![]() But the important part of any digital correction process is to get a rather accurate measurement first. The old trusty Room EQ Wizard free Software is based on the same principle except that it won't correct things for you and that you will have to define your own measurements points. So that's the basic principle on which Sonarworks Reference is based and IMHO it's the right approach. "So called" because nothing sounds absolutely flat : as close as it can gets, that doesn't exist when it comes to audio gears & spaces unless perhaps some of the most advanced an-echoic chambers where material got tested. Because that's all what it is about, a proper room correction digital solution is just supposed to get the most accurate measurement of your monitors and how they translate in your room, identifying the bumps & caves jumps across the all spectrum caused by rooms weak points & their reflections and then applying a matching corrected EQ curve, just before the final output which basically consist in a reversed EQ curve comparing to the initial measurement one : boosting where there was a lack of frequency response & taming where there was a unwanted boost and all of that against a so called FLAT reference. Many other solutions will only ask you to measure some kind of strategic/important spots in a room, so you will end up with a rather average EQ correction curve, I really think Sonarworks nailed it for that process & the way the software handles it and that it results in a far more accurate EQ correction curve. What you just have to do is to define your listening sweet spot in the room. ![]() The best being that those points kind of relate to each other & update the required measurement location point during the all process. I never got to test or use ARC but even if they seem to have improve it with a recent new Mic and increasing the measurement points ( 7 for the easy setup & 16 for the most accurate correction ), Sonarworks is going far more beyond this with more than 20 points of measurements. Software & digital calibration/correction technology is proven to work, other manufacturers and solutions are available on the market like the long time existing IK Multimedia ARC and also other much more expensive solutions towards professional or Home Theater purists that cost thousands. ![]() I definitely recommend it, it's probably one of the best investment I made and I started with version 3, so even if I got it on sales at the time, it was a bit more expensive than now and Systemwide wasn't even existing, but still the plugin was doing a good job, they have really improve the technology & the application as well as the plugins since. What’s your opinion on Sonarworks Reference? Do you recommend it? "Man from Space" goes Japanese and trancey at the same time: "Mekanomancer" It's not helping you hear "better." it's technically less accurate as far as raw audio is concerned. ![]() I could see an argument to train with NX if you mix through it, but only for the sake of getting used to the artifacts you are introducing. The changes that you are actually training your ears to react to would be relatively identical if this curve is applied throughout the whole course of the exercise.Īlso, I've never used NX but it makes sense that cross-talk and micro-delays would only narrow the stereo image, making it HARDER to do Panman and more confusing to do Delay Polanco Is your loopback function doing a round of DA/AD conversion? I'd look into that if precision monitoring is the goal because it sounds like your subjecting yourself to an immediate compromise of fidelity in order to incorporate these plug-in's for training. You're just hearing a different distribution of them as a starting point. You aren't hearing "clearer frequencies" when you use Sonarworks. The whole point is to detect the CHANGES. This stuff doesn't make a difference in the first place in regards to training.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |