![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.130.219
In Reply to: RE: Poll: Who is doing phase correction? posted by Presto on December 17, 2009 at 15:39:56
The "phase response" of digital playback, especially when using linear-phase filtering (which is utilized in over 90 percent of playback), is already exemplary...... Any "correction" wouldn't really do anything..........
Now if it's to correct the phase response of a loudspeaker, that would be a different story. But the designer of the correction must know the phase response of your particular loudspeaker in order for it to work......
Follow Ups:
For one point in space.
This is why BruteFIR is difficult to configure. It requires you to take measurements of your speakers in your room, then constructs a FIR convolution filter that is used to transcode the playback of your source material in perfect acoustic phase (for one point in space).
Btw, the jury is still out how important "perfect" acoustic phase response is. S. Linkwitz has an interesting test on his website that is worth trying out.
Any technique that uses a measurement at the "sweet spot" for a reference, yes, this is true. The more correction that is used, the more "location dependent" the system becomes.
But for the Thuneau Arbitrator, no such measurements are necessary for it's operation. Granted you may need to measure to find out the system transfer functions to dial in the Arbitrator properly, but the Arbitrator does not make use of these measurements itself.
As such, the Arbitrators phase correction is valid for as many listening positions as the speaker was originally capable of. I think this is what makes it stand out from the other correction methods available.
Cheers,
Presto
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: