Recent content by teyhyrh4r

also when I create a MP version of that filter in order to force an IR, the sum of the measurement with that doesn't have an IR. It does have a phase though. when I click on "generate MP" in GD suddenly the IR appears but the phase is changed (near linear phase) likewise the example above.

Hi John, I use the latest 5-20-14 I am a little confused about the operation done in this mdat: the first graph is a meassurement the second one a target the third is a smoothed exported version of graph 1, reimported the 4th is graph 2 divided by graph 3 the 5th is the result of graph 1...

if the cal file is falling it will actually rise the FR. it's not the cal. I personaly have similar roloffs all the time, but I don't care for anything after 16Khz

I am talking about correcting, amplitude and phase. I am not aware of a non-experimental aprouch of doing it in REW, and Dirac gives you very little control. Acourate software would be the state of the art for this

it's all good. let's work

ok, now watched the video. he is not creating FIR filters at all as he is simply minimum phasing his filters at the end. there is no convolution needed for this. the resulting filters can be imported as EQ in EQ-APO for example.

I must say though that I never heard of this Serkan guy. It's the guy from the video, yes? I will have a look

Experimental I call the aprouch to create FIR filters in REW, since I am not aware of this beeing a standard aprouch. I myself have studied Denis Sbragion's documentation https://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/doc/drc.html#sec36 for 12 years now and still have a hard time doing it in REW. it's a lot of...

naaah, you dont need it. If you are at the beginning of this journey you really shouldn't mess with this. this is experimental territory, let me phrase it like this

I am playing around with inversion for weeks now and it's very complicated. the main reason is the phase. you can't simple invert the phase, even with regularization. I will post my findings soon in a nother forum, could post here to if there is intrest. So far I can tell you, if you are not...

in my experience it will bring the sound "forward" since mids are emphasized. most wont like the result I rekon. but this could be only in my room.

ok, we're going around in circles here. you simply don't want it. thanks

Well, to begin with, we should acknowledge that this room has an issue that cannot be resolved solely through EQ, right? Anyway, let's suppose that the average method is superior in this scenario... Does that imply it will always be superior? No, because I presented a case where it is clearly...

I'm not quite sure I grasp your meaning. In my opinion, I have demonstrated that this method would result in less degradation across multiple positions compared to averaging.

the ceiling, as you mentioned, is likely acceptable in that situation. However, I personally have concerns about accentuating the reflection from the ceiling. Nevertheless, the impact of this reflection is probably insignificant. Personally, I prefer to readjust the microphone for each...