On June 10, 2006 at 10:29, ejfiii said...
Interesting, could you talk a little more about
the differences between ETF and TrueRTA? Thanks.
I've used both.
The concepts behind ETF are more advanced, and the software has a fairly steep learning curve. ETF generates an impulse response, and gives the frequency response based on the impulse. The benefit is that taking a freq response curve takes about 5 seconds once things are set up. You put things in place, and can take many curves with the speaker in lots of locations, and note the differences quickly. Although the web site says there is a version that allows you to make measurements without attaching to the system under test, don't believe it. The author no longer supports this, yet continues to tout it as a feature. I've had extensive discussion with the author on this topic, and he's intractible about supporting this "old" feature, even though he advertises it.
TrueRTA offers good results as well. The software will generate a swept signal, and use the mic to measure the results. The interface and use is extremely ease, and very clear. This package is not as powerful as ETF, but can offer good results.
If you will use this infrequently, you're likely better off with TrueRTA. It's easy to learn, and you can get results quite quickly.
ETF has a steep learning curve. No documentation is available. You have to use some recorded tutorials. I had no luck being able to fast forward, or rewind, so I could skip what I understood, and listen again, to what was confusing. This added to the learning curve. Don't intend you use the version that allows you to measure a system response using a CD placed in the system. The author no longer supports this, although this is featured on the web site. If you are going to perform measurements often, the time that can be saved heavily overshadows the hard to comprehend user interface, and the steep learning curve.
