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: 
 732Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #15931 of 15939 Old Yesterday, 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: 67
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
 
post #15932 of 15939 Old Yesterday, 08:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 10,536
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3236 Post(s)
Liked: 1768
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  
post #15933 of 15939 Old Today, 12:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,083
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2072 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:	7
Size:	268.8 KB
ID:	916610   Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled2.png
Views:	7
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; Today at 12:49 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #15934 of 15939 Old Today, 01:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 58
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  
post #15935 of 15939 Old Today, 01:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,083
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2072 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  
post #15936 of 15939 Old Today, 01:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 58
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  
post #15937 of 15939 Old Today, 01:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,083
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2072 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  
post #15938 of 15939 Unread Today, 03:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 58
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; Today at 03:13 AM.
Audionut11 is offline  
post #15939 of 15939 Unread Today, 03:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,083
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2072 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Tags
Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew

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