or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › The "Official" xtz Room Analyzer Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Official" xtz Room Analyzer Thread - Page 6

post #151 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I have the same issue. I e-mailed XTZ and was told it "shouldn't happen", but was given no corrective suggestions.

Craig

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.
post #152 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyal Mellor View Post

Yes XTZ added 1/12th as a software update so no reason why 1/24th couldn't be added too.

XTZ displays the information in a spectrogram format rather than a waterfall. Same data, different presentation.

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.
post #153 of 437
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?
post #154 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

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.

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

Quote:


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

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.
post #155 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

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.
post #156 of 437
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

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.

Tonight I tried installing XTZ II Pro on an older notebook computer with Windows Vista. This older computer never had XTZ installed on it, so this was a virgin install. It worked fine. However, the battery is dead in this notebook and there is a god-awful noise when it's plugged into the power adapter. I'll need a new battery for this old notebook if I want to continue with this... not a good investment.

Nonetheless, re-invigorated by this, I tried Rob's suggestion above; I uninstalled both versions from my main Windows 7 laptop, then re-installed just the new version... NO Joy! It "sees" the soundcard, and it outputs the test tones, but it doesn't read anything from the mic. Fortunately, I was able to download the original version and re-install it, and it works just fine.

Anyone have any idea why the new software can find the mic on a Windows Vista machine, but not on a Windows 7 machine? (I intend to send a link to this post to XTZ. Hopefully, they'll chime in here with some insights.)

Craig
post #157 of 437
Thread Starter 
More info...

rickardl PM'd me suggesting I look at the mic setting in the audio mixer. I tried his suggestion...

In Windows7 Control Panel; Hardware and Sound; Manage Audio Devices; Speakers;
Playback Tab: Speakers: XTZ Audio: Ready
Recording Tab: Microphone: XTZ Audio: Currently Unavailable


OK, so that explains why the mic is not "seen" by XTZ. However, I then closed Control Panel, opened XTZ RA Pro II, to verify it didn't work.... and....

VIOLA!... It worked! Going back into Control Panel it now shows:

Playback Tab: Speakers: XTZ Audio: Ready
Recording Tab: Microphone: XTZ Audio: Default Device


I don't know why toggling through the Control Panel microphone setting enabled the XTZ mic, but it is currently working.

I had heard back from XTZ Tech Support. I will e-mail them with this "solution." They may wish to investigate further.

I also plan to post some graphs depicting the difference between 1/3, 1/6 an 1/12 octave resolution. Then users such as "goneten" can judge for themselves the benefits the increased resolution.

Craig
post #158 of 437
Thread Starter 
The following graphs are the exact same measurement. The only difference is the amount of smoothing applied to the graph:

1/12 Octave Smoothing


1/6 Octave Smoothing


1/3 Octave Smoothing


1/2 Octave Smoothing


Going from 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/6 seems significant. I was previously fine with 1/6 Octave smoothing. The increase in resolution to 1/12th Octave smoothing doesn't seem terribly significant. Increasing the resolution to 1/24th or 1/48th *may* add something. I'm not sure how much value it would have.

IMO

Craig
LL
LL
LL
LL
post #159 of 437
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?
post #160 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

The following graphs are the exact same measurement. The only difference is the amount of smoothing applied to the graph:

1/12 Octave Smoothing


1/6 Octave Smoothing


1/3 Octave Smoothing


1/2 Octave Smoothing


Going from 1/2 to 1/3 to 1/6 seems significant. I was previously fine with 1/6 Octave smoothing. The increase in resolution to 1/12th Octave smoothing doesn't seem terribly significant. Increasing the resolution to 1/24th or 1/48th *may* add something. I'm not sure how much value it would have.

IMO

Craig

Thanks for your (on-going) trail blazing activities Craig. I will give it a go this weekend.
post #161 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

The increase in resolution to 1/12th Octave smoothing doesn't seem terribly significant.

is this a localized statement to this particular setup/measurement, or are you making an attempt at a global statement.
post #162 of 437
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

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

Locally, I'm saying this...

1/12 Octave Smoothing


...doesn't look a whole lot different than this:

1/6 Octave Smoothing


Infer globally whatever you want.

Craig
post #163 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Infer globally whatever you want.

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)
LL
LL
post #164 of 437
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.
post #165 of 437
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

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.

Send an e-mail to XTZ: info@xtz.se I sent one the other day and the CEO of XTZ responded to me. None of us can answer your question, but maybe he can.

Craig
post #166 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Send an e-mail to XTZ: info@xtz.se I sent one the other day and the CEO of XTZ responded to me.

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.
post #167 of 437
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?
post #168 of 437
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.
post #169 of 437
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. wink.gif
post #170 of 437
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?
post #171 of 437
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
post #172 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

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!


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.
post #173 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillips751 View Post

Actually it use to be very "consistent".

are you measuring rt60 (RTxx) with an omni-source (eg, dodec) and well past Dc?
post #174 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillips751 View Post

Actually it use to be very "consistent".

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
post #175 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
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.

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.
Quote:
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).

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. rolleyes.gif

Weren't you banned from the Shack?
post #176 of 437
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
post #177 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

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 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...


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
post #178 of 437
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!
post #179 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

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.
post #180 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillips751 View Post

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

The trail of conferences from which one has been banned may be indicative.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › The "Official" xtz Room Analyzer Thread