• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

How smooth can in room response realistically get?

Mawclaw

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
69
Likes
133
Location
The ATL
I have spent some quarantime getting the system dialed in with room treatment and using Dirac. I really like the sound now, but will likely keep messing with it compulsively.

A few questions-
-Is the moving mic method (below) the best way to get accurate data? So far it seems the most repeatable- but does it over average or hide issues?
-Is it possible to get +-2 dB of target curve in room without a purpose built room?
-Are there any glaring problems below? KH310 and some absorption on ceiling, floor and rear.
-Any other information I should be looking at beyond frequency response?
1588043760812.png
 

Attachments

  • 1588043008126.png
    1588043008126.png
    533.1 KB · Views: 206

DanGuitarMan

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
75
Likes
91
Location
Jersey City, NJ
That looks awesome! Good work. I don’t have any answers to your questions unfortunately.

I will tell you I’m getting slight shifts in my daily mmm measurements. I haven’t figured out why. Some parts of the spectrum line up day after day, while others change here and there. So I average them all together, and I like the eq changes better from the average, rather than one measurement in isolation. I’ll make a separate post about this someday.
 

Balle Clorin

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2017
Messages
1,285
Likes
1,184
Let us know what speakers, placement, room and other remedies you use beside Dirac
Edit: I will read better next time, what is your speaker and listener positions?
 
Last edited:

DJBonoBobo

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
1,360
Likes
2,851
Location
any germ
@Mawclaw Awesome, indeed, and much better than mine (see below). I also use KH310 (+KH750 sub). No Dirac but heavy EQ below 100Hz. Some passive absorbtion. But in my case its a small room, desk and screen between the speakers and a window behind the speakers that messes with upper bass/lower mids.

I like the RTA MMM-method, but i´m not getting completely reliable results. But in my experience it´s better than single measurements and more practical than Dirac-style multi-measurements.

RTA MMM:
kh310+kh750.png
 
OP
M

Mawclaw

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
69
Likes
133
Location
The ATL
Please excuse the messiness of my office and the overall ghettoness.

Room dimensions 21' Deep 7.5' Wide and 7'10'' Height

The setup that I found worked the best so far-
KH310's close to the walls. Around 6 inches.
Listening position 5ft away. I found this by measuring several different distances from the monitors.
Absorption panels that block desk reflections- extremely ugly.
Absorption on first reflections vertically and on back walls. Nothing really on the sides. All of the panels are 2'x4' GIK panels that start absorbing at ~900HZ. I have stacked them on top of each other in the rear for "bass traps".

Here are some pictures. I had to take down the cloud because it was scaring me with the janky installation. I think I have to fabricate something that is sturdy before hanging it over thousands of dollars of electronics.
20200428_124825.jpg
20200428_124635.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20200428_124621.jpg
    20200428_124621.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 154
  • 20200428_124621.jpg
    20200428_124621.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 126
  • 20200428_124621.jpg
    20200428_124621.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 121
OP
M

Mawclaw

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
69
Likes
133
Location
The ATL
@Mawclaw Awesome, indeed, and much better than mine (see below). I also use KH310 (+KH750 sub). No Dirac but heavy EQ below 100Hz. Some passive absorbtion. But in my case its a small room, desk and screen between the speakers and a window behind the speakers that messes with upper bass/lower mids.

I like the RTA MMM-method, but i´m not getting completely reliable results. But in my experience it´s better than single measurements and more practical than Dirac-style multi-measurements.

RTA MMM:
View attachment 60868
Damn that low end looks really good! Especially for the small room. Is there a reason you don't EQ above 100? I have Dirac working below 800 but don't really have a reason for that.

Also how do you like the KH750? Was it a good upgrade? I have been considering subs recently
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
I have spent some quarantime getting the system dialed in with room treatment and using Dirac. I really like the sound now, but will likely keep messing with it compulsively.

A few questions-
-Is the moving mic method (below) the best way to get accurate data? So far it seems the most repeatable- but does it over average or hide issues?
-Is it possible to get +-2 dB of target curve in room without a purpose built room?
-Are there any glaring problems below? KH310 and some absorption on ceiling, floor and rear.
-Any other information I should be looking at beyond frequency response?
View attachment 60793

This looks really good. Can you post how your filters are looking?
 

DJBonoBobo

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Messages
1,360
Likes
2,851
Location
any germ
Damn that low end looks really good! Especially for the small room. Is there a reason you don't EQ above 100? I have Dirac working below 800 but don't really have a reason for that.

Also how do you like the KH750? Was it a good upgrade? I have been considering subs recently

Thanks! I had my own thread about optimizing bass in my room a few days ago (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...bwoofer-and-eq-also-passive-absorbtion.12264/). You can see there that adding a sub was the most important element for getting a good response in my room. BTW i ended up using the manufacturer-recommended settings for the sub (delay derived from distance) but got motivation to find a better position and find better eq-filters.
Honestly i don´t see much room for a better bass response in your setting. I don´t know if the sub will do much for you. I think your low end looks really good.
The KH750 is also great for the KH310 because of it´s DSP-functionality but you don´t seem to need that.
I own a Dirac-license, too, but i stopped using it for practical reasons.
I don´t EQ above 100 Hz because this range is quite volatile in my room, because i´m moving my desk and my screen around and i just don´t want to think about it all the time. The higher the EQ gets the more i´m questioning what it does when i´m listening to music.

Also, to get back on your topic, i found interesting the room-response measurements by Sound & Recording. KH310 is not available, but this is KH80 (Average of multiple measurements, blue without filters, red with EQ; source: https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/studiomonitore-neumann-kh-80-dsp-die-messdaten/):

SR KH80.PNG
 
Last edited:

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
I like the RTA MMM-method, but i´m not getting completely reliable results. But in my experience it´s better than single measurements and more practical than Dirac-style multi-measurements.

You may want to check here as a demonstration what can be measured with MMM.
 
Last edited:

vavan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
341
Likes
212
Location
Kazan, Russia

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
-Is the moving mic method (below) the best way to get accurate data? So far it seems the most repeatable- but does it over average or hide issues?

Not much. But it may hide the variability of the frequency response from one point to another.

For example, here, we have a multipoint measurement, where each curve represents a single-point measurement taken in a +/- 30 cm area :

36_2018MesureAll48.png


We can see here that the frequency response at 120 Hz and 180 Hz is very stable, and can be accurately equalized.
But around 100 Hz, it is a complete mess.

The MMM curve is much more useful and accurate, but you can't see this information.

-Is it possible to get +-2 dB of target curve in room without a purpose built room?

Yes, that's not a problem.
The problem is to know if your default target curve is itself +/- 2 dB away from where it should theoretically stand, given your speakers and your RT60.

-Are there any glaring problems below? KH310 and some absorption on ceiling, floor and rear.

It looks great !

Please excuse the messiness of my office and the overall ghettoness.

You make me think about this comic from xkcd :

mess.png
 
OP
M

Mawclaw

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
69
Likes
133
Location
The ATL
Thanks everyone!
Yes, that's not a problem.
The problem is to know if your default target curve is itself +/- 2 dB away from where it should theoretically stand, given your speakers and your RT60.

Could you elaborate on this or give me some reading material? Specifically on the RT60 effect

Last question- I am considering adding some subs to add low end punch and extension. What is a proper crossover point or how do I go about sorting integration without just brute force measurement.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Yes, that's not a problem.
The problem is to know if your default target curve is itself +/- 2 dB away from where it should theoretically stand, given your speakers and your RT60.

Where should target curve "theoretically" stand?

Personally I never heard that RT60 is related to the target curve. Do you care to explain how exactly?
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Last question- I am considering adding some subs to add low end punch and extension. What is a proper crossover point or how do I go about sorting integration without just brute force measurement.

Most mains/subs combos would have XO at 80Hz or somewhere close to that. You can't do proper integration without measurement.
 

jlo

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
100
Likes
177
Personally I never heard that RT60 is related to the target curve. Do you care to explain how exactly?
The target curve depends on how you measure. With MMM, you get a mix of direct sound and diffuse soundfield. This later soundfield results of loudspeaker power response, listener distance and frequency dependant room absorption, that is more or less the frequency dependant decay time (not exactly the RT60, I agree).
I did an online calculator here : targetcurve
I would be interested to know if the calculator agrees for your setups, loudspeakers and rooms.
 
Last edited:

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
The target curve depends on how you measure. With MMM, you get a mix of direct sound and diffuse soundfield. This later soundfield results of loudspeaker power response and frequency dependant room absorption, that is more or less the frequency dependant decay time (not exactly the RT60, I agree).
I did an online calculator here : targetcurve

Target curve doesn't depend on how you measure, it is the curve you equalize uncorrected measured curve to. In other words it is the curve showing how you would like your corrected response to look like.

Absorption and decay are two very different things. RT60 curve is showing how much time sound takes to decay for 60dB over the frequency range.
 

jlo

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
100
Likes
177
Target curve doesn't depend on how you measure, it is the curve you equalize uncorrected measured curve to. In other words it is the curve showing how you would like your corrected response to look like.
Absorption and decay are two very different things. RT60 curve is showing how much time sound takes to decay for 60dB over the frequency range.
Maybe my words were not precise enough...
Frequency response depends on how you measure : use MMM, use single point or multipoints average, use fixed or frequency dependant windowing , measure at one meter or at listening place, measure in a living room or in an anechoic room, all methods give different responses.
That also means that the target is dependant of the way you measure : ie it could be nearly flat when measured with MLS or sine sweep and a FDW window or with a slope when measured with MMM..

There is no real RT60 in a normal room : diffusion is never uniform enough. You allways measure a decay, and generally only a 20 or 30dB decay (extrapolated to 60dB). This decay is representative of the room absorption and directivity of the loudspeaker.
 
Last edited:

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Maybe my words were not enough precise...
Frequency response depends on how you measure : use MMM, use single point or multipoints average, use fixed or frequency dependant windowing , measure at one meter or at listening place, measure in a living room or in an anechoic room, all methods give different responses.
That also means that the target is dependant of the way you measure : ie it could be flat at one meter and with a slope at listening place.

There is no real RT60 in a normal room : diffusion is never uniform enough. You allways measure a decay, and generally only a 20 or 30dB decay (extrapolated to 60dB). This decay is representative of the room absorption and directivity of the loudspeaker.
Maybe my words were not enough precise...
Frequency response depends on how you measure : use MMM, use single point or multipoints average, use fixed or frequency dependant windowing , measure at one meter or at listening place, measure in a living room or in an anechoic room, all methods give different responses.
That also means that the target is dependant of the way you measure : ie it could be flat at one meter and with a slope at listening place.

There is no real RT60 in a normal room : diffusion is never uniform enough. You allways measure a decay, and generally only a 20 or 30dB decay (extrapolated to 60dB). This decay is representative of the room absorption and directivity of the loudspeaker.

Well, you have now stated a bunch of obvious things with which I surely agree, although I am not sure why you stated them. However, I think decay is primarily room characteristic and doesn't have pretty much anything to do with speakers directivity. Practically every speaker's response will experience the same decay characteristic if put in the same room.
 
Top Bottom