RC (Inguz etc.)

[michael123]

Hello fellow audiophiles

Anyone uses Inguz, Convolver (http://convolver.sourceforge.net/) or something else?

I have few peeks and deeps below 120Hz, I do not want full-scale RC..
I do not know if I want at all, experimenting today with Inguz was awful..

If anyone has positive experience, please share it

Michael

[Robin Bowes]

RC (Inguz etc.)

On 09/04/10 21:07, michael123 wrote:
>
> Hello fellow audiophiles
>
> Anyone uses Inguz, Convolver (http://convolver.sourceforge.net/) or
> something else?
>
> I have few peeks and deeps below 120Hz, I do not want full-scale RC..
> I do not know if I want at all, experimenting today with Inguz was
> awful
>
> If anyone has positive expierence, please share it

I've had a DEQ2496 in my Transporter FX loop ever since it was enabled
in firmware. I would strongly recommend trying one over software-based
solutions. Make sure you get a mic too.

R.

[Curt962]

Inguz works fine. Inguz w/DRC is a bit more challenging. I spent a bunch of time getting that up and functional....only to find that it wasn't really what I expected.

I thought there were some small improvements in certain aspects of the sound, at the expense of some larger issues that DRC was causing with signal clipping, etc. Don't expect the massive "OMG" sonic revelations that some have claimed on the internet. Ain't true unless you had some serious sound problems beforehand.

Another issue with DRC (despite it's interesting concept) is that it does not lend itself to "lifestyle" listening. That is, good sound throughout the room. Unless you confine yourself to a very small listening area, you are likely to hear noticeably degraded sound. That's a big negative here.

In all....it was a lot of futzing around, and in the end it proved mostly unsatisfactory for me.

The DEQ2496 on the other hand is a really cool box, utterly transparent in the TPs digital FX loop and it's a lot of fun to play with. It's not "DRC" but it does in fact work well at a rock bottom price. Don't bother with the Auto-EQ. I think that feature is for entertainment purposes only.

Using the DEQ2496s Parametric functions works well for taming those low-freq peaks and seems to result in a better listening experience anywhere in the room. It is also possible to use Room EQ Wizard to create precise EQ "filters" which can be transmitted via MIDI to the DEQ2496. I haven't done it...but you can.

My thoughts...

[esbrewer]

learning curve

If you search around here you'll find many experienced users of Inguz DRC that consider it a crucial component in their systems. That being said, there is a steep learning curve and frustration at the beginning is part of the process. I have been using it for several years and seem to get better outcomes each time I use it. If you have to place speakers in a less than ideal location for practical reasons as I do it can be a tremendous benefit.

It will effectively correct bass issues - but in my experience this can sometimes reduce the impact of some recordings. It took me some time to realize this, but sometimes that uneven measured LF response we hate to see is simply part of what we expect from certain types of music and venues. I've heard more than a few DRC users complain that the process "takes their bass away." For example, the gentle LF rolloff Inguz often gives me makes bass guitar lines much more definition, but sometimes reduces the kick of a bass drum. I generally am willing to accept the modest compromise, but sometimes turn off Inguz when I feel things are sounding too "controlled". The other option Inguz offers is a flatness control that allows you add back in some of the defects you've worked so hard to correct. Its funny how you reach for it after all the effort.

[Phil Leigh]

Inguz works fine. Inguz w/DRC is a bit more challenging. I spent a bunch of time getting that up and functional....only to find that it wasn't really what I expected.

I thought there were some small improvements in certain aspects of the sound, at the expense of some larger issues that DRC was causing with signal clipping, etc. Don't expect the massive "OMG" sonic revelations that some have claimed on the internet. Ain't true unless you had some serious sound problems beforehand.

Another issue with DRC (despite it's interesting concept) is that it does not lend itself to "lifestyle" listening. That is, good sound throughout the room. Unless you confine yourself to a very small listening area, you are likely to hear noticeably degraded sound. That's a big negative here.

In all....it was a lot of futzing around, and in the end it proved mostly unsatisfactory for me.

I can't comment on Inguz as I haven't tried it yet. However you seem to be talking about DRC in general... and certainly my experiences with the TACT hardware/software solution are very different to the ones you describe:

1) When properly setup there is no catastrophic fall-off outside of the sweet spot - quite the opposite in fact, the sound is remarkably consistent as you move around the room.

2) Clipping on peak boosts is easily avoided using the TACT or GV software. You do need a clean preamp as the overall level has to be reduced to avoid the clipping, so up to 10dB of makeup gain post-processing is required from the pre-amp.

3) On my system it is a very significant improvement - biggest impactive upgrade after the speakers and their active x-overs/amps. Everybody who has heard me turn the DRC off has asked for it to go back on. This includes my wife who is both the biggest critic of me spending money on stuff and the biggest sceptic that my upgrades are actually improvements...

4) It takes about an hour to do the measurements and fiddle with the software - after that its truly a "fit and forget" solution.

Is it an "OMG" moment? - for me I'd say yes, in as much as it was a much bigger improvement than changing DACS, for example. Yes, it does depend how "bad" your room is in the first place and it's never going to totally compensate for stone floors or too much glass - but it is pretty darn good IMO. It does also help if your speakers have a reasonable on/off axis response to begin with ( far too many don't).

[michael123]

Thanks for your responses.

I've been using Room EQ Wizard for half a year, that's how I know about these peaks/deeps. I have all the necessary pieces, ECM8000 mic and Tascam US-144 sound card, etc.

I do not want to buy (at this point) another hardware (DEQX, Behringer, TacT, Lyngdorf..)

I think that software solution shall be superior. In the end, that's what is running inside these HW boxes.

[Phil Leigh]

inguz & 7.5?

does anyone have this combo working? - if so, any tips on how to install?

[michael123]

does anyone have this combo working? - if so, any tips on how to install?

Yes, sure.
The question is however not "how to install", but "how to patch" :-)

Once you install from InguzAudio, take the attached file and replace it in Plugins/InguzEQ

[Phil Leigh]

Yes, sure.
The question is however not "how to install", but "how to patch" :-)

Once you install from InguzAudio, take the attached file and replace it in Plugins/InguzEQ

Great - thank you - I will try it later

[Phil Leigh]

Hmmm...

well it feels like I have half installed it!
I can see an EQ icon in the Web UI but clicking it produces a 404 (page not found) error.
My filetypes have all been changed to Inguzdsp and Inguzdsp is being invoked - files still play OK.
I think my attempt to manually install the plugin have not worked. It's been a long time since I had to manually install a plugin - I've probably not put it in the correct directory for 7.5...
Michael (or anyone!) - does this look correct to you?

[Themis]

A few weeks ago, I didn't manage to make Inguz work correctly on a 7.5
SB3 menu entries worked, but webUI was broken.

[Robin Bowes]

RC (Inguz etc.)

On 10/04/10 06:46, michael123 wrote:
>
> Thanks for your responses.
>
> I've been using Room EQ Wizard for half a year, that's how I know about
> these peaks/deeps. I have all the necessary pieces, ECM8000 mic and
> Tascam US-144 sound card, etc.
>
> I do not want to buy (at this point) another hardware (DEQX, Behringer,
> TacT, Lyngdorf..)
>
> I think that software solution shall be superior. In the end, that's
> what is running inside these HW boxes.

Michael,

The reason I advocate the hardware solution is that it is totally
transparent on the operation of the Transporter.

Any software solution (ie. processing on the server) will disable FF/RW.

The other issue is cost. And by "cost", I don't just mean monetary cost.
I am self-employed, work from home, and have 5 kids. I value my time. I
don't want to spend it messing around getting a software solution
working. My DEQ2496 cost < £100, which is less than two hours of my
professional time, so to me it was a no brainer.

R.

[michael123]

Robin,

Working with SPDIF will introduce jitter.
Also (or same), once I for curiosity fed music into SPDIF digital input of Transporter, and result was far worse then when using normally through Ethernet jack.

I have a friend working with DEQ (successfully, but he has separate DAC and not using Transporter), it might be the solution, might be not. I already have few boxes around the house...

At the moment, I just want to play with Inguz a bit, understand what DRC is about, then I will see.

I'm not self-employed, I have 3-4 hours every day (well, except when kids do not bother me :-) ) and more on weekends. I even offered help for Squeeze team to optimize Transporter code..

Themis,
indeed I did not manage to get web UI working, but I did not try hard.
Inguz XML-based files are very simple and can be edited manually, or using Transporter's remote

[michael123]

Is it possible to use Transporter with DEQ2496 in a loop as

Transporter (AES/EBU Digital Out) -> DEQ2496 (AES/EBU Digital Out) -> Transporter ?

Does it work well?
Transporter actually needs to decode the input stream via Ethernet, send it via AES/EBU, receive it via AES/EBU and only then feed into its DAC and analog stage..

[Robin Bowes]

RC (Inguz etc.)

On 11/04/10 18:15, michael123 wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use Transporter with DEQ2496 in a loop as
>
> Transporter (AES/EBU Digital Out) -> DEQ2496 (AES/EBU Digital Out) ->
> Transporter ?
>
> Does it work well?

/facepalm

Michael,

That's *exactly* what I have been suggesting you try.

The DEQ2496 only has optical and AES/EBU digital connections - I use
AES/EBU with a couple of bog standard balanced microphone cables.

It works well for me.

R.