Thing is though, you'd need to keep your original wav/flac files if
doing the batch thing, since if you move house or rearrange the
listening room you need to re-apply a different correction...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Thing is though, you'd need to keep your original wav/flac files if
doing the batch thing, since if you move house or rearrange the
listening room you need to re-apply a different correction...
Yeah, that would be a real pain. All in all real time is better - and
I think
Surely, for someone using a squeezebox (or similar) there is a poor
man's solution. Just get some appropriate software to play the
calibration sounds from your Squeezebox, listen to them with a
Behringer mic, and then get some software to run the conversion on the
FLAC files. I would be amazed if
azinck3 Wrote:
Anyone have any experience with one of these? $300 sounds a bit better
than $7000...
I'm using one since 10 months, very usefull and a great value, quite
decent DAC also. Much better if tweaked (analogue out, clock, PS caps
etc).
The DEQ is of course much less sophisticated
krzys Wrote:
I'm using one since 10 months, very usefull and a great value, quite
decent DAC also. Much better if tweaked (analogue out, clock, PS caps
etc).
The DEQ is of course much less sophisticated than a TACT (filters and
number of filters) but makes a very good job.
What do you
Skunk, right on about the remote.
Phil, I will try the GV software today. The Tact is digital input only.
I am using it as preamp with SB volume cranked. So far, I have not been
able to tweek the Tact to sound as transparent as SB connected analog
straight to the amp. If GV is easier to use,
richidoo Wrote:
Skunk, right on about the remote.
Phil, I will try the GV software today. The Tact is digital input only.
I am using it as preamp with SB volume cranked. So far, I have not been
able to tweek the Tact to sound as transparent as SB connected analog
straight to the amp. If
Hello,
New to this forum with newly purchased SB3. Some are talking about
alternative software for TacT - namely Good Vibrations. Where can I get
it ? Is it a free software ?
--
chyc
chyc's Profile:
Probably best to find the Yahoo TACT forum for that..If you get really
stuck I can supply the GV.exe by email.
you need to start with the .tim files from the normal TACT software
measuring process..GV takes those as input to create new curves.
If there is any loss of transparency via the TACT in
rbl Wrote:
Surely, for someone using a squeezebox (or similar) there is a poor
man's solution. Just get some appropriate software to play the
calibration sounds from your Squeezebox, listen to them with a
Behringer mic, and then get some software to run the conversion on the
FLAC files. I
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Probably best to find the Yahoo TACT forum for that..If you get really
stuck I can supply the GV.exe by email.
you need to start with the .tim files from the normal TACT software
measuring process..GV takes those as input to create new curves.
If there is any loss of
opaqueice Wrote:
Is there such a thing? This seems like an excellent idea, especially
for SB users who already have a computer as part of their system. And
if there was any problem with real-time processing (which I agree there
shouldn't be on a modern system), you could simply have a
sort of - provided one stays clear of the expander and other creative
features...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
dwc Wrote:
Poor man's TacT = Behringer DEQ 2496 + mic.
Anyone have any experience with one of these? $300 sounds a bit better
than $7000...
--
azinck3
azinck3's Profile:
my tact 2.2 was about $4k - and worth every cent/penny...
I've used a fair few Behringer units in the past (in the studio) and
whilst they are incredible value I'm not sure the 2496 is exactly a
tact...
--
Phil Leigh
I did not mean to imply that the DEQ is as nice as the TacT in any
dimension.
I really did mean Poor man's - i.e. that this is a suggestion for
someone who is never going to kick out the kilo-dollars for a Tact.
They can still get semi-automated room correction entirely in the
digital
Phil, I hope your wife is back by now, and I hope the cats are still
pissed :)
I have the Tact still here in the house, been playing with it to get
used to it, see if it is really for me. No doubt it improves the
clarity, and I smile big when I hit the preset. But it seems to add
some kind of
richidoo Wrote:
BTW. The Tact dealer, Hometheaterdoc.com, Shane Sangster was
knowledgeable and met each question with confidence while he ran the
calibration.
Shane is a good guy, very willing to help. I'm going to get a Tact from
him soon :)
--
95bcwh
yeah the remote is tacky - but I never use it!
Rich - are U using the tact between sb dac? (or between sb and amp?)
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread:
Hi,
it is perhaps worth mentioning that TacT has now a new RCS model called
2.2XP. The main difference is that the correction process doesn't need a
PC anymore (all done inside the RCS unit) and it also implements what
they call Dynamic Room Correction where the level of correction varies
Rich - it depends if you use the TACT software or the Good Vibrations
alternative - and you certainly CAN boost frequencies - if you want
to.
Just tried something I haven't done for a long time - turned the RC
off...it does sound louder with RC on although the SPL meter says
otherwise. In my
Phil Leigh Wrote:
In the same way that the sound changes slightly as you move around the
room, the TACT correction is only accurate in your normal listening
position - however, in practice it works rather well regardless of
listening position...
Understood...yet there are DSP's used in the
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Yes agreed, but those systems are crude by comparison.
They seem pretty sophisticated to me (see a solution from Meyer Sound
here: http://www.meyersound.com/616/) but as I said, I don't know a lot
about these things.
But back to the FIR filters: does anyone know much more
azinck3 Wrote:
They seem pretty sophisticated to me (see a solution from Meyer Sound
here: http://www.meyersound.com/616/) but as I said, I don't know a lot
about these things.
But back to the FIR filters: does anyone know much more about these
and how they compare to what the TacT can
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Well - they are sophisticated in some ways - but not in the way we'd
appreciate! Pro sound reinforcement is a whole different bag of
spanners...
Haha, no kidding...
Phil Leigh Wrote:
and yes, FIR filters is part of the TACT proposition - some people will
disagree
Hee Hee - that's what I've been banging on about - once you've heard
what RC does there's NO going back...and it's not trickery, just the
plain old appliance of science!
Nice one Richidoo!
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's
That was a nice way to spend a weekend.
But in the end it will be much more expensive than mine - going to rock
festival in Denmark!
--
tomsi42
SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact.
tomsi42's Profile:
Was interested in your experience of the rcs 2.2, which is something I'd
also like to get a demo. One question though. If the frequency response
deviates by 10db (an absolute minimum in most setups), then a 100W amp
would have to have an output of 1000W at that -10db point, and I'd hate
to think
rbl Wrote:
Was interested in your experience of the rcs 2.2, which is something I'd
also like to get a demo. One question though. If the frequency response
deviates by 10db (an absolute minimum in most setups), then a 100W amp
would have to have an output of 1000W at that -10db point, and
rbl Wrote:
One question though. If the frequency response deviates by 10db (an
absolute minimum in most setups), then a 100W amp would have to have an
output of 1000W at that -10db point, and I'd hate to think how the
speakers would react. So can it really flatten the frequency response
and
This is quite compicated stuff, but basically you don't let the TACT
actually boost anywhere by +10dB - you shift the baseline 0dB down by
several dB so that it only actually boosts by 3-4 dB...there is some
degree of compromise in this but it's generally felt to be an OK
trade-off...
IF you've
That's very helpful - thanks. It sounds like it just gets the frequency
response several dB better rather than going the whole way, which is
reasonable. And I guess it improves phase response a lot and therefore
stereo imaging. As always the bottom line, as you say, is to have a go
with one which
Forgive me if this is a dumb question: I'm not that familiar with the
TACT units, nor do I know all that much about room correction.
Can most of the functionality of the TACT units be duplicated with a
FIR filter? If so, this thread really motivates me to start
re-exploring getting FIR working
I don't know about FIR filters, but as a very basic overview the TacT
room correction aims to get the sound at the listening position to be
the same as what is on the CD. The TacT processor is calibrated by
putting a mic at the listening position whereupon it plays and listens
to various sounds
34 matches
Mail list logo
