and putting back up the the 3-ch LCR syn-10 rig, with new subs under each
Stoked !!!
@gnarly thanks for the links. That’s my weekend reading sorted
My dream speakers would have the purity and transparency of ESLs or big ribbons, the dynamics and vivacity of a top horn system and the low end heft and punch of big cone woofers. From what you said earlier your current system ticks a lot of those boxes - ?
My dream speakers would have the purity and transparency of ESLs or big ribbons, the dynamics and vivacity of a top horn system and the low end heft and punch of big cone woofers. From what you said earlier your current system ticks a lot of those boxes - ?
Every IT related guidance note / tutorial / “explanation in lay terms” that I’ve ever read commits the same cardinal sin of assuming knowledge on the part of the reader. Such authors seem totally incapable of stepping back from their subject and viewing it from the point of view of the uninitiated.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Since the last time I posted, I have found out a few more limitations of Audiolense:
- can't import .WAV files. In fact it can't import anything at all. I found this out when I wanted to send my friend some measurements I had taken with Acourate to see what Audiolense would do with the result.
- can't manipulate curves. I found this out when my friend came over and the result was a bit wonky (Audiolense for some reason had corrected the tweeter to be too hot). I asked him if he was able to reduce the gain on the tweeter XO. No it can't.
- The target curve designers work slightly differently. In Acourate, you design the target curve and it is overlaid on the measurement. You move the target curve up and down compared to the measurement, and Acourate will only correct anything above the target curve. With Audiolense, the target curve is designed and you specify how much you want it to cut and boost. IMO Acourate's method gives you better control of the outcome. Because you can manipulate curves, you can tell Acourate not to correct a band of frequencies (albeit in a manual and roundabout way). I see no way of doing that in Audiolense.
- Audiolense outputs strange and meaningless file names. These are filters generated by Audiolense:
The critical bit of information is a bit lost in that long filename, "480" to "487" refers to channels 0 through 7. I don't know why Bernt thought it was a good idea to clutter up the filename with redundant information (date mentioned twice, sampling rate mentioned twice), useless information like "F-Default (True Time Domain)", and so on. Acourate is simply "Cor1L48" or "XO1L48" indicating it's a crossover (corrected vs. uncorrected), 1st pair of speakers (in this case, subwoofers), Left or Right, and sampling rate (48kHz).
But in general, my previous impression still stands. Audiolense has a lot of automation, it is quick, easy, and convenient. It produces great results. However, it is a "DSP black box" - measurement goes in, result comes out. You are given some levers to tweak what it will do with the result. Acourate is the opposite, it is a toolbox. As in, "here is a box of tools, now get to work". You have to select the right tool at the right sequence and know how to use it. This approach is much harder to learn, is much slower because it is more manual, and has a steep learning curve for Acourate itself and the DSP terminology that is unfamiliar. However, it is also more flexible because you are not stuck with one way of doing things.
To go back to the time alignment example again, Audiolense automatically spits out the result. With Acourate, you have to manually derive the alignment by looking at the curves. There are at least 4 different methods you can use, and not all of them were described by Uli in his white papers. There is nothing to stop you from coming up with your own method, or even thinking up a use for Acourate that Uli himself never thought of.
It's different strokes for different folks. Don't get me wrong, I do like Audiolense, and I think it is easier to get a good correction with Audiolense. But I have a really geeky love for Acourate because it is so flexible.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
You need to buy this book by Mitch Barnett. The major problem with that book is that it is heavily focused on Acourate. It's great if you use Acourate, but a third of the book is useless if you don't. It would be better if he named it "Guide to Acourate" because that is what it is. Nevertheless, it still contains a lot of useful DSP information, and it is written in an approachable and easy to understand way. I learnt A LOT from that book and it really helped kick start my journey.
Yes, current unity/synergy systems really do.
About the only thing I think my ESLs do better, is excelling at very low listening levels. Otherwise, no contest.
Yup, I already own it . It was obviously written a few years ago and I wondered if Acourate had evolved to become more user friendly, but it seems not. I think AL is going to be a better choice for me.
Mitch has indicated that he would like to write a similar guide for AL, but I suspect that may be some way off, if ever.
I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind but as they are OT here I’ll PM you on DIYA.
Similar threads
