New loudspeakers & room digital correction service

Hello,

After some years of development we are now launching a digital room correction service. The idea is to process room measurements and propose the best filters to improve the listening experience. Details are available on our website: www.homeaudiofidelity.com

As there is no need to insert new hardware or software in the reproduction chain you can take 100% benefit of your audio system.

Compared to existing solutions (Dirac, Trinnov, DEQx, etc...) we have developped specific algorithms focused on the spatial dimension of the stereo reproduction (directivity issues, crosstalk reduction).

As soon as you have available measurements you can test our solution for free.

Don't hesitate to contact us !

Thierry

Good idea.

Your web site is severely lacking in information. And you invited contact, but there isn't contact info at the site.

Questions:

How is the room measurement done? Does the user need to buy a mic and software?

Do you just generate filters, or is full information about the room given -waterfall plots, frequency response curve, etc.?

Does implementation of the filters depend on a proprietary solution we have to buy from you? If not, what exactly is the service you are offering? Is it a one time payment or subscription?

I am surprised because must of your questions do have answers in the website (have you browsed the sub menus ?) Here are the answers:

The measurements have to be done by yourself using a mic and a measurement SW as explained in the "requirements" section.

The output is mainly the filters but we can join complementary info as you suggest (plots in temporal & frequency domain with before/after comparison)

The filters are generated by a proprietary solution but you can use them in almost any player having convolution capability. This is a one time payment per filters set but with discount policy if you make modifications in your installation and you need a new iteration.

Cheers,

Thierry

Can you provide any reference to how you can effect a change in reflected energy without changing the direct radiation?  In other words, how can you change the dispersion of a standard monopole source?

Hello Kal,

You can't change the radiation pattern of any loudspeaker with signal processing but you can change what is actually heard at the ears. Without going into details the idea is to determine what would be the response at the ears with an ideal loudpseaker radiation pattern, and determine which signal correction is needed with the "non ideal" loudspeakers to come close to this ideal case.

4 hours ago, fresponse said:

 

I am surprised because must of your questions do have answers in the website (have you browsed the sub menus ?)

 

On my iPad using the Chrome browser, no links to the sub menus appear and the site has only 3 pages: home, privacy policy, and about. 

Till you made the comment about submenus It  wouldn't  have occurred to me to open the site in a PC  or Androic version of Chrome.

2 hours ago, fresponse said:

Hello Kal,

 

You can't change the radiation pattern of any loudspeaker with signal processing but you can change what is actually heard at the ears. Without going into details the idea is to determine what would be the response at the ears with an ideal loudpseaker radiation pattern, and determine which signal correction is needed with the "non ideal" loudspeakers to come close to this ideal case.

 

I understand that but the statement, as far as it goes, can be applied to other EQ methods.  Can you contrast more specifically what you do (not how you do) with one or another of the existing solutions (Dirac, Trinnov, DEQx, etc...)?

I already own Dirac but would possibly be interested in this approach, because my 2011 Mac sometimes has trouble handling all the processing (I run Roon outputting to Dirac and often get "ticks" when the Mac Mini is overwhelmed. I also use TIDAL, which increases the frequency of "ticks.")

Could you use measurements created with Dirac to generate filters for your product?

Also, one item Dirac makes a big point of is to run a calibration file for your specific microphone before making measurements. Do you also provide such calibration files? (I use an XTZ mic.)

17 hours ago, fresponse said:

I am surprised because must of your questions do have answers in the website (have you browsed the sub menus ?)

Your website either has a design bug or is incompatible with certain web browsers.  When I visited it yesterday using Safari on a Mac, the only selection in the menu was English vs French.  No product topics.  Today I did see links to different topics arranged in a row across the top of the page.  But after I visited two of the topic pages, the row of links disappeared and I had no way to revisit any of the topics

@Bob : thanks for the alert, I will check what we can do with the web site provider

@jiminlogansquare : to my knowledge you can't export measurements made with Dirac. As you have a mic you can easily perform new measurements using REW for instance.

@Kal : the effect of loudspeaker directivity is more pregnant in the reveberant tail of the room transfer function. Traditional equalization procedures either ignore this reflected energy with time windowing or consider it as a whole with the direct sound (power response with spectral smoothing) In all cases short filters are used which concentrate the energy at the onset of the signal and by consequence do not respect optimal time/frequency distribution.

This is visible on a time/frequency map comparison for the example of a full range driver which has directivity issues above 5kHz (with the classic equalization scheme there is still a lack of energy in the reverberant tail above 5kHz)

The difference in the approach is also visible on the typical shape of filters impulse response

I was one of the (french) beta testers, and I can guarantee that with the XTC files provided, you get a much better 3D result than Dirac Live (at least with my ears and my system). I didn't kept Dirac (as I wasn't really convinced with results), but still use this correction service with great pleasure. I just put the zip file in the roon dsp convolution engine, it's very easy.

I sent .wav files, generated with an XTZ calibrated mic (9 measurements points), Fuzzmeasure, MacOS 10.12 based hackintosh.

Yucca06, thanks for that information. I see that a filter created from the initial measurement will cost 109 Euros (US$121) and that I would receive an unspecified discount for future revised measurements/filters. Also, Fuzzmeasure is US$99. So this is an expensive proposition, especially for someone who, like me, already owns Dirac. For the record, once you purchase Dirac, you get unlimited new measurements and filters, for no additional charge. (I recognize that you do not represent the manufacturer, that you were simply a beta tester, and that you have no responsibility for how much it costs or how it is marketed; please do not interpret this as a criticism of you, Yucca06, and I am not attempting to kill the messenger).

I've remeasured my space at least a dozen times (more likely twice that) since I first purchased Dirac three years ago. For example, I've rearranged my furniture, moved my speakers to different configurations, etc. Dirac gave me the freedom to do that for no additional charge. It also allowed me to make as many filters based on those measurements as I desired; I've done this primarily by adjusting the lower end of the frequency curve. I have created at least three dozen different filters, possibly more.

I have trouble accepting the thought of having to pay an unspecified charge every time I rearrange my furniture (the discounted amount for future re-measurements is not advertised, which I consider a bad sign).

As much as I like the idea of being able to just plug a convolution filter into Roon and get excellent room correction without having to stress my old Mac Mini with a second application (Dirac), I simply cannot afford this solution as I see it presented here. Perhaps if I did not already own Dirac, I might find this a more attractive option. I say all of this with regret, because I'd like to try this new solution, but I don't have the money to throw around on it.

And lest this be interpreted as just all about me, I bothered to write all of the above because I have to believe that other Dirac owners have similar stories and would have similar concerns about the cost of switching to this new application.

56 minutes ago, jiminlogansquare said:

......................................................

And lest this be interpreted as just all about me, I bothered to write all of the above because I have to believe that other Dirac owners have similar stories and would have similar concerns about the cost of switching to this new application.

Yes, agreed.  

I understand your concern and I have updated the pricing policy to make things clearer.

Some comments from my side : you can freely test the solution and decide wether or not the improvement (like cross talk reduction for instance) is worth the cost.

I also launch this service because I do think that digital correction brings major improvements and must be affordable for anyone, not only from the cost perspective but as well from the invested time. What I mean is that when using a software like Dirac you are in some way "trapped" in an endless iteration procedure because you can play with the target curve and you might think that you can find an even better tuning each time... 

New measurements sets are really needed if you change your loudspeakers or the listening geometrical configuration. Note that you can use a software like REW to pre determined the optimal geometrical configuration if you have some degrees of freedom

Thanks, fresponse, for fixing the pricing policy on your website. That is definitely clearer.

I don't actually bother to modify Dirac's default target curve, so I've managed to avoid that trap; but I agree with your point for those who have. You probably don't know about Ron Popeil's home rotisserie product in France, but at one time it's advertising slogan was "Set it and forget it." That is, no need to fuss over the thing. I think you've offering a "Set it and forget it" variant on DSP to compete with Dirac, and that sounds like an excellent idea.

However, "Set it and forget it" DSP works better for those with a dedicated listening room. I am not one of those. My stereo is in a living room I share with my wife, and it is subject to regular changes of furniture arrangement, things moving in and out, by both of us. I admit we may be peculiar about that. But it means I need to be able to recalibrate Dirac measurements several times a year. So for me, the high initial cost of Dirac is made up for by my personal need to keep remeasuring and creating new filters to adapt my stereo to my ever-changing living room.

But that's me, not everyone. I wasn't criticizing your product because it wasn't perfect for me; far from it. Plenty of people have a dedicated listening room. Once they set up the speakers and listening position, it's going to stay that way. "Set it and forget it." For them, your product would be very appealing. The initial lower cost of your product, with a possible later additional cost if the filter must be recalculated, would seem like a great selling point for those with dedicated listening rooms or who are just less weird than I am about moving their furniture around.

So kudos on developing another business model that will help out a large number of folks for whom Dirac's initial cost is prohibitively expensive. 

Best of luck and great success to you!

You can check the website syntax.

Any chance it would work with AU plugins for OS X?

@jminlogansquare: thanks for your encouragement & for the Ron Popeil story (who has not crossed the ocean as you thought...) You perfectly explained the concept and I just want to emphasis that there are some added features vs a tool like Dirac in regards to signal processing : for instance the cross talk reduction brings stereo imaging to a much higher level and this is really something addictive once you have tested it !

@wgscott: the solution is working with following players : Roon, Jriver, HQplayer. Globally the Mac world is poor of multi channels convolution engines. There is one AU plugin that Yucca06 tested (Butterfly plugin) but it is quite expensive

1 hour ago, fresponse said:

Mac world is poor of multi channels convolution engines. There is one AU plugin that Yucca06 tested (Butterfly plugin) but it is quite expensive

The developer of Butterfly sells a cheaper version called SIR2 for $143 (after 25% discount for signing up for their newsletter).  It's the only Mac convolution plugin I know that still seems to be updated every few months.

http://www.siraudiotools.com/sir2.php

You can buy HQ Player, which has a built-in convolver, for the cost of SIR2.

Two Mac convolver plugins costing $40 to $50 haven’t been updated in almost two years, although they still may work:

MellowMuse IR1A

http://www.mellowmuse.com/IR1A.html

Liquid Sonics "Reverberate Core"

https://www.liquidsonics.com/software/reverberate-core/

Those convolvers are not compatible with our technology because there are of "one to one" type : this means that left channel is convolved with a filter and send to left output. Same goes for the right channel. What we need is left channel convolved with 2 different filters with respective output sent to left & right channel. This is why I mentioned the butterfly plugin which offer such flexibility (a filter set = 4 different filters)

4 minutes ago, fresponse said:

What we need is left channel convolved with 2 different filters with respective output sent to left & right channel. This is why I mentioned the butterfly plugin which offer such flexibility (a filter set = 4 different filters)

I see.

Maybe you should post a separate link here to each page on your website since the navigation menus don’t appear in many web browsers.  (After reporting the menus don’t appear in Safari, I found they also fail to appear in Firefox and Chrome on the Mac.)

2 hours ago, fresponse said:

Those convolvers are not compatible with our technology because there are of "one to one" type : this means that left channel is convolved with a filter and send to left output. Same goes for the right channel. What we need is left channel convolved with 2 different filters with respective output sent to left & right channel. This is why I mentioned the butterfly plugin which offer such flexibility (a filter set = 4 different filters)

Very interesting! So, is the HQPlayer convolver fully compatible with the filters you produce? Does the cross-talk reduction work with HQP?

You mentioned a free trial. How do I request this, once I have the necessary measurements?

I've been using REW to build a set of filters for quite a while, but would like to see if your filters can produce an improvement over what I've been able to do. Can you also supply these filters as REW EQ files, or only as impulse response?

@pkane2001 Yes HQPlayer is fully compatible as it allows multiple filters with flexible channels mapping.

For the free trial you can use the contact form Contact form and I will apply the filters on one or more test tracks of your choice. As the filters are long non minimum phase FIR filters they can't be converted into REW EQ files (biquad filters)

@Bob SternHere is the answer I got from the website provider support team "To be honest with you that's the first time I've heard of this issue. I've checked here in the office with a few different Mac devices using Safari and didn't have any problems visiting your website. The problem seems to stem from the user side. I'd advise them to do the following:

1. Check if the issue occurs in other browsers (we recommend Google Chrome).
2. Ensure Safari has been updated to the latest version.
3. Make sure that their OS is updated to the latest possible version for their device."

So I am little bit puzzled...

Are your filters minimum, intermediate, or linear phase, or does it depend on the specific situation?

Edi: Whoops, I should have read the response above!  So not minimum phase.  Intermediate or linear then?

Yes it is "intermediate", it can't be linear phase as the intention is to correct the phase response of the system.

10 hours ago, fresponse said:

ere is the answer I got from the website provider support team "To be honest with you that's the first time I've heard of this issue. I've checked here in the office

The website provider can't write valid HTML?

You can check the website syntax.

 

(Click the link to see all the errors.)