I also have used Focus Fidelity for a couple of years. It’s probably the best audio investment I’ve made and an absurd value, as far as audio stuff goes. Using it in conjunction with Roon is, well, just really great. I use in a 2.1 system in my study and a 2.0, soon to be 2.2 system in my living room. It’s easy, even addicting to use, adjustible to taste, and the sonic improvements are not subtle.
1 Like
Hi @Magnus
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.
The correction level should provide a wide enough range of adjustment, each user will find their preference. The default value of 8 will be too high for some as you have found.
Finer adjustments can be achieved by adjusting the target curve, for example, if the sound has too much energy at 1kHz that could be solved by using the movable points on the curve to create a dip in that region. Typically, though, this kind of fine adjustment isn’t required. A smooth target curve will work best with a wide range of music.
For microphone positioning, the advice from the manual is,
The first measurement you will perform is at the main listening position. This position is the “sweet spot” of the listening area where you would typically sit for critical listening. The microphone should be at the height your ears would be.
You should arrange the remaining positions symmetrically around the main listening position with variations in height.
The measurement positions should cover the intended listening area, for example, the width of a sofa.
You can use a tighter spacing between the measurement positions for a single-seat listening arrangement.
There is no exact science to positioning the microphone; however, a total of 8 to 10 measurements will provide enough data.
I don’t have advice beyond this really, the idea is to achieve a good sampling of the intended listening area.
Good point about the default number of measurements, an odd number makes more sense.
The software places various limits on the optimizer to avoid excessive excess phase correction and limited filling of holes/dips.
1 Like
Hi @MilJL87
The fine time alignment isn’t really required in my opinion but is there as some users like to see the left and right channel impulses perfectly aligned to less than one sample period.
The thing is, even I (who have done lots of DRC with various software) got uncertain about how to measure. Imagine someone who is completely new to DRC? For example a picture like this makes it so much easier to understand (these are from Dirac) even if its not strictly needed to keep to those positions:
2 Likes
IMHO fine time alignment is unnecessary in a symmetrical setup due to head movement. @48 kHz sample rate (e.g. with UMIK-1 microphone) a time alignment of less than one sample equals only a few millimeters distance. So you need to place your head very precisely at the same spot every time and don’t move it during listening to take advantage of that.
I took the approach of avoiding a constant time alignment in the filters between both channels by placing the microphone on position 1 (main listening position) as equidistant as possible between speakers, checking the impulse measurement of both channels landing on top of each other, adjusting the microphone and redoing the first measurement until I was satisfied.
Of course if your listening position is asymmetric by default (different distances to the speakers in the range of several cm and more) and this cannot be changed by moving speakers and/or listening position, it’s a different story and time alignment to compensate for this absolutely makes sense.
Yes, the small misalignment corresponds to a very small head movement. It is not a problem in practice, unless you bolt your head to the chair in the hot spot.
But, a small filter misalignment causes the high frequencies to drop dramatically if you, for instance, simulate the LR response. This does not look nice and I can argue that, theoretically, that is not what I want. (And this also shows what a very small head movement can do. But we humans are used to that. 
)
As you may guess, I am one of those who want to align the filters either in Finetic or outside it. So, for me the option is welcome.
EDIT: The option is actually not doing what I want, when reading the documentation correctly. The option improves the precision of the time difference correction below one sample period. But the correction still is for filtered responses, not filters.
It would be helpful to describe the measurement process in a less generalized way. In my case, I’d like to know specifically where to place the microphone after each measurement and how far apart the measurements should be from each other relative to the “sweet spot.” As someone relatively new to DRC, I greatly appreciate specific and standardized instructions so I can be sure I’m getting the most out of the software.
1 Like
Use the picture I showed earlier, it should be fine. I suggested earlier in this thread that a similar picture in the manual would be nice.
What I did when I measured was 1 at LP (sort of inside the head), then one at each ear (10 cm left/right of LP), then a triangle 1 dm outside front/up, frond/down, back/middle. I actually have a pic made for this since before:
Not showing is 1 which in the middle of her head. This should give a good base for amplitude correction (I think phase adjustments is 100% based on 1: LP measurement).
I have used this in REW with good results, and it seems to work excellent for FF as well. Note though that this is for a very fixed listening position, for several people in a sofa a much wider and bigger area has to be measured.
@Focus_Fidelity feel free to use this picture in your manual, I doubt there are any copyright associated with the woman.
Btw, picture is of my wife…NOT 
1 Like
Interesting remarks. I have been using Dirac BC for a 2.2 system with good results. But I have been tempted by FF since the start. I am waiting for the digital crossovers version that it was at least in the plans when I last checked. I am aware that Audiolense does that, but I find FF interface “cleaner”.
How long you have been listening to music corrected with FF and not wanting to go back to Dirac?
What approach would you use Magnus for a small two-person couch? Dirac Live would have one take 13 measurements as depicted in their diagram with the measurements spread out by at least 30cm but FF has only 8 measurement slots. This is why it would be nice, as you suggested, if the developer would offer some seating position scenarios like Dirac. I’m going to purchase the FF software based on your recommendation as well as others.
Not sure, haven’t done any measurements from a couch. But I would guess that something like ± 2 dm forward backward, and maybe 2-3 times that sideways. And then LP in the middle between 2 persons sitting in the couch. If you are alone, just sit in middle of couch.
So just use dirac chair picture, but drag out the square left/right.
Below is from the impala manual. The important measurement is the first one as that is used for time alignment. The only question Ive ever had (and have never got around to asking) is for the measurements off to the side where do I point the microphone, straight ahead or to the centrepoint between the speakers?
From the manual:
The first measurement you will perform is at the main listening position. This position is the “sweet spot” of the listening area where you would typically sit for critical listening. The microphone should be at the height your ears would be.
The software will use the measurement taken at the main listening position to time-align the left and right channels.
There are two common microphone orientations used for room correction measurements. The first is horizontal and pointing halfway between the
left and right speakers. In this case, you should use the 0 degrees microphone calibration file. The second orientation is to point the microphone at
the ceiling. In this case, use the 90 degrees microphone calibration file.
Focus Fidelity recommends that you use the horizontal orientation.
You should arrange the remaining positions symmetrically around the main listening position with variations in height.
The measurement positions should cover the intended listening area, for example, the width of a sofa.
You can use a tighter spacing between the measurement positions for a single-seat listening arrangement.
There is no exact science to positioning the microphone; however, a total of 8 to 10 measurements will provide enough data
@Magnus This looks like a sensible arrangement for a single seat. Thanks.
Multiple measurements are used for phase correction, this is part of avoiding “over correction”.
1 Like
@Gary_Proudfoot
A microphone is omni-directional enough such that it doesn’t matter if you point it straight ahead or angle to the centre point between the speakers.
1 Like
Sorry for taking so long to answering you! I am now back from a knee replacement, recovering is going well
As I stated in my earlier post, I’ve use Dirac Live/Bass Control for several years. For sure Dirac resolved many of my room issues, but I still was not fully happy with the lower frequencies.
About 5 months ago I was intrigued with an article that Chris (owner) posted on Computer Audiophile, regarding "State of the Art DRC. Where he, along with Mich Barnett stated that not all DRC is the same.
Basically what separates State of Art DRC unlike Dirac, has an inherent problem in over correcting the lower frequencies, this is an oversimplification at best.
FF was mention as one that is considered state of the art because of its ability to maintain high resolution in the lower frequencies. (No over correction)
I mention in my earlier post the lower frequencies corrected by FF fixed the lower bass frequencies as I never heard before. I do believe now I’ve achieved state of the art DRC , all things being relative.
Like you I am hoping that FF will evolve into a full functional, multichannel DRC package.
Thanks, Sam
1 Like
Based on the discussion in this thread, I purchased FF. I have to agree that the results are stunning. This is in my main system.
I would like to do the same in my office, however, I do not have analog inputs for the Auralic Aries Mini I am using there. I’m wondering if there is a way to do the measurements. Maybe by having the sweep as a file played in Roon? Alternatively, I can use an Auralic Polaris I have in storage to get the measurements and then generate the convolution files to use with the mini endpoint in the office. That way, at least I would measure the room, though the output from the speakers will vary somewhat with a different streamer and DAC.
Any ideas or recommendations?
Thanks…Pete
Thanks for your answer. I have been reading all the posts by mitchco and have considered his service as well, with Audiolense. At the end of the day, I, like you, am waiting for the multichannel package to arrive. Anything that @Focus_Fidelity can share on that?
Wishing you a speedy recovery!
Is Focus Fidelity capable of separating direct sound from diffuse sound like Dirac? This is a main benefit of Dirac that it calculates diffuse sound out, which leads to lower early reflections and thus to a better (steeper) energy time curve.
I think FF has a decreasing time window, which is the best way to do this. Btw, if you totally separate the room than you will not correct the room (only the speakers) so you need some reflections included but not all. This also relates to schröders frequency.
I am sure @Focus_Fidelity can give a more detailed answer.