"All Phase"

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
For some purposes, it would be advantageous to be able to display multiple phase responses simultaneously (analogous to All SPL) and their average value, as well as to export the average characteristic including phase information.
 

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
Thanks and apologizing, I somehow missed it. :rubeyes: REW rulez ! :T
 

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
Nevertheless, it seems some kind of smoothing applies at the vector averaging. Is it true ?
 

Attachments

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
I have another problem with the averaging. Attached are two pictures related to two tweeters averaging, the first beeing created by RMS avg, the second by vector avg. There must be something wrong with the vector averaging definitely, but absolutely I can't get what. Both graphs were creates under the same conditions as these in the my previous comments, which have been related to six woofers.
 

Attachments

John Mulcahy

REW Author
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
4,656
The problem with your tweeter measurements is you set the left window to zero. Why did you do that? Here they are with 1 ms left window (or you could just set some suitably non-zero left window width on the result).

43697



There is no smoothing in vector averaging, though the averaging may reduce random variations.

43698
 

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
I tried to reproduce the smoothing effect for the six woofer, without success, all seems to be O.K. :dizzy::doh:. Now I'm really confused. :rolleyesno: .
 

John Mulcahy

REW Author
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
4,656
I am now also confused, did you read my reply? There is nothing wrong with the vector average of those tweeter measurements, the only problem is your window choices.
 

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
Concerning the left window zero - it was not set in fact. At the original measurements there was the Left window zero without problems and it was left for averaging, too. (Usually I adapt the left window so that the correct phase response were achieved - a problem with the noise or so.) The matter of fact is that if the vector average is made, then the reference point (Window Ref Time) is automatically set to the peak sample of the resulting impulse response (0.038 ms in the examined case), and if the Left Window is set to zero, then the result is wrong, because a part of the impulse is lost for the frequency response calculation. If the Ref Time is set to zero manually, then all is O.K. even if the Left window is zero still.

Now it is all clear for me, but I think it would be better maybe if the Window Ref Time was not changed at the vector averaging. However there could exist another problem perhaps, what Ref Time should be used if these for different original responses were different. It seems at the existing state the first peak sample is chosen.
 

Attachments

bobolix

Registered
Thread Starter
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
28
BTW, i presume the vector averaging is performed rather on the impulse responses than on the complex frequency resposes - isn't it ?
 
Top Bottom