How high up the frequency range do you apply room correction?

[goldark]

I've been really digging into the weeds regarding room correction lately and how to get the best sound I can by applying it. I just wanted put out a poll to see how high up the frequency range people are correcting and get your subjective impressions.

How did you settle on that frequency? Did it sound better than other options? What device (AVR, Wiim, MiniDSP, etc.) and room correction software (Dirac, Audyssey, your own custom filters, etc.) are you using? I'd be really interested to hear people's thoughts about how they set up their system.

Thanks for any responses.

 

[kemmler3D]

I do full range using REW and EQAPO.

I have Genelec 8030s which have pretty smooth off-axis behavior, so correcting at 1khz or so with a moderate Q filter seems to help and doesn't do anything weird in measurements either.

The vast majority of my filters are for bass correction, tweaks above schroeder are exactly that, tweaks. I tend to adhere to the view that narrow filters at higher frequency cause at least one new problem for every problem they fix. Also, my speakers don't need a lot of help at higher frequency.

 

[TurtlePaul]

I have 10 filters to fix the bass below the schroeder frequency. But I also use a small filter that aligns with where there is a dip in i) my in-room response, ii) the predicted in-room response in the spin, and the on-axis response. That filter is 2160 hz, +1 dB, Q = 3.5 on Revel F206.

 

[digitalfrost]

If you use frequency-dependend windowing, the question is not what frequency range, but how far in time you do correct. When done correctly I would say full range correction is superior, but that is understanding that you are not simply applying an EQ across the whole range.

 

[Andysu]

I do full range using REW and EQAPO.

I have Genelec 8030s which have pretty smooth off-axis behavior, so correcting at 1khz or so with a moderate Q filter seems to help and doesn't do anything weird in measurements either.

The vast majority of my filters are for bass correction, tweaks above schroeder are exactly that, tweaks. I tend to adhere to the view that narrow filters at higher frequency cause at least one new problem for every problem they fix. Also, my speakers don't need a lot of help at higher frequency.

not saying top THX secret here

 

[tmtomh]

Up to wherever GLM does it.

 

[Chrispy]

Some of these threads on above/below schroeder might be helpful https://duckduckgo.com/?q=schroeder+frequency+site:audiosciencereview.com&atb=v452-1&ia=web

 

[dualazmak]

Not a digital EQ nor correction for room, but I apply slight and flexible relative gain control in high-Fq zone for compensation of slight age dependent hearing decline, even though I can reasonably hear (ref. here and here) up to around 14.0 kHz.

Spoiler

For the details, please refer to my post here #643 on my project thread:
- Excellent Recording Quality Music Albums/Tracks for Subjective (and Possibly Objective) Test/Check/Tuning of Multichannel Multi-Driver Multi-Way Multi-Amplifier Time-Aligned Active Stereo Audio System and Room Acoustics; at least a Portion and/or One Track being Analyzed by Color Spectrum of Adobe Audition in Common Parameters:
[Part-11] Violin Music: #643

Could such relative gain control(s) fit within OP's perspective?
BTW, you can find here the latest system setup of my multichannel audio rig, including 0.1 msec precision time alignment all over the SP drivers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Full range.

 

[wwenze]

For peaks and dips I do whatever is needed, usually up to 200Hz ~ 300Hz. Treble peaks and dips I ignore even when the combing effect from table bounce shows up in measurements.

For boundary effect and target curves I do whatever my preference wants.

 

[pablolie]

Isn't the answer always... "it depends"? I have used Dirac but ignore some of it based on my preferences. I know tjat sounds like heresy to some in ASR but trust me I do in no way and have never rejected measurements. But I also give in to my preference for a bit extra "drama" with my reference tracks. Which seems to favor a slight 200 to 500 range.

 

[ozzy9832001]

Depends which sounds better.

Whatever you do, make sure you are correcting each speaker individually and not going off summation.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Manual EQ, rarely above 200hz.

 

[kiwifi]

I measure my speakers using the quasi-anechoic (IR gated) method, 200Hz up. I then flatten the response from 500Hz up, but avoiding the passive crossover region. All loud speakers of a given manufacturer and model get identical correction to preserve timbre matching.

For my four subs, I use multi sub optimizer (MSO) to correct up to 160Hz and present as a single sub to the AV processor.

At the moment I use full range Audyssey room correction, because I don't have a processor that is compatible with the app. In the future I plan to only room correct up to 500Hz and rely on room treatment for the rest.

 

[Jaxjax]

Full Range

 

[boxerfan88]

I voted #4. High-Q up to 200Hz. Low-Q up to 500-600 Hz.

 

[EasyC]

Mainly low frequencies, Genelec 8030C+7050A. And a little 2dB bump at 2,5kHz. Sonarworks.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Full range (Dirac Live) has given me the best sound.

 

[Jaxjax]

 

[TheKoC]

I'm using Dirac DLBC and use full range. I tried variants with 300, 500 and 3000 Hz (I have a slight peak / dip combo betwenn 1k and 2k), and full range sounds best, although in a blind test i doubt i could tell the difference between the 3K and full range correction.