| Ta
Interesting replies Ethan. My RT not defined thing is a bit pedantic. To be mathematically diffuse over a decent frequency range requires a large room. There is an actual size defined by ISO. The same ISO and others take Rev measurements at various room locations and do a simple mean average for each band. We have all seen the difficulties in measuring LF absorption in large commercial Rev chambers. This is because the rooms are generally not big enough, or averaged enough to give accurate RT figures. Of course this makes your data look even more extraordinary. I have always wondered why Fuzz does not deliver decent EDT graphs. One can often see a zero time octave band. I have usually put this down to the fact that the sound field is not actually diffuse at all. I believe Chris has taken all this averaging on board extensively in FM3. I would love to see your room tested with this or other working software. Dirac looked very seriously good to me on a few brief encounters. Perhaps you can use a demo of it, it is PC. I wonder is REW as good as it looks here, or is it actually applying fairly similar small numbers when uncertain or out of range. Do the Waterfalls tell the same story? Sorry, but it looks far far too good to be true! I would love to hear from REW's creator on this. Over what range of RT is REW accurate or even defined? Do forgive me if I am a bit sceptical. I have recently been trying to duplicate the remarkable Helmholtz experiment on page 229 of the MHOA.
It is not working out, I have built a similar device with no effect whatsoever on the room mode.
Best, DD |