Can you help me with my RoomEQ filter?

[abdo123]

I have generated measurings using the UMIK-1 Mic on REW (85db target, -12dbfs, 1M length).

I'm using a House curve inspired by Harman, i heard it's better than a flat EQ response

I generated three kinds of measurings, L, R and L+R. for each kind, there are 4 measurments, 2 in the sweet spot, 1 a little bit to the left, 1 a little bit to the right.

I'm running a pair of the Sansui SP 1700, you can find their brochure here with detailed technical information, it's a 3-way enclosed speaker.

This is the average of the L+R measurements

Here is the average of my L and R measurments, hereby refered to as L/R (Should i average the L and R together like that or is that incorrect?)

Here is the two averages on top of each other

Question 1:

Should I use the L and R average or the L+R average for my filter? or neither? (average L on its own and R on its own)


Question 2:

What is my LF cuttoff? Videos online mainly demonstrate bass limited speakers and have quite different frequency response curves,


If someone is kind enough to do the filters for me, i would gladly provide the measurment files

 

[RayDunzl]

Measure Left, Right, and Both Speakers, at the the listening position.

Use the Acoustic Reference option when measuring.

Save the measurement set.

Change the file type - mdat - to zip or compress the mdat as a zip

Post it here, and I'll look at it.

 

[vavan]

compress the mdat as a zip

this

as @amirm said: "Our server uses SSD storage which is fast but more expensive than hard disk. As such, we all need to do our bit to keep the amount of storage small"

 

[RayDunzl]

Oh well...

Post to some public file server.

 

[win]

Regarding the

What is my LF cuttoff?

I think the HF cutoff is a lot more important. I wouldn't mess with anything above the characteristic frequency of your room (Schroeder frequency). This is usually between 100 and 200hz. If you do some measurements over a larger area, you should see what are clearly room modes and an area beyond which is a mess, when all the measurements are overlaid. Might want to use a much narrower x axis too.

 

[abdo123]

Oh well...

Post to some public file server.

Google Drive Download link

Here you go, in this file you will find the L and R measurment at 75 db target instead of 85, i redid the measurements using my raspberry pi as an output using acoustic time reference like you mentioned. 'Center' is THE listening position, while 'Left' and 'Right' are the edges of the couch. you will find 3 measurements for center, 2 measurements for left and 2 measurements for right. I think that is a good balance but i could be wrong.

Unfortunately i did not do L+R, the sweep files on the raspberry pi only had R or L but not both. If it is absolutely necessary i can provide the previous measurements (without acoustic time reference). The software i'm using on the pi is capable of taking a filter for the left and a filter for the right respectively, so you can strategize that way too. If you're willing to produce the filters yourselves, please pick 'rePhase' as equalizer. I'm also very much interested in your thought process as well.

 

[abdo123]

Here is the Harman's House curve i was using, I would appreciate it if you would give it a try as well. If it's completely pointless then don't bother this is all new territory for me lol.

31.5 6
40 5.9
50 5.5
63 4.9
80 3.7
100 2.5
125 1.3
160 0.6
200 0.2
250 0
1000 -1
32000 -6

 

[win]

It's usually easiest to tune it to ruler flat first, then add in the target curve after. Those also look like GEQ points, not PEQ. With PEQ, you can create a target curve with just 3, maybe 4 bands.

 

[abdo123]

It's usually easiest to tune it to ruler flat first, then add in the target curve after. Those also look like GEQ points, not PEQ. With PEQ, you can create a target curve with just 3, maybe 4 bands.

how would my work flow look like if i did this instead? right now it is measurment -> target settings + house curve -> filter.

I think the HF cutoff is a lot more important. I wouldn't mess with anything above the characteristic frequency of your room (Schroeder frequency). This is usually between 100 and 200hz. If you do some measurements over a larger area, you should see what are clearly room modes and an area beyond which is a mess, when all the measurements are overlaid. Might want to use a much narrower x axis too.

could you please elaborate on what is the Shroeder frequency?

Why would I measure areas of the room in which i would never sit? wouldn't this just skew my average beyond recognition?

 

[win]

how would my work flow look like if i did this instead? right now it is measurment -> target settings + house curve -> filter.

it's more of an iterative process than something you get perfect in a single go. It's a lot easier to eyeball problem areas when it's supposed to be flat.

Why would I measure areas of the room in which i would never sit? wouldn't this just skew my average beyond recognition?

Only for the sake of easily spotting the room's characteristic frequency. Essentially, below a certain frequency, your room is dominated by modes. The sound waves are similar in length to your room dimensions, and the loudspeakers produce more omnidirectional sound than they will at higher frequencies. This is where room EQ makes the big difference. Above that frequency and the room doesn't play the same, predictable role. The peaks and valleys will be so packed together that it's not really EQ'able (and it doesn't need it because your ears fill in the gaps). The analogy is that below the Schroeder frequency, the sound acts like waves, and above it acts like rays, bouncing all over the place unpredictably and chaotically. It will save you a headache if you constrain yourself to below 200hz. And sound better too.

No need to get hung up on what your exact frequency is, it doesn't really matter. Just be in the ballpark, which is easy when you look at several measurements.

 

[abdo123]

it's more of an iterative process than something you get perfect in a single go. It's a lot easier to eyeball problem areas when it's supposed to be flat.


Only for the sake of easily spotting the room's characteristic frequency. Essentially, below a certain frequency, your room is dominated by modes. The sound waves are similar in length to your room dimensions, and the loudspeakers produce more omnidirectional sound than they will at higher frequencies. This is where room EQ makes the big difference. Above that frequency and the room doesn't play the same, predictable role. The peaks and valleys will be so packed together that it's not really EQ'able (and it doesn't need it because your ears fill in the gaps). The analogy is that below the Schroeder frequency, the sound acts like waves, and above it acts like rays, bouncing all over the place unpredictably and chaotically. It will save you a headache if you constrain yourself to below 200hz. And sound better too.

No need to get hung up on what your exact frequency is, it doesn't really matter. Just be in the ballpark, which is easy when you look at several measurements.

This is definitely something worth playing with. I will try to make filters up to 200Hz only and i will let you know what happens!

 

[abdo123]

it's more of an iterative process than something you get perfect in a single go. It's a lot easier to eyeball problem areas when it's supposed to be flat.


Only for the sake of easily spotting the room's characteristic frequency. Essentially, below a certain frequency, your room is dominated by modes. The sound waves are similar in length to your room dimensions, and the loudspeakers produce more omnidirectional sound than they will at higher frequencies. This is where room EQ makes the big difference. Above that frequency and the room doesn't play the same, predictable role. The peaks and valleys will be so packed together that it's not really EQ'able (and it doesn't need it because your ears fill in the gaps). The analogy is that below the Schroeder frequency, the sound acts like waves, and above it acts like rays, bouncing all over the place unpredictably and chaotically. It will save you a headache if you constrain yourself to below 200hz. And sound better too.

No need to get hung up on what your exact frequency is, it doesn't really matter. Just be in the ballpark, which is easy when you look at several measurements.

Okay limiting the filter to 200Hz definitely made the sound more open and clearer. and i feel it like did 75% of the correction it needs while maintaining stereo image and 3D image. Thank you!