Okay. Thank, Uli. I just wanted to make sure I’m not imagining what I’m hearing. I guess it’s a system-dependency thing. Moreover, I obviously cannot just keep raising the correction target level just for soundstage depth alone because under correction would create all sorts of sonic problems too. I...

Thanks Uli for the track recommendations. On a slightly related but different topic, as whitesilo pointed out some of us prefer a lower FDW for the high frequency in macro 1 as sonically it seems to preserve the soundstage depth more. Well, another thing I have found is that sometimes if I just rais...

When I first got Acourate in September 2020, I was under the impression that there is an "optimal" filter for my system that I can mathematically figure out or I can just look at the measurements (RT60/IACC/peak value on Step response in Macro 5/Shape of step response on Macro 5). Partly, it's me wi...

I’m glad I re-tried Alternative to VBA filter with and without FDW. I also re-tried my VBA + Alternative to VBA filter. I have been experimenting with Macro 1’s FDW selection lately and I ended up building a spreadsheet to calculate for each LF/HF setting pair, what the FDW would be at 20, 100, 200,...

Following Uli's suggestion in the original thread of adding a FDW before step 7, I found these increased decay times were mostly tamed. The cost is a smoothing of the inverse resulting in slightly less flat bass FR. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I’ve actually gone back to a VBA filter alone. ...

STransform is downloadable on the Acourate website under Infocenter, Download.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I’ll have to try this out for my system.

After writing the above post, I realized I can get very similar results, perhaps even superior results by simply setting the FDW in Macro 1 to a high value for the low frequency and a low value for the high frequency (an extreme choice would be 30/1). There are pros and cons compared to the SplitNJo...

In the past month, I have gone back to a convolution filter that only uses partial correction. The reason was that while I appreciate the coherence of sound from a full frequency correction, I have found that a partial correction (following a similar target curve) often has better transient response...

I have to admit, I’ve gone back to this again because I always worry that my room length measurement is off, e.g. is it 3.33m or 3.30m or 3.36m So I finally decided I was just going to measure the peak of that resonance frequency, e.g. 51.27Hz which would be 0.01950s = 936 samples. Even though I was...

Thanks. I see now if we don't use SplitNJoin and just use Macro 3, in addition to the gain issue, the phase correction between Macro 3 and the 1:1 filter would also be different. Or does Macro 4 only look at the amplitude and not the phase of the Inverse filter so the use of SplitNJoin would only ad...