How obtuse! My only point has ever been that FFT based programs can window out the later arrival times of reflections and discern them from direct (speaker to mic) impulses (ie: when performing time/phase alignments between subs and mains, etc). You’re trying to make the conversation about room/EQ measurements. Twisting in the wind (deflection)! Sorry, Erik (I’ll drop it, here).
Automatic Room Correction has won the Subwoofer Wars
Just thought of something while perusing the chats, and finding yet another "help me, I bought a subwoofer and it sounds bad" threads.
You know what we rarely if ever see? "Help me, I used ARC to set up my subwoofer and it sounds bad."
I think this is a strong testament to how effective these systems are to integrating a sub into an existing system, and why I'm no longer trying to help others improve as much as pointing them towards ARC as better options.
While ARC does a lot more than subwoofer integration, I think we have to admit that for most it's pretty much been a panacea.
You know what we rarely if ever see? "Help me, I used ARC to set up my subwoofer and it sounds bad."
I think this is a strong testament to how effective these systems are to integrating a sub into an existing system, and why I'm no longer trying to help others improve as much as pointing them towards ARC as better options.
While ARC does a lot more than subwoofer integration, I think we have to admit that for most it's pretty much been a panacea.
Showing 3 responses by rodman99999
@dannad- I’ll let a copy/paste, from the information to which I earlier referred, be my last word on the subject as to whether an FFT program/algorithm can separate/discern arrival times: "Once the impulse response has been obtained, it can be analysed to calculate information about how the room behaves. The simplest analysis is the FFT, to show the frequency response between the source and mic positions. However, we have some control over it. Altering which part of the impulse response is analysed by the FFT changes what aspect of the room’s response we see. The early part of the impulse response corresponds to the direct sound from the source to the mic, the shortest path between them. Sound that has bounced off the room’s surfaces has to travel further to reach the mic, which takes longer, so the later parts of the impulse response contain the contributions of the room. "Windowing" the impulse response to look at only the initial part shows us the frequency response of the direct sound with little or no contribution from the room. A window that includes later parts of the response lets us see how the room’s contribution alters the frequency response. The ability to separate the contributions of the direct and later (reflected) sound is a key difference between the frequency response derived from an impulse response and one we would get from an RTA, for example, which can only show the total combined response of source and room." I’ll take their word for it, before yours! Apologies, to Erik |
I’ve been using a TacT RCS 2.2Xaaa, in my system, since the 90’s. Not much has changed, since then. FFT is called that, because it is and can discern between direct and reflected sounds. Read the ’How REW makes it’s measurements’ section (page 5), here: https://www.roomeqwizard.com/REWhelp.pdf Especially, the fifth paragraph, of that treatise |