How does the measurements look? need advice on acoustics.

[sukoon]

I have taken Measurements of the Studio we are building.
the pics will be updated sooner.
the measurements look reasonable for a mixing recording studio room.
any suggestions or advice appreciated

all done before EQ.
and will EQ once new studio monitors are in place.
these measurements are done with Yamaha DBR15 speakers (FR is bit off due to speaker).

 

[kemmler3D]

I am not a big expert on this but it looks like you might have put in a little too much acoustic treatment? The waterfall looks nice and short after ~150hz, but if you look at the FR there's a concerning dip between 1-2khz. This should not be here at the listening position. Maybe it's the speaker?

The peaks and dips below 200hz are normal and maybe nothing to seriously worry about after EQ, but maybe they are, since they are ringing out long after the treble dies down.

If it were me I might try swapping some absorptive treatment for VPR panels to see if you can trade some HF absorption for LF.

Anyway, I may have made a lot of wrong assumptions here, just my thoughts after taking a look at the graphs.

 

[sukoon]

I am not a big expert on this but it looks like you might have put in a little too much acoustic treatment? The waterfall looks nice and short after ~150hz, but if you look at the FR there's a concerning dip between 1-2khz. This should not be here at the listening position. Maybe it's the speaker?

Yes, its the speaker.

Even Church measurements with the same speaker has those dips.

 

[kemmler3D]

Yes, its the speaker.

Even Church measurements with the same speaker has those dips.

OK, that's good news. In that case I would say see if you can add some bass traps. The mids and treble look to be under control, maybe even too dead. EQ will help but I think it may still sound "boomy" because the decay on the bass is so much longer than the treble.

 

[Flaesh]

these measurements

May you upload .mdat?
And the context in a few words - the size of the room, the distance to the speaker, the treatment done.

 

[basscleaner]

You don't have to tell me your room dimensions. Just name the frequencies in the room for range before 120 Hz, where are peaks and dips. And your dimensions will be recognized. It was possible to minimize them by means changing your dimensions when projecting, but now EQ and traps - the last possibility to smooth FR in your room for low frequencies response.

 

[sukoon]

May you upload .mdat?
And the context in a few words - the size of the room, the distance to the speaker, the treatment done.

L - 9ft, W - 8ft, H - 11ft
with 1 - 1.5 inch thickness of acoustic material, 2 panels of 6 inches thick 6*2 ft on the left wall, 2 panels on the right wall and 2 panels on the ceiling

while measuring, 1 speaker (DBR15) was placed 2 ft from the wall in the centre for on axis measurement using ECM8000. (until monitors and a sub arrive)

(this measurement was taken only to get the sense of the room and the acoustics of it)

 

[sukoon]

changing your dimensions

this room is just for mixing broadcast mix of the church livestreams (using the unused room). the greater studio will be planned along with dimensions and acoustics.

Yes EQ helps. even the church sounds better with onboard GEQ.

Just name the frequencies in the room for range before 120 Hz, where are peaks and dips.

couldn't get lower than what speaker had to offer. will post once sub is installed for lowest frequencies.

 

[Keith_W]

Please read this.

And this waterfall is a good illustration of why waterfalls are difficult to interpret without an SPL meter. You can see the noise floor of the room - it looks like a shelf which is falling from 20Hz to 20kHz.

Anyway, it looks as if the reverberation tails are nice and controlled. Your room is much "dryer" than a normal listening room, but that is OK because studios have a lower reverberation target.

 

[Flaesh]

Surprisingly dead room above 200 Hz. At the same time at low frequencies everything is normally bad. What was the distance from the speaker to the microphone during the measurements?..

L - 9ft, W - 8ft, H - 11ft

BTW modal frequences in .mdat do not correspond to the room dimensions:

 

[basscleaner]

Comparison between measurement results and modal frequencies calculation (www.mcquared.com), if we trust the microphone, shows understandable picture for unpleasant closeness of axial ones 93, 103, 105; tangential 94 and oblique 107 Hz. Besides, axial 81, 124 and 140 Hz are shown very bright as peaks & dips. FR behavior before 80 Hz, probably, is smooth due to acoustical panels, especially if they are placed with gap from walls or ceiling, because they will work like LF resonant absorbers with frequencies, which are determined of thickness, area, density and distances from hard surfaces. It will be interesting to make measurement without your panels for comparison and possible proposals. And, of course, Keith_W is absolutely right: first of all it needs to get noise spectra by SPL meter to be sure, that conclusions to be free of mistakes.

 

[sukoon]

What was the distance from the speaker to the microphone during the measurements?..

3ft approx from the HF cone

BTW modal frequences in .mdat do not correspond to the room dimensions:

differs in inches.