| No doubt
Dange, I suspect that if both speakers were driven, the mic was most likely at the mid point. Perhaps Marc will return now that the discussion is civilised.
The Impulse Response is a given. Most of software we use takes an IR and derives the various graphs from that. Aside- IR reverbs are simply wonderful.
I have noted the fascination with ETC and have quizzed several of it's proponents. No-one has yet demonstrated how it shows reflections clearer, simpler, or better in any way, than the Impulse Response Graph itself. If I come across as ETC bashing, and I probably do, that would be an entirely wrong assumption. I take in general, a devil's advocate view of Measurement Software. Expectations are way overblown IMHO. People expect wonders from such tools. There is an expectation of answers to 'How is my room' 'Identify it's problems', and 'prescribe an exact course of treatment'
If you were to read my Room Analysis Primer V2, that subtext should be apparent. Obviously it's primary function is to get the reader up and going.
As ever I think many, many, of the extended features in both REW and FM could be usefully omitted. The auto room Eq in REW, the speaker design stuff in FM. Plenty to edit out IMHO. Both these wonderful products' real strength is in providing affordable and in FM's case easily useable Acoustic Analysis.
Point and shoot is just fine for comparative measurement. The rest is for pros. Sure we can ignore the extras, but initially it can all look equally useful, which leads to much confusion. I would strongly encourage both products' authors to consider Lite and Pro versions rather than continually adding complexity to the current products
DD
|