Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 14 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 162Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 777 Old 12-01-2016, 03:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I have been following the MSO guide that was posted on the MiniDSP forum. The guide recommended setting up three PEQ's, so that is what I did.
You might try using all 6, especially if you go with gain matching. It will take longer to get the best possible answer than it would with fewer PEQs, but I've found that increasing the number of PEQs causes MSO to, in a reasonably short period of time, come up with better answers than it obtained with fewer PEQs and a much longer time. Then it gets better from there with time.

You can add more filters quickly with copy and paste of filters.

This is the first I've read about an experience using MSO with such a tight cluster of measurement points. I never envisioned using it in this way. I think Mike has completely nailed the nature and cause of what can occur with the excessive attenuation of the subs with the least flat response. Some great insight there.

Last edited by andyc56; 12-01-2016 at 03:37 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 777 Old 12-01-2016, 03:55 PM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
You might try using all 6, especially if you go with gain matching. It will take longer to get the best possible answer than it would with fewer PEQs, but I've found that increasing the number of PEQs causes MSO to, in a reasonably short period of time, come up with better answers than it obtained with fewer PEQs and a much longer time. Then it gets better from there with time.

You can add more filters quickly with copy and paste of filters.

This is the first I've read about an experience using MSO with such a tight cluster of measurement points. I never envisioned using it in this way. I think Mike has completely nailed the nature and cause of what can occur with the excessive attenuation of the subs with the least flat response. Some great insight there.
I am honored to be a guinea pig. Thanks for the tips. I'll apply them tomorrow.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #393 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 01:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
@AustinJerry

Did you also do a wider mic pattern? Would like to see verification that points other than the mic locations do benefit the same as the mic positions themselves.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
 
post #394 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 05:08 AM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
@AustinJerry

Did you also do a wider mic pattern? Would like to see verification that points other than the mic locations do benefit the same as the mic positions themselves.
Not yet. I am still working on finalizing the results of my first mic pattern, based on the most recent recommendations from Andy and Mike.

edit: if I do a wider pattern, what mic spacing do you recommend? The first was 1ft radius of the MLP.

Last edited by AustinJerry; 12-03-2016 at 05:21 AM.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #395 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 07:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
if I do a wider pattern, what mic spacing do you recommend? The first was 1ft radius of the MLP.
I'd do 2 ft left and right to the MLP. The mic locations like those shown in DLCT. The control points could be an "inverse" of the DLCT locations.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #396 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 07:46 AM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Here are the most recent MSO results (labeled "Project 8"). I am now going to run Dirac Live. Changes since the last iteration:

- Removed the individual gain blocks, allowing consolidation of gain in the Shared Filters gain block
- Added three more PEQ blocks per sub (Center freq min value 20Hz), for a total of six PEQ's
- Allowed optimization to run for four hours













AustinJerry is online now  
post #397 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 08:20 AM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
I have to admit, the attenuation of sub2 has me concerned. And what is also strange, Sub's 3&4 are much closer to the MLP. Since all four subs are gain matched, one might think that MSO would attenuate the closer subs more than the further subs. I could be wrong.

AustinJerry is online now  
post #398 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 08:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I have to admit, the attenuation of sub2 has me concerned. And what is also strange, Sub's 3&4 are much closer to the MLP. Since all four subs are gain matched, one might think that MSO would attenuate the closer subs more than the further subs. I could be wrong.

[...]
The optimization tries to minimize point to point differences. It doesn't optimize SPL capabilities.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #399 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 08:40 AM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
The optimization tries to minimize point to point differences. It doesn't optimize SPL capabilities.
I understand, but there is something psychologically unsettling about having one sub's output so severely attenuated. Probably just something I need to get used to.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #400 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 09:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Well, you can use your knowledge about specific circumstances and exclude or limit optimization for single speakers. That's the beauty of MSO.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #401 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 10:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,974
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5072 Post(s)
Liked: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I understand, but there is something psychologically unsettling about having one sub's output so severely attenuated. Probably just something I need to get used to.
Par for the course when using subwoofer optimization programs, like Harman's SoundField Management (SFM), where one of the subs can be pounding it out while another loafs along. But if that's what it takes to minimize seat-to-seat variance, then so be it. At least in theory.

When SFM was deployed in the field as part of Harman's ARCOS room correction system, the level adjustment capability was usually turned off. They discovered that the algorithm was willing to sacrifice overall bass levels by 9dB in order to gain 0.5 dB of consistency; not worth it.

BTW, even though solving for lowest spatial variance has become synonymous with SFM, the algorithm has the option to solve for max output or flattest response at a single seat, though I've never heard of it being used those ways in actual practice.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #402 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 10:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I have to admit, the attenuation of sub2 has me concerned. And what is also strange, Sub's 3&4 are much closer to the MLP. Since all four subs are gain matched, one might think that MSO would attenuate the closer subs more than the further subs. I could be wrong.
The default maximum attenuation for a PEQ in MSO is 15 dB. It looks like you're getting quite a bit more than that. Did you change that parameter limit in any way, either in the application options or on an individual filter basis?
andyc56 is offline  
post #403 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 11:02 AM
Senior Member
 
AV_mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Hi Andy,

MSO could be 'stacking' PEQs - giving a much higher overall attenuation. Would need to see the filter report.

Regards, Mike.
andyc56 likes this.
AV_mike is offline  
post #404 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 11:26 AM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Par for the course when using subwoofer optimization programs, like Harman's SoundField Management (SFM), where one of the subs can be pounding it out while another loafs along. But if that's what it takes to minimize seat-to-seat variance, then so be it. At least in theory.

When SFM was deployed in the field as part of Harman's ARCOS room correction system, the level adjustment capability was usually turned off. They discovered that the algorithm was willing to sacrifice overall bass levels by 9dB in order to gain 0.5 dB of consistency; not worth it.

BTW, even though solving for lowest spatial variance has become synonymous with SFM, the algorithm has the option to solve for max output or flattest response at a single seat, though I've never heard of it being used those ways in actual practice.
Interesting parallel, Sanjay. It takes me back to my original question--can an optimization program designed to minimize seat-to-seat variance also optimize a single seating spot? At this point I am not sure it can, at least not without sacrificing some of the principles I have become attached to.
andyc56 likes this.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #405 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 12:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 24,974
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5072 Post(s)
Liked: 3546
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
It takes me back to my original question--can an optimization program designed to minimize seat-to-seat variance also optimize a single seating spot?
That's like asking if the optimization program can make the peaks & dips the same at all the measurement locations. If all your measurements are from one location, meaning they already have the same peaks & dips, what is left for the optimization program to do?
andyc56 likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #406 of 777 Old 12-03-2016, 12:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
I've added a note to the documentation about this issue.
sdurani, AustinJerry and AV_mike like this.

Last edited by andyc56; 12-11-2016 at 01:28 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #407 of 777 Old 12-07-2016, 01:22 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 1
It looks like Dirac has the same issue, and has a similar warning and recommendation:

https://www.minidsp.com/images/docum...r%20Manual.pdf

5.5.1 Listening environment

"The subsequent eight measurements should be well spread out over the entire listening area so that Dirac Live can acquire a good set of measurements that capture the acoustic behavior of the room. Placing all microphone locations too close to each other may result in “over-correction” that will sound dry and dull.

For example, if using the Chair listening area, spread the microphone positions over a circle with a diameter of at least a meter (three feet) and vary the microphone height from the central position by at least 30 cm (one foot) up and down. If using the Sofa listening environment, spread the measurement locations over the full listening area and vary the height up and down by at least 30 cm (one foot)."
andyc56 likes this.

Last edited by jrett; 12-07-2016 at 01:25 PM. Reason: word
jrett is offline  
post #408 of 777 Old 12-15-2016, 12:23 PM
Member
 
dannut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Jerry, sample the room around the single lisening chair as instructed by Dirac - MLP and >6 random positions around that inside a 2m radius. That way you capture most of the modal 'blueprint' of your room that MSO will correct. MSO could be thought of as genuine 3d 'room correction' solution. Others, including Dirac Live, are just one-dimensional EQ.
How are your sources positioned? If you are getting <-15dB gain one one channel then something is not optimal. Upload your measurements.
dannut is offline  
post #409 of 777 Old 12-15-2016, 03:43 PM
** Man of Leisure **
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 16,232
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7562 Post(s)
Liked: 4224
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannut View Post
Jerry, sample the room around the single lisening chair as instructed by Dirac - MLP and >6 random positions around that inside a 2m radius. That way you capture most of the modal 'blueprint' of your room that MSO will correct. MSO could be thought of as genuine 3d 'room correction' solution. Others, including Dirac Live, are just one-dimensional EQ.
How are your sources positioned? If you are getting <-15dB gain one one channel then something is not optimal. Upload your measurements.
Based on the recent interaction with Andy, MSO does not seem to be a solution designed for me, so I have moved on. No disrespect to you, or to Andy.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #410 of 777 Old 01-22-2017, 03:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,656
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 995 Post(s)
Liked: 522
I'm thinking about buying a new sub amp, and in the process removing a piece from my signal chain.

Has anyone used MSO with a Crown DCI-n or QSC PLD amp? I understand Crown and QSC define Q differently from miniDSP, and perhaps even from each other.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #411 of 777 Old 01-23-2017, 05:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
I'm thinking about buying a new sub amp, and in the process removing a piece from my signal chain.

Has anyone used MSO with a Crown DCI-n or QSC PLD amp? I understand Crown and QSC define Q differently from miniDSP, and perhaps even from each other.
I can't help with that, but I do plan on removing any recommendation of the iNuke DSP for MSO. The reason is that the resolution for Q adjustment with these amps' DSP is very poor. That's something worth checking when considering other hardware too.

Also, for those who haven't seen it, I wrote an article discussing some of the different PEQ "Q" definitions for different DSP vendors. It may be hard finding out which convention is used.
dgage likes this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #412 of 777 Old 01-23-2017, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 184
That's unfortunate Andy; I'm nearing the end of my room build and had planned to spend some time with MSO. I have four subs powered by 2 x iNuke 6000DSP amps. Currently I've used the DSP for some limited pre-Dirac eq and also to fine tune the end result, but I wanted to try out MSO to see if I could further improve my results.

I have only recently got the second 6000DSP so it's unlikely I'll be changing the amp for sometime now, so is it a waste of my time learning MSO with the iNukes? I haven't been able to import my existing REW sweeps into MSO either, but it may not be an issue depending on your response.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". William Shakespeare 1615
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #413 of 777 Old 01-23-2017, 12:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dwaleke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,165
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1127 Post(s)
Liked: 526
MSO works great with my INUKE dsp. Even if it is not as accurate as other options.
dwaleke is offline  
post #414 of 777 Old 01-23-2017, 03:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke View Post
MSO works great with my INUKE dsp. Even if it is not as accurate as other options.
Interesting.

In looking at the iNuke DSP software, the maximum Q for PEQs is 10, and it adjusts in increments of 1 when the Q is 1 or greater. But I have only tested it with no hardware hooked up, as I don't actually have an iNuke DSP. Is this how it behaves with the hardware hooked up too?

Maybe I'll reconsider that change.
andyc56 is offline  
post #415 of 777 Old 01-23-2017, 03:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dwaleke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,165
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1127 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Interesting.

In looking at the iNuke DSP software, the maximum Q for PEQs is 10, and it adjusts in increments of 1 when the Q is 1 or greater. But I have only tested it with no hardware hooked up, as I don't actually have an iNuke DSP. Is this how it behaves with the hardware hooked up too?

Maybe I'll reconsider that change.
I'm going off of memory at the moment but iirc you get two decimal places for Q. One decimal place for frequency. .5db accuracy for gain.
dwaleke is offline  
post #416 of 777 Old 01-24-2017, 02:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,896
Mentioned: 100 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1652 Post(s)
Liked: 630
the step size on the adjustment is not linear though, e.g. it steps down from 10 to 9.5 to 9.1 at the top end but increments in 0.02 or 0.03 steps at the very low end. It's a similar story for frequency response in that it is a step of about 0.25 (i.e. 0.2 then 0.3 then 0.2 repeat) in the 20s but is around 0.5 in the 50s. It's been a while since I tried this but REW didn't used to produce filters that agreed with the inuke either (http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...tml#post621444)
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #417 of 777 Old 01-24-2017, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
I've done some testing to answer my own question whether only the measured locations get optimized or all points within the measured area. Here's first results (2 subs; red = MLP, grey = other locations; optimization range 30-200Hz).

Optimization points before/after





Control points before/after



Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	after-control.png
Views:	271
Size:	50.1 KB
ID:	1916521   Click image for larger version

Name:	before-control.png
Views:	267
Size:	51.9 KB
ID:	1916529   Click image for larger version

Name:	after.png
Views:	270
Size:	50.5 KB
ID:	1916537   Click image for larger version

Name:	before.png
Views:	466
Size:	51.2 KB
ID:	1916545  

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 01-24-2017 at 01:36 PM.
markus767 is offline  
post #418 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 04:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
I've run some more optimizations and added a 3rd sub. Hard to say whether the control points improved as much as the optimization points. It would be helpful if the response curves could be viewed normalized to the MLP. @andyc56 ?

The MSO project with all measurements can be downloaded at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...onf-3subs.msop in case you want to play around with exemplary data from a real untreated room.

Attached you can find an overview of room layout and measurement points. You can download the SketchUp data for details at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...oom-layout.skp

All data is just temporarily online.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	room-overview.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	78.9 KB
ID:	1927553   Click image for larger version

Name:	measurement-points.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	82.2 KB
ID:	1927561  

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #419 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 05:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
I've run some more optimizations and added a 3rd sub. Hard to say whether the control points improved as much as the optimization points. It would be helpful if the response curves could be viewed normalized to the MLP. @andyc56 ?
I like that idea. I'll have a look at putting it into the next release. That may be a while, as I have some home projects in work. Looks like I can use your data to test that feature, so that's helpful.

I too was having trouble figuring out what was going on from the earlier plots, as there's so much data, and the MLP data are different for the plots that need to be compared.

There's also configuration metrics, and I"ll have a look at how those compare in your project.
Svenibaer likes this.

Last edited by andyc56; 01-29-2017 at 05:37 AM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #420 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 05:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I like that idea. I'll have a look at putting it into the next release. That may be a while, as I have some home projects in work. Looks like I can use your data to test that feature, so that's helpful.

I too was having trouble figuring out what was going on from the earlier plots, as there's so much data, and the MLP data are different for the plots that need to be compared.

There's also configuration metrics, and I"ll have a look at how those compare in your project.
In the earlier plots I defined the unoptimized combined response as the target curve hoping any reduction in variance would be easier to spot. Guess that didn't work too well That's why a normalization feature would come in handy.

I've removed all filters from the project above so anybody can start start with a clean slate. In my testing I've used delay, gain, polarity inversion and a huge number of filters.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off