Login / Register
 
Before posting your measurement results
New Reply
Subscribe
#91
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #91
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Normal

In my quick operational tests, FM and REW behave broadly the same.

ETC levels end up around -20dB or so. Pushing the level carefully and if there are no large peaks in the response, maybe -10dB.
This seems credible to me, as an IR response does not contain the energy of the original sweep. It has been subtracted. (Plse correct me if I am wrong here John or Chris) I would note that -20 is quite a usual '0VU' level in digital recording and will still deliver a 76dB range even with 16 Bit capture.

The only significant issue IMO is the transfer of data to other apps.
Both Chris and John seem to concur in recommending Normalise prior to Exporting. Again, this makes sense to me as the internal workings of these apps can generate 64 Bit data.

DD
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#92
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
In my quick operational tests, FM and REW behave broadly the same.

ETC levels end up around -20dB or so. Pushing the level carefully and if there are no large peaks in the response, maybe -10dB.
This seems credible to me, as an IR response does not contain the energy of the original sweep. It has been subtracted. (Plse correct me if I am wrong here John or Chris) I would note that -20 is quite a usual '0VU' level in digital recording and will still deliver a 76dB range even with 16 Bit capture.

The only significant issue IMO is the transfer of data to other apps.
Both Chris and John seem to concur in recommending Normalise prior to Exporting. Again, this makes sense to me as the internal workings of these apps can generate 64 Bit data.

DD
If recording in 16 bit and at low level; normalizing won´t help. And even if recording in 24 bits, you still want to record at good level or the noise floor from the AD/preamp will be higher than needed.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#93
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I would note that -20 is quite a usual '0VU' level in digital recording and will still deliver a 76dB range even with 16 Bit capture.
Before posting your measurement results
#94
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #94
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Resolution

When measuring, the level meter shows the TOTAL energy hitting the mic.
This is the full energy of the Sweep PLUS the contributions from the speaker and the room.
EDIT, afaik, when the meter in REW hits 0dBFS or in FM hits 94dB this recording will hit 0dBFS. However it is a Recording of an event, not an Impulse Response yet.
When the Sweep is mathematically subtracted we are left with the Difference, i.e. The response of the speaker and room. I would guess that this has to be lower in level. I will ask Chris and John to comment on this.
Again, it seems like ARTA treats this process in a different way to REW and FM and I guess only the developer could 'resolve' these differences....

That is my simplistic working understanding of IR's in general. Certainly when I have viewed or listened to IRs from Measuring Software or Convolution Reverbs, they have been tiny.

I presume this Difference file, the IR, is a product of calculation, with up to
64 Bit resolution.

16 Bit Recording, even with a conservative -20dB level still has a 76dB range. Plenty for purpose I would have thought.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 11th December 2012 at 06:28 PM.. Reason: FS
#95
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #95
Gear nut
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 125

liscio is offline
Again, the recording level and impulse response level do not correlate with one another.

I could send a -60dB sweep through a digital loopback, and get a 0dB impulse peak.

DanDan: There is no subtraction. It's a much deeper subject: you should read Swen Müller's paper to understand further: http://www.four-audio.com/data/MF/aes-swp-english.pdf
__________________
http://www.SuperMegaUltraGroovy.com
Acoustic Measurement Software for Mac OS X. http://www.FuzzMeasure.com
#96
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #96
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Gold

Thank you Chris. I used the term 'subtraction' more in the english than the mathematical sense. I will take a look at the link but I doubt if my maths is up to fully understanding it.

In essence, though, I am glad to see it confirmed that the Recording Level and IR Level are two different animals.

Again, simplistic, but I also note that the default Sweep Level in REW is
-12dBFS. Which appears to be about the amount that the IR Level is lower in the ETC, when the Recording is carefully done to hit 0dBFS on input meters.

EDIT, Arjan of AudioEase, explains IR very nicely here http://www.audioease.com/Pages/Altiverb/
I note he doesn't say 'subtract' but rather 'calculates the sweep out of the recording'.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 11th December 2012 at 07:13 PM.. Reason: IR explained
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#97
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Again, simplistic, but I also note that the default Sweep Level in REW is
-12dBFS. Which appears to be about the amount that the IR Level in the ETC when the Recording is carefully done to hit 0dBFS on input meters.
The playback level has no relation to input gain. I assume a lover level than 0 dBFS palyback level was chosen as default so that people wouldn´t blow their speakers if unused to this kind of procedure and a sine sweep with high RMS level compared to normal music. Optimally; a playback level of just below clipping is naturally preferred but since it´s not that critical, a -12 dBFS level is fine.
#98
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #98
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
12 11 IR 1.wav

Here is the file, 32 bit unnormalized. I dont have level meters or loopback so it is what it is. The doc says: The time length of the saved file will be about 620msec, at a sample rate of 48kHz.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#99
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
Attachment 320853

Here is the file, 32 bit unnormalized. I dont have level meters or loopback so it is what it is. The doc says: The time length of the saved file will be about 620msec, at a sample rate of 48kHz.
Thanks for sharing.

The IR is very noisy. The noise floor is at around -35 dBFS:
Before posting your measurement results-ir.gif
#100
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #100
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
12 11 IR 2 Loud.wav

Try this one. I ran this much louder and made sure the refrigerator was off.
#101
11th December 2012
Old 11th December 2012
  #101
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#102
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Before posting your measurement results-12-11-ir-1.gif
Before posting your measurement results-12-11-ir-2-loud.gif
Before posting your measurement results-12-11-ir-2-loud-log.gif

As you can see, your noise floor is still very high. The IR is quite short (620 ms, thus the sudden drop in the waterfall after this time) so increasing the sweep length (about 6 to 12 seconds is usually good, and use a log sweep) might improve matters. Also (if possible); use multiple takes (averaging). 3-4 sweeps or more to further improve the S/N-ratio.


EDIT:

Here´s an example of a good measurement (in terms of noise floor etc, not the acoustic response):
Need help to tune my control room. (First Measures Included)
#103
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #103
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Noisy

The -12dB Sweep playback was just a bit of musing. Alluding to headroom and such. FM uses FS Sweep but this disconcertingly lights up the clip lights in ProTools.
REW intends to be calibrated and the Sig Gen can output Sines or Pink noise. Full Scale Pink Noise would not be welcome!

The Impulse Response Level is not the same as the original Recording Level. Certainly in FM, apparently in REW and in this new app.

As such, Examination of non Normalised files from apps other than ARTA absolutely does not read the original Room Recording Level.

The level shown in the ETC, is of the Impulse Response, not the Room Recording which includes the Sweep energy.

Both of the software designers here say it is best to Normalise prior to Export.

Jim, if you Export using both Normalise and Not, import into REW, you will see the issue, which is confined to Export/Import and not other operation.
If you have followed normal level setting practice and if the app is competent and does things in the same way as REW and FM, your measurements should be fine.
You might note my earlier post Before posting your measurement results where I showed FM Waterfalls done at 16 and 24 Bit, ETC identically hitting -20 in both cases. No truncation, no noise issue, and no difference in the Graphs.

Again, an Impulse Response is not a Recording of a Sweep Playing over a Speaker in a Room. It is a calculated extraction of room and speaker information.

DD
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#104
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
The -12dB Sweep playback was just a bit of musing. Alluding to headroom and such. FM uses FS Sweep but this disconcertingly lights up the clip lights in ProTools.
REW intends to be calibrated and the Sig Gen can output Sines or Pink noise. Full Scale Pink Noise would not be welcome!

The Impulse Response Level is not the same as the original Recording Level. Certainly in FM, apparently in REW and in this new app.

As such, Examination of non Normalised files from apps other than ARTA absolutely does not read the original Room Recording Level.

The level shown in the ETC, is of the Impulse Response, not the Room Recording which includes the Sweep energy.

Both of the software designers here say it is best to Normalise prior to Export.

Jim, if you Export using both Normalise and Not, import into REW, you will see the issue, which is confined to Export/Import and not other operation.
If you have followed normal level setting practice and if the app is competent and does things in the same way as REW and FM, your measurements should be fine.
You might note my earlier post Before posting your measurement results where I showed FM Waterfalls done at 16 and 24 Bit, ETC identically hitting -20 in both cases. No truncation, no noise issue, and no difference in the Graphs.

Again, an Impulse Response is not a Recording of a Sweep Playing over a Speaker in a Room. It is a calculated extraction of room and speaker information.

DD

An IR file in 16 bits, with a peak level of -20 dBFS or lower will get truncated: Before posting your measurement results

An IR file calculated based on a recording with poor gain structure (low peak level = high noise floor) will also end up having a poor S/N ratio even if the peak level of the resulting IR is high. This is why I´m curious about the input level meter in FM.



EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
You might note my earlier post Before posting your measurement results where I showed FM Waterfalls done at 16 and 24 Bit, ETC identically hitting -20 in both cases. No truncation, no noise issue, and no difference in the Graphs.
Please export the 16 bit and 24 bit file from Fuzz in both 16 bit and 24 bit resolution without normalizing.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#105
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Both of the software designers here say it is best to Normalise prior to Export.
Who is arguing against?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Quick note on why I choose to not recommend normalizing when exporting IRs from REW (post 24 in this thread):

Apparently, a lot of users struggle with setting appropriate gain structure, so I´ve decided to suggest not to normalize the IR at export since if done, I (or others) would not be able to spot this potential problem (low rec level) and since I suggest 24 bit export, the bit depth will still be sufficient not to cause major issues when using the exported files even is low rec levels.

In normal use, normalization prior to export (especially if 16 bit resolution) would naturally be the best option.
#106
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #106
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Understanding

Quote:
An IR file in 16 bits, with a peak level of -20 dBFS or lower will get truncated:
It would, but such an animal does not exist. I know of no software which would have a 16 Bit IR. An Impulse Response is a file mathematically extracted from the Room Recording. They typically have a resolution of 32 or 64 Bit float. Note the terms used in the Software.

Quote:
An IR file calculated based on a recording with poor gain structure (low peak level = high noise floor) will also show end up having a poor S/N ratio even if the peak level of the resulting IR is high. This is why I´m curious about the input level meter in FM.

Recording at 16 Bit has always required a little care. However even at -20dB, a typical 0VU level, we still have a 76dB range.

24 Bit recording is a lot easier and better. A level of -48dB will still have 16 Bit Resolution.

Common REW and FM ETC peaks levels seem to come in around -20dB.

Both meters read FS, most people setting levels are probably used to recording.

This is all normal and there is absolutely no problem until we try exporting without normalising.

JohnPM REW Author:-

Quote:
REW converts audio data to 32-bit floats as it is captured. Processing is done in 64-bit doubles. The calculated impulse response is stored as 32-bit floats.

Exported impulse responses convert the 32-bit float IR data to fixed point data in the bit depth selected in the export dialog (16, 24 or 32-bit). For impulse response export from REW I recommend ticking the option to normalise the output to ensure the exported IR captures the full dynamic range available in the impulse for the the export bit depth selected.

Imported impulse response are converted to 32-bit float as they are loaded, their underlying precision depends on the bit depth the WAV or AIFF being imported was stored with.

The most common mistake when moving impulse responses between applications is exporting the data without normalising it and compounding that by using a 16-bit format for the export. That throws away a lot of resolution, which will be apparent when looking at the imported IR and plots derived from it, such as ETC and waterfalls.

The Level Meter in FM reads 94dB as a default. This can be calibrated to another level using an SLM or Calibrator.
Simply put, at default 94dB IS in effect FS.

A Recording kissing 94 will show about 0dB Magnitude or a tad above on the FR graph, and about -20 to -15dB on the ETC Magnitude.
Again the ETC Magnitude is not the level which happened at the Recording, it is an Impulse Response of the Room/Speaker.

Recording done in REW performs very similarly, there is still nothing different about FM.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 12th December 2012 at 01:37 PM.. Reason: JohnPM Quote
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#107
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
It would, but such an animal does not exist. I know of no software which would have a 16 Bit IR. An Impulse Response is a file mathematically extracted from the Room Recording. They typically have a resolution of 32 or 64 Bit float. Note the terms used in the Software.




Recording at 16 Bit has always required a little care. However even at -20dB, a typical 0VU level, we still have a 76dB range.

24 Bit recording is a lot easier and better. A level of -48dB will still have 16 Bit Resolution.

Common REW and FM ETC peaks levels seem to come in around -20dB.

Both meters read FS, most people setting levels are probably used to recording.

This is all normal and there is absolutely no problem until we try exporting without normalising.

JohnPM REW Author:-




The Level Meter in FM reads 94dB as a default. This can be calibrated to another level using an SLM or Calibrator.
Simply put, at default 94dB IS in effect FS.

A Recording kissing 94 will show about 0dB Magnitude or a tad above on the FR graph, and about -20 to -15dB on the ETC Magnitude.
Again the ETC Magnitude is not the level which happened at the Recording, it is an Impulse Response of the Room/Speaker.

Recording done in REW performs very similarly, there is still nothing different about FM.

DD
Recording at -48 dBFS (even if 24 bit) will result in a very high noise floor. Not a good option. There´s simply no reasoning in suggesting users don´t need to care about their recording levels.

Look at Jims IRs: Very noisy, and a 32 bit export is not going to solve that problem. The gain structure is what needs to be improved.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#108
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #108
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
An IR file in 16 bits, with a peak level of -20 dBFS or lower will get truncated: Before posting your measurement results

An IR file calculated based on a recording with poor gain structure (low peak level = high noise floor) will also end up having a poor S/N ratio even if the peak level of the resulting IR is high.
#109
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #109
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Fundamental Misunderstanding.

J-
Quote:
An IR file in 16 bits, with a peak level of -20 dBFS or lower will get truncated:
JohnPM
Quote:
The calculated impulse response is stored as 32-bit floats.
J-
Quote:
Export the IR files as standard audio files (wav/aiff etc.) in 24 bit without normalization and note the peak level indicated by the application when recorded.
Chris FM-
Quote:
Again, the recording level and impulse response level do not correlate with one another.
DD
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#110
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #110
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
J-

JohnPM

J-

Chris FM-

DD
You really need to re-read my posts.


EDIT:

But it´s kind of obvious that you don´t care about what I actually say. Is there a reason for removing the quote-markers from your quotes ... ? It´s a lot easier to track a quote with them intact, and read the entire post (and perhaps understand why a particular statement is made once you get the full context) …
#111
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,365

Syncamorea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Look at Jims IRs: Very noisy, and a 32 bit export is not going to solve that problem. The gain structure is what needs to be improved.
Since I'm not a room measurement expert, I could be out to lunch but I have always assumed that people tend to error on the low level side (for the amplified, room-stimulating signal) for a couple of reasons. First, they may be subconscously thinking in terms of recording the amplified signal as opposed to needing to optimize the room-response portion of the signal. And that can be a double-edged sword, since pushing your monitor too aggressively can introduce distortion components you really don't want to be measuring. Also, playing really loud sine waves, tone bursts, etc., probably concerns some folks that they may damage their (expensive) monitors.
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#112
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
Since I'm not a room measurement expert, I could be out to lunch but I have always assumed that people tend to error on the low level side (for the amplified, room-stimulating signal) for a couple of reasons. First, they may be subconscously thinking in terms of recording the amplified signal as opposed to needing to optimize the room-response portion of the signal. And that can be a double-edged sword, since pushing your monitor too aggressively can introduce distortion components you really don't want to be measuring. Also, playing really loud sine waves, tone bursts, etc., probably concerns some folks that they may damage their (expensive) monitors.
Yes, that´s probably one reason, and as stated previously:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
I assume a lover level than 0 dBFS palyback level was chosen as default so that people wouldn´t blow their speakers if unused to this kind of procedure and a sine sweep with high RMS level compared to normal music. Optimally; a playback level of just below clipping is naturally preferred but since it´s not that critical, a -12 dBFS level is fine.

EDIT:

It´s also perfectly possible that the only general “issue” is the 16 bit export without normalization (but then the application should be clear about the possible issues when doing so since most of the exported IRs from Fuzz I´ve found is a 16 bit un-normalized export and usually around -20 dBFS, that is causing problems).
#113
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #113
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Weird

Jens, I do not remove quote markers from my posts. In fact inserting them is a conscious act, not automatic on my computer. As you can see here your computer/browser is actually removing them.
Name:  Screen shot 2012-12-12 at 14.10.15.jpg
Views: 223
Size:  68.9 KB

DD
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#114
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #114
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Jens, I do not remove quote markers from my posts. In fact inserting them is a conscious act, not automatic on my computer. As you can see here your computer/browser is actually removing them.
Attachment 320946

DD
So why does your posts lack the:

Originally Posted by XXX, View Post button

heading above the quotes?
#115
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #115
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,365

Syncamorea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
It´s also perfectly possible that the only general “issue” is the 16 bit export without normalization (but then the application should be clear about the possible issues when doing so since most of the exported IRs from Fuzz I´ve found is a 16 bit un-normalized export and usually around -20 dBFS, that is causing problems).
Something I've not paid enough attention to is the level of the room response vs. frequency relative to the excitation SPL. I need to work on that.
#116
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #116
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,978

DanDan is offline
Lost

Jens I am afraid I simply don't understand what it is that you are trying to say.
Can you see the screenshot?
Quote marks and the sources are shown.
If you wish to discuss my posting style or anything else for that matter, you are welcome to contact me via PM.

Sync, basic tests with REW and FM here show that kissing FS on the level meter results in Impulse Response Peak Magnitudes of -20dB or so. This 'kissing' used to be normal 16 Bit practice, no longer necessary with 24 Bit when available.
In treated rooms with great care I have occasionally managed -10dB Peak.

Both programs work fine when operated in this manner. Both programs will Export as Audio Files with reasonable resolution if Normalisation is applied first.
As recommended.

DD
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#117
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #117
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Jens I am afraid I simply don't understand what it is that you are trying to say.
Can you see the screenshot?
Quote marks and the sources are shown.
If you wish to discuss my posting style or anything else for that matter, you are welcome to contact me via PM.
When I quote, there´s a button in the quote that links to the original post. This accreditation is somehow lost in your quotes.
#118
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #118
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
Jens Eklund
Thread Starter
#119
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Thread Starter
Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
Attachment 320951

Attachment 320952

Here are two more. I went into control panel in windows and turned the mic levels way up. I also have provided a normalized file for comparison.
I´ll have a look later.
#120
12th December 2012
Old 12th December 2012
  #120
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
Before posting your measurement results-12-12-rew-ir-loud.gif

I imported the 12 12 IR loud file into REW and got this
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Dannibal / Post Production forum!
9
LaChunkyStudio / Post Production forum!
1
Dissdnt_penguin / So many guitars, so little time!
19
GeorgeSkoufalos / Post Production forum!
2
evangelista / Post Production forum!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.