The "Official" xtz Room Analyzer Thread - Page 6

Humm, I was hoping that this software upgrade wasn't too good to be true. Maybe we should delete the old software version and re-install the new software as the old version might be holding on to the mic driver files.

Cool, thanks! Final question .. I know I've been a bit anal over this, but any idea what mic is included with XTZ? I've tried finding out but no luck.

Kal, I promise not to irritate you again on this. You have my word ... until I buy the software.

Dies the XTZ do full frequency measurements like REW? All the way from 10hz to 30khz+?

What are the main differences between the different XTZ models?

Also, are their any reputable states side dealers or sellers for these?

How does the XTZ compare to using REW with a Behringer ECM-8000, Behringer Xenyx 502, and a Creative Labs sound card?

Dunno. Identifying it only by shape is impossible and XTZ does not say.


OK. I am always a little short with folks who have a first reference available at the manufacturer's official website and yet come here for second-hand info. You are not alone.

I know. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are extremely direct and to the point, with very little drama. At least you're not as bad as Thomas W over at the Cult. Thanks again for your help so far, I appreciate it.

I finally got around to ordering the XTZ Room Analyzer II yesterday. I can't wait to try it out! Now, I just have to find a good sound processor. Anyone have opinions on the Qsc Dsp-30 versus the Behringer DCX-24/96?

Thanks for your (on-going) trail blazing activities Craig. I will give it a go this weekend.

is this a localized statement to this particular setup/measurement, or are you making an attempt at a global statement.

Well that's a pretty big conclusion to draw from one person's opinion.

I myself find 1/6 resolution good for seeing the overall trend...
Attachment 248233

...but 1/12 and higher for actually seeing what frequencies peaks and nulls are actually occurring at...
Attachment 248234

(same measurement but at different resolutions, just like your example)

Anyone know when the next software revision will be? Perhaps then it will include 1/24 -1/48 octave resolution. If both REW and Omnimic have 1/96 octave resolution or above, I can't see how XTZ can remain as it is. It needs to offer comparable resolution or at least greater than 1/12 to remain somewhat competitive.

I'm not sure if the CEO replied to me, but the reply I got was not very reassuring. Apparently they, the XTZ team, claim the resolution is "very high" and is enough. However they *may* increase resolution in future, but the vibe I got was that the current resolution is more than sufficient.

What do you guys mean by 1/6 resolution or 1/12 or 1/24? I was under the impression that these were EQ filters being applied by a signal processor. Can someone please explain this to me? Isnt the XTZ Room Analyzer just a measurement tool? Wouldn't a person need a signal processor, such as the Behringer DCX-24/96 or the QSC DSP-30, in order to apply any EQ'ing filters?

It refers to the resolution of the measurement, IOW the sample rate, or measurement rate, as in 6 samples per octave, or 12 samples per octave, etc.

The more measurements per octave, the more accurate the curve. In music, there are twelve half-tones per octave.

Just an update. Asked the CEO when he expects the next software upgrade. He tells me it will be released this Autumn. I did ask him to please increase the resolution so let's see how that pans out.

Hi my friend has a XTZ Analyzer and is having problems.

He cant get a consistent waterfall graph in the Full Range tab, the test signal is cut of.
Also the RT60 doesn't give a consistent reading as well.

Does anyone have similar problems?

Why would an RT60 calculation derived from locally variable impulse response be expected to be consistent in a space dominated by locally variable modal and specular behavior?

Its not the tool that is working improperly, its the expectations of the operator who does not understand the proper application of a statistical tool that assumes statistically homogenous behavior not in evidence in a small acoustical space.


And for waterfalls, you run a full range sweep and then window the convolved waterfall response to a window of from ~0-300 Hz.

With all due respect, simply because a box has a button on it with a particular label does not excuse the operator from understanding what it is that is going on and choosing and employing measurements correctly.

And while I am here, before more spend the money thinking that the unit somehow makes the process somehow significantly 'simpler', i would suggest downloading the free REW featuring even greater PRACTICAL utility, or, for even greater control, flexibility, with still greater practical utility, look at ARTA, available for 79 Euros (about ~$105 USD currently). Yeah, I know, the 3 cables can be confusing, but MonoPrice sources them all cheaply. And an ART Dual USB Pre is available from B&HPhoto for about $69. The result - less money spent and greater practical capabilities. And at least with regards to ARTA, much better documentation!
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/29/12 at 12:28pm

Are you a XTZ Room Analyzer owner or use to own one?
Actually it use to be very "consistent".
Also looking for people that might have the same problem as my friend.

are you measuring rt60 (RTxx) with an omni-source (eg, dodec) and well past Dc?

Of course not.

What we have is a case of by the mere fact that the tool has a 'button' that says "RT60", that by 'pressing it' you obtain an 'answer'. And as such it must be valid - regardless of whether the required pre-requisite criteria for such a calculation are satisfied or not.

The fact that a tool is a bit easier to set up by virtue that the cables are included and pre-configured does not release the operator from the requirement that they understand what they are doing.

The use of the RTxx calculations assume the existence of a reverberant soundfield.

In a reverberant or diffuse soundfield, the time average of the mean square sound pressure is everywhere the same. The flow of energy in ALL directions is equally probable, which requires an enclosed space with boundaries featuring essentially no component of acoustical absorption. This means that at no point in the homogenous soundfield can one determine or resolve any energy measured into a path, as each path at any point in the room is equally probable with every other path. Therefore there is essentially no net energy flow..

In a semi-reverberant field, sound energy is both reflected and absorbed. Energy flows in more than one direction. Much of the energy may be from a diffuse field, but there are substantial components of the field that have a definable direction of propagation from the noise source. This semi-reverberant sound field is what is encountered in the vast MAJORITY of all architectural acoustic environments. And small acoustical spaces may be supremely challenged to establish any appreciable reverberant /diffuse element, instead being characterized by locally variable modal and specular sound fields...hence invalidating the use of any statistical calculations which necessarily assume the existence of a homogeneous reverberant soundfield.

The particular measurement platform does not determine the suitability of a particular measurement. The conditions existent in the acoustical space determine what measurements and/or calculations are appropriate. Hence it is incumbent upon the operator to learn about the factors that contribute to the proper measurement of actual conditions within an acoustical space. Just because a tool has a button labeled "RT60" does NOT render the calculation, nor a methodology for acquiring such a calculation (eg. a flawed directional stimulus signal source and a mic NOT placed past the critical distance where the gain of the direct soundfield equals that of the reverberant soundfield - which is rather difficult to do in an acoustical space that is insufficiently large to support a statistical reverberant soundfield at that frequency!)

The RTxx calculations are reserved for large acoustical spaces that support a reverberant soundfield. they are not the proper calculation for small acoustical spaces that do not satisfy the required pre-requisite acoustical behavior for the statistical models and subsequent calculations to apply.

Instead, in a small acoustical space, you are necessarily limited to evaluating the modally variant LF soundfield with the waterfall and the specularly variable soundfield with tools including the ETC by the behavior of the soundfields that actually exist - and NOT the buttons that are present on a tool.
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/30/12 at 9:49am

I never knew one could fine tune the art of speaking nonsense, but as you have shown, with time and practice one can surely perfect it. Coming from the same guy who claimed that frequency response could not subjectively affect our perceptions of bass. You just aren't a particularly credible source of information.

Yes Einstein, you need a mic (of which there are many to choose from), you then need a sound card and phantom power (of which there are many to choose from), then you need to connect it all up and calibrate it (some people don't want to waste time fiddling around). If REW was the easiest program to get up and running you probably wouldn't see members over at HTS burying their heads in the sand. Oh but wait, you'll see plenty of threads where members give up in frustration for this very reason. Oh my, how could that be? It's not even about connecting it up, it's about trusting the results you see on screen and there are plenty of cases of inaccurate results due to set up. But it's oh so simple.

Weren't you banned from the Shack?

Set up IS simple. Unfortunately their writeup utilize illustrations and terminology that do not conform to the actual configurations. As well as folks who go of on their own with fascinatingly strange configurations as they spend more time trying to avoid performing a few steps than simply doing them would take - many of which are not valid at all.

But its always fun to watch the clueless tell those who do know how to do it how it should be done.

If they give up because they cannot configure 3 cables and select an input and an output, they SHOULD bury their heads!
As if they can't figure out such a basic configuration, they certainly are not ready to do the due diligence required to know what measurements are appropriate and how to perform them.

And I am sorry if you do not understand the issue of WHY the RTxx calculations are NOT appropriate for use in a small acoustical space.

But no wonder its nonsense, as you haven't a clue as to what we are referring. That sure makes you smart!

But keep talking, as you simply demonstrate why an all in one tool come no closer to being of help than one where one must configure 3 cables but yet still has no clue as to what the measurements mean nor ar appropriate.

And heaven forbid one would suggest the users of a particular tool to actually post their data files so that we can open and convolve the data more conveniently and quickly when volunteering to help someone who hasn't a clue...
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/30/12 at 6:18pm

You can have your opinion.

You haven't answered the questions asked, have you had a XTZ Room Analyzer, and where you kicked of HTS, or maybe you have your head in the sand for other reasons.

I personally have REW as well as Omnimic and yes both of them have strengths and weaknesses, like everything else.
Edited by Phillips751 - 7/30/12 at 6:32pm

TWO people were kicked off the redneck's website for having the unmitigated audacity to suggest that the raw data REW files be posted allowing for those of us who DO understand the manipulation of the files in the application to convolve them properly - instead of waiting for those who do NOT understand the convolvement process to serendipitously generate a view and then post a jpeg of what they think it should be since the other clueless ones there are too #^$%@# lazy to simply open the file with the application!

And buy XTZ or Omnimic????? WHY???????????

We have been using a TEF for almost 30 years and Easera for 7 years, as well as a handful of other state of the art tools. Why should we be limited by the severely restricted entry level toys? But yes, we do have REW, and it is anything but difficult to configure.

And more importantly, YOU should be learning what the various measurements mean and where the are even applicable.

But its nice that they randomly toss in an RTxx calculation suitable only for large acoustical spaces so that those who have no idea as to what the various measurements apply or mean can simply push buttons and erroneously imagine that they have generated something of value and then spend their time telling others who DO know 'how it is'.

As local pointed out, even if you can generate an RTxx calculation, neither the pre-requisite soundfield exists in a small acoustical space and you have not even utilized the proper tools nor the proper setup to capture it if indeed existed!

You have a anger management problem and you should see someone about that fast.

Everybody for their own, there would be someone out there that thinks TEF and Easera is a mere toy as well. Because you have used these for sometime you think that it is the best, which is great for you.

The trail of conferences from which one has been banned may be indicative.