It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:06 am


ARC ROOM CORRECTION

Speakers, amplifiers, headphones, multi-channel audio, reverb units, mixers, wiring, ...
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostFri May 31, 2013 11:22 am

Don

In the Reaper audio settings menu you can check anticipative fx processing to decrease latency.
Because i am on holiday i can't try myself. Hope this wil decrease latency.

Regards Jan
Offline

Lauwerk

Member

  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:26 am
  • Location: Hershey, Pennsylvania

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostFri May 31, 2013 12:16 pm

Greetings, all!

First, Jan, it is only faintly, rarely apparent that English is any kind of a mild stretch for you. I have usually chosen to communicate with Prof. Maier and others (such as jpc) in German, partly out of respect but also for the “exercise” that I need. I appreciate your (and for that matter, others’) very successful efforts in English. And thank you for the note that I just saw concerning “anticipative Fx processing.” I will need to learn about this when I can get back to the organ.

As I recall, the last time I actually measured polyphony I was still running the 1010LT sound card. The selection of buffer size 768 was necessary in order to avoid the crackling I was sometimes hearing at buffer size 512 with the polyphony I wanted for larger sample sets. After I installed the RME card, I was pleased with the improvement in sound quality but never really thought about a possible increase in speed, so I conservatively set the buffer size for the new card above 512, at the next higher RME level (1024). I am happy to now learn that that was not necessary. I should take the time to remeasure polyphony and make correctly informed adjustments, but I have too much fun playing. And Ladegast/Wernigerode arrives in a couple of weeks!

The ARC2 guide does indeed show and recommend patterns of tightly spaced measurements. In my review, above, I was trying to express my satisfaction—even relief—at the great success I have obtained using a different approach to the distribution of microphone locations for measurement. In doing so, I was (i) definitely looking forward to “audience” situations, with listeners seated throughout the room, while (ii) still emphasizing the player’s position. However, my compromise actually avoided taking measurements in most of the room. The compromise also included the fact that all measurements were made at the same height, the height of the organist’s ears. While I can indeed make and apply alternative correction files that would rigorously represent the organist’s position—or for that matter, the seats at the other end of the room—I do not now perceive enough need to justify the effort. I have walked slowly throughout the room, sitting in places, while my daughter played static chords. Interestingly, the presence and nature of bass sound was essentially unchanged at any location, aside from the fact that the TOTAL sound level decreased more than I expected towards the far corner of the room (not an ARC issue). I did occasionally perceive subtle positional variations in narrow ranges of higher frequencies (in treble range/harmonics). I do not know how to differentiate the origin of these variations as being either from interference and/or reflections: the north wall of the room is dominated by a large window that contains a set of blinds between the inner and outer panes of glass, but there is no external drapery that covers the window space; the higher-frequency oddities were all in general proximity to this large glass surface. I did encounter one location of significant audio interference, where midrange sounds summed abnormally over a broad frequency range: standing at the back side of the organ console, facing the organist’s position (see photos). This was the only strikingly abnormal listening experience I encountered. However, it is a spatially small, non-listening position relatively close to the speakers, at roughly 45° to both speaker towers, and does not affect my observation that there is “no bad seat in the house.”

The following photos are in a way premature. I have been expecting to “Post Photos” once I am substantially finished with my bi-decade DIY organ, and with the installation of the last toe pistons last weekend, that is certainly getting close. I still need to replace the speaker grille cloths, which are showing signs of age.

In each of the two living rooms that this console has known under my ownership, it has faced away from the wall. I suppose, Doug, that this may complicate comparisons to other set-ups, although it adds realism to a limited number of sample sets such as Rabstejn nad Strelou, one of two Sonus paradisi sets originating from locations that roughly straddle one of my ancestral homes.

First photo, taken from front doorway.
The room is not grand in scale. It is 16.7 feet from the hallway opening (between the pillars at the left of the photo) to the fireplace situated between built-in symmetric white cabinetry units at the far end of the room. The back wall of the cabinetry is about 2.3 feet further, and the hallway to which the room is largely open is 4 feet wide. The maximum length measurement therefore adds to 23 feet. The room is 13ft 10in wide. In this photo, on the far left you can see the subwoofer on the bottom, with Advent and AR speakers stacked above. There are very successful acoustic spacers between them: a thick mouse pad under the AR speaker, and between the subwoofer and the Advent I have placed a double-layer of foam padding that originally served as cylindrical cushioning on the uprights of the outdoor swing set when my kids were little. The other Advent and AR speakers are stacked on a cabinet that is remarkably similar in height to the subwoofer, partly because the subwoofer stands on a plank supported by acoustic “needle” feet. The computer tower stands on another elevated plank next to the console. I have sometimes thought of moving the computer further away from the sub, but....


Image

Second photo, taken from leaning back into the built-in cabinetry on the right of the fireplace, northwest corner; wall dominated by the window is on the left.
You should envision a MIDLINE that extends directly across the room leftward from the middle of the organ console. Measurements 1 through 3 were taken above the “front” (player’s) edge of the organ bench. Measurements 4 and 5 were taken directly above the “back” corners of the organ console. Measurments 6 through 8 were taken along a line perpendicular to the MIDLINE, crossing the MIDLINE about 38 inches from the back of the organ console. Measurement 6 was taken above the intersection of the two lines, 7 was over the perpendicular line above the edge of the carpet (i.e., at the hallway junction), and 8 was over the same perpendicular line at the same distance from the MIDLINE as 7 but in the opposite direction from 6. Measurements 9 and 10 were taken above points that were about 38 inches further from the back of the console (total about 76 inches from the console) at the intersection of lines that extended directly from the sides of the console; in other words, positions 9 and 10 made a rectangle with the back of the console at console width and about 76 inches in length. I hope this makes it easier to understand that most of the room was NOT involved in the sampling.
By the way, if you look closely at the second photo, you can see evidence of the fact that I had to cut and re-engineer the bottom of the console because it is narrower than AGO pedalboards. Of course, neither of these photos reveals the 4M monster lurking on the other side.

Image

I hope this helps. Again, thanks for your help and support.

Don

P.S. Pat – Sorry, I can’t suggest anything about your observing “Host” instead of an actual latency measurement, other than the simple guess is that something about your VST connection prevents HW from completing its calculation.
Don Vlazny
Offline
User avatar

Doug S.

Member

  • Posts: 498
  • Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 8:17 pm
  • Location: Massachusetts USA

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostFri May 31, 2013 4:05 pm

Thanks Don,
This topic has been most interesting. I purchased ARC 2 and am thinking about just how I'll implement it.
My primary sample set is the exquisite Velisovo along with pipes throug 8 Saffire channels. I'm very pleased with the hybrid results. However when playing the set alone without pipes it is terrible when compared to headphone listening.
My large-ish un-carpeted open concept livingroom was planned for live pipes. The reflective surfaces contribute very negatively to the non-pipe effect. With four pair of different speakers plus a sub, planning a stand alone Reaper-Arc 2 combination is posing quite a mental challenge. Reaper is no fun for the Noob.
Thanks to all for taking time to post in such detail.
Doug
Doug
Offline
User avatar

pat17

Member

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:53 am
  • Location: La Rochelle, France

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostSat Jun 01, 2013 1:51 am

Lauwerk wrote:P.S. Pat – Sorry, I can’t suggest anything about your observing “Host” instead of an actual latency measurement, other than the simple guess is that something about your VST connection prevents HW from completing its calculation.


Thanks Don, I've tried to work it around, not sure on how reliable it is. Latency value is given on Reaper's menu bar, yet I don't know if the value is theoretical or actually measured. In my own case I can get down to 3 ms @ 128 buffer size and even 1.7 ms if going down to 64 -

Image

Does the value you obtain through Hauptwerk 4.0 gives the same value than Reaper's menu bar?

It might be worth noting I'm using a Mac Mini i7 2.3 Ghz with a Motu UltraLite Hybrid Mk. 3 hooked via FireWire.
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostSat Jun 01, 2013 2:32 am

Hello Don

Have you considered loading your samplesets truncated. It may be better for your reverbant room.

Regards Jan
Offline

Fokko

Member

  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:48 am
  • Location: Zwolle Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostSun Jun 02, 2013 8:53 am

Dear all,

I am on a learning curve to implement ARC2 and Reaper in a surround environment. The Reaper settings seems to be working properly now.
I am using a m-audio Audiophile as audio device, this device lacks an input for the ARC microphone.
So, I am looking for an additional device for doing measurements. It needs 48V and XLR input.
I could borrow an M-audio mobile pre/usb with this specs but it has a 16 bit audio resolution. Usually I am loading my sampleset with 20/24 bit depth.
Well, I wonder if it makes sense to take ARC measurements with a 16 bit audio resulotion ?
Fokko Horst
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostSun Jun 02, 2013 9:51 am

Hello Fokko

Just try it, i don't think the resolution is that important. Later if you want to upgrade or can borrow an other sound card then you can take new measurments. Maybe it is possible to use it only as a preamp and direct the mic. Signal directly to your soundcard and let your card do the AD conversion.

Regards Jan
Offline
User avatar

pat17

Member

  • Posts: 1149
  • Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:53 am
  • Location: La Rochelle, France

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 12:12 am

Hi Fokko,

If I am not mistaken this only point which is required beside the phantom power and XLR input is the capability to work with a 48 kHz sampling rate.
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 9:04 am

Hi Patrick

You are right you must use 48khz sampling rate.
Don used an external mic.preamp so this is also a option.

Regards Jan
Offline

Fokko

Member

  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:48 am
  • Location: Zwolle Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 9:56 am

Dear all,

Yes, I have read the 48khz requirements, but thanks for pointing out.
As said before, I have a somehow dated M-audio device with phantome 48V borrowed to do the ARC measurements (but with a 16-bit audio resolution). I found the apropriate driver on the internet. Trying to install there is a warning other/existing m-audio devices will be overwrited with the version to be installed. I have to avoid that! I am afraid to mix up my configuration and settings. Besides, I am not fully convinced to create a 16 bit filter, where HW-samplesets are loaded in 20/24 bit and to do the job again in future.
So, at this point I am thinking about upgrade my current audio device first (M-audio Audiophile firewire, still suggested by MDA as for Hauptwerk tested and dedicated device).
What about RME Fireface 400? Seems to be very qualified to me.

Feedback and suggestions are very welcome!
Fokko Horst
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 11:04 am

Fokko

The fireface 400 is no longer made and replaced with the fireface UCX with both firewire and usb connection.

Regards Jan
Offline
User avatar

mdyde

Moderator

  • Posts: 15444
  • Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:19 pm
  • Location: UK

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 11:36 am

Hello Fokko,

I can confirm that the RME Fireface UFX works extremely well with Hauptwerk, and that its performance and quality are excellent. (I use one myself.)

I understand that the Fireface 400 and FF800 were/are equally well-regarded.
Best regards, Martin.
Hauptwerk software designer/developer, Milan Digital Audio.
Offline

Fokko

Member

  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:48 am
  • Location: Zwolle Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 1:27 pm

Thank you.
I think the UFX does exceed budget, but I keep eyes open!
Fokko Horst
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 03, 2013 1:40 pm

The ucx is cheaper
Offline

Lauwerk

Member

  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:26 am
  • Location: Hershey, Pennsylvania

Re: ARC ROOM CORRECTION

PostMon Jun 10, 2013 1:59 pm

Greetings again!

I apologize for another delay/disappearance. There is usually so much going on that nothing proceeds linearly, and an intervening serious illness did not help.

Doug-
Doug S. wrote:Thanks Don,
This topic has been most interesting. I purchased ARC 2 and am thinking about just how I'll implement it.
My primary sample set is the exquisite Velisovo along with pipes throug 8 Saffire channels...Doug

You describe an elaborate and complicated hybrid set-up, well beyond my experience, and I wish you well with it! All I can report for certain is that ARC2 as an Fx in REAPER has done an amazing job for me of (i) making two dissimilar speaker pairs sound the same and (ii) bringing inappropriate low-bass (20-200Hz) under control, with the result of wonderfully improved clarity and reality of sound throught the room. Also (iii), since I run a REAPER project with two stereo tracks, each with its own very different ARC2 correction, I can envision that IF you need different corrections among your four stereo pairs (or other channel arrangement), it should be possible to do so, though you will need to reassign the appropriate correction to tracks 2, 3, 4, etc., each time you start up. Finally, (iv) although ARC2/REAPER uses perhaps negligible RAM, it does put burden on the CPU, with the potential to affect latency/polyphony (more below). Good luck!

Jan-
Jan Loosman wrote:Don

In the Reaper audio settings menu you can check anticipative fx processing to decrease latency.
Because i am on holiday i can't try myself. Hope this wil decrease latency.

Jan-
Regards Jan

Again, thank you for your input, this time particularly for making me aware of REAPER's "anticipative Fx" function. I had not looked into it before. When I opened the control panel that includes its checkbox, I discovered that it had already been enabled, apparently by default. Turning it "off" did not affect latency, so I turned it back "on." It does not appear to be doing any harm, though I cannot report any helpful effect on latency.

Pat-
pat17 wrote:
Thanks Don, I've tried to work it around, not sure on how reliable it is. Latency value is given on Reaper's menu bar, yet I don't know if the value is theoretical or actually measured. In my own case I can get down to 3 ms @ 128 buffer size and even 1.7 ms if going down to 64 -

Image

Does the value you obtain through Hauptwerk 4.0 gives the same value than Reaper's menu bar?


Thank you for your question—I had not looked at the menu-bar latency figure in my REAPER window. Now that I have, it appears to me that the numbers that appear in this menu bar (buffer size, sampling frequency, and latency) may simply be parameters that are available to both REAPER and to Hauptwerk via the ASIO. In my system, the same numbers that appear in the REAPER menu bar are also shown in the dropdown options in the Hauptwerk screen for determining “Audio Outputs” settings. At a buffer size of 512 (which I now always run), the latency and sampling frequency report exists for me in either of two pairs, whether in REAPER or the HW settings dropdown:

~12/13ms @ 44.1kHz
~11/12ms @ 48kHz

In contrast to the REAPER and HW Audio Settings options, the HW “Sound delay ms” that is shown in the HW “Audio, MIDI and Performance” floating panel appears to result from a different or additional calculation. For me, at 44.1kHz the “Sound delay ms” reads 21.7 (not “~12/13”), and at 48kHz it reads 21.3 (not “~11/12”). This “Sound delay ms” seems to better represent what I actually experience. After all, it read “46.7ms” when I initially FELT that the addition of ARC2 had (at buffer size 1024) increased latency beyond what I would like. I do not expect that I would have been sensitive to a new, higher latency if it were much less than an actual 40ms.
I agree that I could obtain a smaller latency value by reducing buffer size, but already at buffer size 512, I have had to reduce my polyphony limit to 2400 in order to provide the correct “protection” for large registrations. I am currently pleased with the compromise I have constructed between buffer size (512), polyphony (2400), and “Sound delay” (<22ms) in order to accommodate the addition of ARC2 processing.

Throughout the last 2+ years, I have been thrilled and grateful about the Hauptwerk development in my life. The additional clarity and vitality afforded by ARC2 has only enhanced that gratitude.

Best wishes and regards to all!
Don
Don Vlazny
PreviousNext

Return to Amplification

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron