Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs - Page 532 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-30-2015, 07:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BrutalBodyShots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,238
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 68
I guess I misunderstood when you said Windows Audio. I right clicked on the speaker icon and in there clicked on the individual speakers and tones played from them. That's the only way I've been able to get any sound out of anything, nothing else.
BrutalBodyShots is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-30-2015, 08:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 10,542
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3241 Post(s)
Liked: 1774
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutalBodyShots View Post
I guess I misunderstood when you said Windows Audio. I right clicked on the speaker icon and in there clicked on the individual speakers and tones played from them. That's the only way I've been able to get any sound out of anything, nothing else.
So explain why you are stuck on page 56 step 4.a?
AustinJerry is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2080 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
I fail to understand what your point is.
You made claims about the decay time of a measurement shown by another user and I said that this particular plot didn't show that information.

Attached is an example. Default settings compared to short window/rise time, same underlying measurement data. I've just changed perspective and number of slices.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.png
Views:	32
Size:	268.8 KB
ID:	916610   Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled2.png
Views:	30
Size:	219.3 KB
ID:	916618  

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; Yesterday at 12:49 AM.
markus767 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
You made claims about the decay time of a measurement shown by another user and I said that this particular plot didn't show that information.
So, I'll ask again. Why doesn't that particular plot show that information?


Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Attached is an example. Default settings compared to short window/rise time, same underlying measurement data. I've just changed perspective and number of slices.

[nitpicking]Looks like you've changed the rise time, not the number of slices[/nitpicking]

But either way, the changes are obvious when the rise time is changed by a large value. So, I'll ask again. Why does the particular plot not show the information I claimed?
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2080 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
[nitpicking]Looks like you've changed the rise time, not the number of slices[/nitpicking]
Err, that's what I've said. The plots show just differences in window length and rise time. Everything else stayed the same. I've just changed perspective and number of slices form the REW default settings. They are the same for both graphs though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
But either way, the changes are obvious when the rise time is changed by a large value. So, I'll ask again. Why does the particular plot not show the information I claimed?
Don't know how to make my point clearer. The graphs show exactly what I'm talking about. Looking at the spectrogram is even more revealing.

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  
Old Yesterday, 01:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
They are the same for both graphs though.
Yeah, my apologies, I was reading it as if you had made those changes between graphs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Don't know how to make my point clearer. The graphs show exactly what I'm talking about.
That the rise time of the graph in question is different from default? If so, how exactly? Describe in detail please, how you made that determination.
The example you posted shows clear differences. The graph in question doesn't seem so clear. If you find this detail clear, please, describe further.
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2080 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Play around with rise time and windows length and everything should fall into place.

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  
Old Yesterday, 03:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I have, for the last three days. Which is why I have the confidence to rehash the discussion for some clarity. But everytime I ask you to describe in detail, why you have the confidence to make this statement,

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
NEVER draw any conclusions about decay if you don't know what settings were used to generate the waterfall. Waterfall graphs can be highly misleading.
I'm expected to play with settings and find some result myself. Despite, having numerous times, described to you that I cannot ascertain how the graph in question differs significantly from optimal settings to determine decay rates.
Allow me to make some pertinent statements myself, then I'm done.

Thanks for the discussion. I've been banging my head against a wall, but I have somewhat of a better understanding of some waterfall settings then I otherwise did.

I don't claim to know everything, but I'm confident that I am not the only long term contributor to this thread, who would/is/does struggle to ascertain that the graph in question, doesn't have the optimal rise time setting for determining decay rates. Heck, I even have the mdat of the graph in question, and unless I change the rise time significantly (which obviously makes significant observable changes to the way the graph is displayed), I cannot see how small changes in rise time significantly alter my ability to determine decay from waterfall results, or how my determination is inaccurate based on the rise time setting of the graph.

I described why I threw some numbers around, which you seemed to have completely ignored and/or disregarded, despite that clarification describing in detail, the why I did what I did. I used plain English words to describe my lack of confidence in making accurate conclusions based on the graph in question. Heck, I even bolded those words in a separate post to make a point. It would have been nice if you could have explained in detail what it is you were seeing, that differed from what I was seeing, especially after my repeated attempts to inform you that I was struggling to "play with settings" myself, and find the results you seemed to think should be clear as day. Please take no offense if I start nicknaming you Confucius.

Window length adjusts frequency resolution only. As per the REW help quoted earlier.
Quote:
After V5.0 the waterfall behaviour has been enhanced to improve control over its appearance and extend its use to include the analysis of drive unit and cabinet resonances. The left hand window width is specified independently, using a setting labelled Rise Time. Changing the Window setting only alters the Right Hand window, which means that the Window setting now controls only the frequency resolution of the waterfall - longer settings give higher resolution - without altering the waterfall's time domain behaviour. There are also controls to select how many slices the waterfall should have (up to 100) and to select the smoothing to apply to each slice.
Since decay infers time domain, changing the window length won't change anything useful in the time domain, except the accuracy of the frequency representation.

You've described "window settings", "impulse response windowing". If you're going to make a point of the accuracy of others, please ensure your own accuracy.
Quote:
Changing the Window setting only alters the Right Hand window, which means that the Window setting now controls only the frequency resolution of the waterfall - longer settings give higher resolution - without altering the waterfall's time domain behaviour.
The window setting has no bearing the information in the time domain, except as stated, the frequency resolution, which holds no significant bearing on decay determination. Impulse response windowing, which implies the "IR windows" setting, holds no bearing on the waterfall measurements. I make this point, since you glossed over my deliberate attempt to use English words to describe my lack of confidence, while using vague references to specific REW settings (rise time) yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
NEVER draw any conclusions about decay if you don't know what settings were used to generate the waterfall. Waterfall graphs can be highly misleading.
By definition, no one can possibly know what settings were used to generate waterfall graphs posted to this thread, when a simple graph is posted, without the settings panel also being visible. So, it makes sense that mdats should be posted, by default. This leaves no room for drawing any conclusions based on unreliable data, period!

Last edited by Audionut11; Yesterday at 03:13 AM.
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 03:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2080 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Sorry, don't have the time for this. It's really all explained in REW > Help > Graph Panel > Waterfall

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  
Old Yesterday, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
I have, for the last three days. Which is why I have the confidence to rehash the discussion for some clarity. But everytime I ask you to describe in detail, why you have the confidence to make this statement,
Would it be prudent to draw a conclusion from a FR graph if you didn't know the smoothing or the vertical db increments?

My Room
My Music
Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, Classe CA-100, miniDSP
Jenzen Next
jim19611961 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 07:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

By definition, no one can possibly know what settings were used to generate waterfall graphs posted to this thread, when a simple graph is posted, without the settings panel also being visible. So, it makes sense that mdats should be posted, by default. This leaves no room for drawing any conclusions based on unreliable data, period!
IMO, simple graphs should include the settings panel. And if you really want another to investigate some problem your having properly, the mdat's should be included also.

Having all the relevant data doesn't guarantee you will reach the right conclusion/interpretation either, but it gives you a better chance.
ahblaza and Audionut11 like this.

My Room
My Music
Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, Classe CA-100, miniDSP
Jenzen Next

Last edited by jim19611961; Yesterday at 08:04 AM.
jim19611961 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
Would it be prudent to draw a conclusion from a FR graph if you didn't know the smoothing or the vertical db increments?


Look at the example that Markus posted above. One clearly has a large rise time, and the other clearly does not. They are distinct differences from the setting of a specific function of REW.

A FR graphs smoothness can be affected by factors outside of REW settings. If you can make a waterfall look like the one with a small rise time, without specifically setting a small rise time, I'll eat my hat. If you can do that unintentionally by simply posting some graphs of a room response while looking for feedback, I'll eat two hats.

Look at some of your mdats Jim. Adjust the rise time setting. How far does the rise time have to be adjusted from default settings, before significant changes to the waterfall, that would affect you ability to determine accurate conclusions on the decay? At that rise time setting, can you draw a conclusion regarding the presentation of the waterfall? Does it look right? Or, even without any prior knowledge of rise time, would you look at the graph and consider that something is amiss?

The increase in knowledge from the discussion is very welcomed. The disdain in which that push towards further knowledge was conducted, is not.
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:11 AM
Senior Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 51
does the riaa curve still apply? or play into how we hope to refine our hifi systems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc800v, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5 Subs: Velodyne HGS 12, VA 1512
torii is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post


Look at the example that Markus posted above. One clearly has a large rise time, and the other clearly does not. They are distinct differences from the setting of a specific function of REW.

A FR graphs smoothness can be affected by factors outside of REW settings. If you can make a waterfall look like the one with a small rise time, without specifically setting a small rise time, I'll eat my hat. If you can do that unintentionally by simply posting some graphs of a room response while looking for feedback, I'll eat two hats.

Look at some of your mdats Jim. Adjust the rise time setting. How far does the rise time have to be adjusted from default settings, before significant changes to the waterfall, that would affect you ability to determine accurate conclusions on the decay? At that rise time setting, can you draw a conclusion regarding the presentation of the waterfall? Does it look right? Or, even without any prior knowledge of rise time, would you look at the graph and consider that something is amiss?

The increase in knowledge from the discussion is very welcomed. The disdain in which that push towards further knowledge was conducted, is not.
I think your missing the point, or at least my point.

I think most of us can agree that interpretation of any graph takes a bit of skill and experience. Its a learning curve. To this end, the more data you have, the better picture of whats happening acoustically in a room you have.

If you were trying to identify a photo, you might be able to do so looking at a portion of it, true. But would there ever be a case where looking at all of it would diminish your chances of getting to the right answer?

My Room
My Music
Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, Classe CA-100, miniDSP
Jenzen Next
jim19611961 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 08:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,433
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
does the riaa curve still apply? or play into how we hope to refine our hifi systems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization
For vinyl systems, yes.
3ll3d00d is online now  
Old Yesterday, 08:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post



A FR graphs smoothness can be affected by factors outside of REW settings. If you can make a waterfall look like the one with a small rise time, without specifically setting a small rise time, I'll eat my hat. If you can do that unintentionally by simply posting some graphs of a room response while looking for feedback, I'll eat two hats.
If we knew all posted graphs were using REW default settings, I might agree with you. But we dont. Maybe not unintentionally, but I could intentionally adjust the settings to spin your interpretation a certain way quite easily. The flaw in your point is we have no way of knowing what settings changes someone has made to a graph prior to posting it. And when a poster shows us two graphs for comparison, we have no way of knowing if they were posted using the same settings. Especially true when comparing a recent graph to one they took weeks, months or years ago where the prior settings attributes wont be remembered.

My Room
My Music
Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, Classe CA-100, miniDSP
Jenzen Next
jim19611961 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
I think most of us can agree that interpretation of any graph takes a bit of skill and experience. Its a learning curve. To this end, the more data you have, the better picture of whats happening acoustically in a room you have.

If you were trying to identify a photo, you might be able to do so looking at a portion of it, true. But would there ever be a case where looking at all of it would diminish your chances of getting to the right answer?
I wholeheartedly agree Jim. But in terms of rise time and room modes, how much more data is needed to make a reasonable conclusion regarding decay time. In this instance, I could well point out that more data would actually hinder the process, since smaller rise times are for specific purposes, and higher rise times are for specific purposes.

Quote:
REW's waterfalls have been aimed at examining room resonances. To help make those resonances easy to see in the response, a wide left hand window is used - in REW V5.0 and earlier its width was half the setting entered as the Window time, and the right hand window had a width equal to the window time. However, that meant increasing the Window setting increased both the frequency resolution (the main reason for wanting a longer window) and also stretched the response out in time, due the increased left hand window width. That was not very helpful, as it meant the time range had to be increased to get back to a useful view of the behaviour.

After V5.0 the waterfall behaviour has been enhanced to improve control over its appearance and extend its use to include the analysis of drive unit and cabinet resonances. The left hand window width is specified independently, using a setting labelled Rise Time. Changing the Window setting only alters the Right Hand window, which means that the Window setting now controls only the frequency resolution of the waterfall - longer settings give higher resolution - without altering the waterfall's time domain behaviour. There are also controls to select how many slices the waterfall should have (up to 100) and to select the smoothing to apply to each slice.
But back to your point. I've been quietly pushing for mdats to be posted for 12 months or more. I agree with the concept of standardized graph settings for first time posters. But these settings for the waterfall produce a simple overview with very little resolution. The next logical step, is to increase the resolution of the areas of interest, and this cannot be done with a simple graph.

It would also entirely eliminate the back and forth that occurs every second page or so. "Your graph isn't posted right", "how do I fix that sorry", "read the guide". Only then to be told, at some stage further down the track when they want to progress further, to post an mdat.


I'm pretty sure I've mentioned previously that I am not trying to neglect the work, effort and commitment that Jerry has placed into the guide. Streamlining a process should never be considered as disrespectful. I mention this simply for clarity for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
If we knew all posted graphs were using REW default settings, I might agree with you. But we dont.
You're barking up the wrong tree Jim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
Maybe not unintentionally, but I could intentionally adjust the settings to spin your interpretation a certain way quite easily. The flaw in your point is we have no way of knowing what settings changes someone has made to a graph prior to posting it.
I'm ready to eat that hat Jim.
ahblaza likes this.
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,698
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

I'm ready to eat that hat Jim.
Here are two waterfalls derived from the SAME file, but with different settings. Still confident you would gain the same interpretation from each?

Click image for larger version

Name:	waterfall 1.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	384.0 KB
ID:	917018

Click image for larger version

Name:	waterfall 2.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	315.3 KB
ID:	917026

My Room
My Music
Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, Classe CA-100, miniDSP
Jenzen Next
jim19611961 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
JasonT35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Hi everyone. I am in the process of setting up a two channel listening room.

Which graphs/data should I post here in order to receive advice on how to position speakers and listening position? Also, which graphs/data should I post in order to receive advice on room treatments?

My room is a small one and not ideal. 12.23' x 11' x 9.5'

Thanks.

p.s. Jerry and to everyone else who contributed... great job on the user's guide. I was able to setup and take measurements without a problem. Excellent guide!!

2.0 System
Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2
Music Hall A15.3
Clearaudio Concept
JasonT35 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 10,542
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3241 Post(s)
Liked: 1774
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonT35 View Post
Hi everyone. I am in the process of setting up a two channel listening room.

Which graphs/data should I post here in order to receive advice on how to position speakers and listening position? Also, which graphs/data should I post in order to receive advice on room treatments?

My room is a small one and not ideal. 12.23' x 11' x 9.5'

Thanks.

p.s. Jerry and to everyone else who contributed... great job on the user's guide. I was able to setup and take measurements without a problem. Excellent guide!!
You could start out with a traditional placement with the two speakers and the MLP forming an equilateral triangle. Using this as a starting point, measure the frequency response of left and right speakers (including the sub, if you will be using one). Depending on the measured response, you can adjust the distances and still maintain the basic equilateral triangle layout. Avoid placement of speakers or MLP too close to a wall.

After your best effort, post your measurements here, and I am sure you will get feedback. To assess room response characteristics, post the waterfall graph (to measure bass resonance), and the ETC graph (to measure speculation reflections).
AustinJerry is offline  
Old Yesterday, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
artur9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: near philly
Posts: 1,214
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
It would also entirely eliminate the back and forth that occurs every second page or so. "Your graph isn't posted right", "how do I fix that sorry", "read the guide". Only then to be told, at some stage further down the track when they want to progress further, to post an mdat.
I find the posting of graphs vs mdat vastly preferable. That way I get to see the experts dissect issues. With the mdat, not so much. The latter, as a teaching tool, fails miserably.

In any case, that back and forth would be replaced with another more insidious one.

newbie: "Here's my mdat. Can you tell me what I need to fix?"
forum: "What are you trying to address?"
newbie: "My FR looks funny to me."
forum: "Funny how? And how did you take these measurements?"
newbie: "I hung my Audyssey mic from the ceiling with bungee cords. Then I played pink noise for 4 seconds. Why isn't my FR flat like yours?"

I exaggerate but we have had a few people try to use their Audyssey mics for REW.
artur9 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 05:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
Here are two waterfalls derived from the SAME file, but with different settings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
If you can make a waterfall look like the one with a small rise time, without specifically setting a small rise time, I'll eat my hat.
I understand what you're getting at Jim, but you're missing prior context. I'll drag this discussion to PM, so that we can both have a clear understanding of each other before proceeding in public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post
I find the posting of graphs vs mdat vastly preferable. That way I get to see the experts dissect issues. With the mdat, not so much. The latter, as a teaching tool, fails miserably.
Issues would still be dissected. I would presume that more issues would be dissected with more data (the mdat) being posted. Don't you think that graphs would be posted from the relevant mdats to further dissect issues*? Or at the very least, instructions on how to generate graphs representing the discussion, which has the added benefit of showing other users how to generate relevant graphs.

*The standard graph as described with the settings in the guide, is an excellent overview. However, it lacks resolution and finer detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post
In any case, that back and forth would be replaced with another more insidious one.
Simply replace the word mdat in your example, with graph. It plays out exactly the same, except, and here's the kicker, the graph probably wouldn't be scaled as per the guide, and hence.........

We could simply agree that graphs now get posted with the settings panel showing. But really, do you think that would work? People don't follow the recommendations as it is, adding more detail to the recommendation probably won't help with that.
ahblaza likes this.
Audionut11 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 07:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
artur9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: near philly
Posts: 1,214
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
Issues would still be dissected. I would presume that more issues would be dissected with more data (the mdat) being posted. Don't you think that graphs would be posted from the relevant mdats to further dissect issues*? Or at the very least, instructions on how to generate graphs representing the discussion, which has the added benefit of showing other users how to generate relevant graphs.
That hasn't been the case to date. AFAIR, every time an mdat has been posted the experts analyze and post summaries of the findings with nary a word about what in the mdat they looked at. With graphs, it's at least, "See the hump there. That's bad."

In a more pedagogical setting, I would want the expert to rip apart the mdat and post the graphs s/he used to reach the findings s/he came to. But that is an unreasonable expectation for a forum such as this. Requiring the graphs to be posted and having the knowledge seeker do the work seems a more judicious use of the experts' time. Seeing the back and forth between the knowledge seekers and the experts has been very instructive to me.

Granted, there are a ton of stupid questions and unreasonable postings. Internet, y'know?

Putting the mdats on dropbox or elsewhere outside of AVS is also problematic because they are gone in a few weeks. Do you know how frustrating it is to come across gems of postings where maybe half the information is in images or other data files that are no longer available? I don't use dropbox for anything, mind you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
Simply replace the word mdat in your example, with graph. It plays out exactly the same, ...
Obviously, we disagree.

Anyways, just my opinion. I don't see it as an either/or but I prefer to see the graphs.
Audionut11 likes this.
artur9 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2080 Post(s)
Liked: 771
In my experience forums fail miserably at being Wikis. After a certain number of pages information simply gets lost. I sometimes have a hard time to find my own posts with information I've posted weeks/months ago. Furthermore everybody is coming from a different background. Some need just to fill in some minor blanks, others need to understand the concept of phase. So the same questions will get asked over and over again and the best people in a forum can do is to re-post information (or links to that information) or start a real Wiki.

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  
Old Today, 02:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Yes, forums are for discussion. A wiki is a great idea, but an extremely daunting task. Count me in as a contributor if the idea gains traction.
Audionut11 is offline  
 

Tags
Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew
Thread Tools


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