Measure your C50 in REW and tell us how your bass sounds!

[NIN]

Thanks. Still looking for improvements but because it is a "normal" living room there are limitations to what I can do. I have still not played with DSP for the bass.

 

[mydust]

很好的参考！

 

[Hexspa]

I don't know how to interpret the clarity measurements but here are mine. Please note that I took another measurement for the decay and waterfall plots because I had higher ringing ~120Hz that reduced 3-4dB the second time.

Bass decay shows impulse, 140 and 160ms, waterfall shows about 30dB on y-axis, full spl is variable smoothing, bass spl is no smoothing, impulse response envelope and clarity graphs are what they are. I only measured from 27Hz because that's A0 in musical terms and my sub doesn't play with accuracy to that range anyway.

This is post-EQ from 18 measurments around my listening position, nine in a grid then nine more at seated height, averaged then placed into EqualizerAPO. Speakers are Yamaha HS50 with HS10w subwoofer (quoted -10dB @ 30Hz) @ ~1m with a calculated level from REW of 74.4dB in a treated space of ~2500ft3 and irregular shape.

How does my bass sound? I take you to mean with the mains because without them it sounds just like a subwoofer. It sounds spacious, accurate and flat, slightly elevated but not overwhelming. My taste is not to have a ton of bass so it's fine. This calibration is for music creation more than enjoyment and a similar calibration I used before this worked well, allowing me to achieve the "translation" that audio people chase, as least in the low end. My plan is to swap out my mains when I can.

Let me note that 120Hz is a problem frequency for me right now. I had to use the high pass filters on my mains to 80Hz to get the most even response at that range. I tried 100Hz and inverting the subwoofer's polarity but none of that worked. Quarter wavelength is around 2' so I think it's either a desk bounce and/or a front wall reflection; I have no absorption behind the speakers except for two floor-to-ceiling 32"-wide fluffy superchunks in the corners. If I look at the minimum phase generation, I'm pretty sure it's not flat right there either. As far as I know, that means EQ is less effective there and that could be why there's more decay.

 

[Flaesh]

I don't know how to interpret

In this case, the interpretation is trivial - the result is good and sufficient, because

@ ~1m.. in a treated space of ~2500ft3

From a greater distance, smaller values of C(D) can be measured (and heard), down to an inarticulate bass in ordinary rooms

 

[Hexspa]

In this case, the interpretation is trivial - the result is good and sufficient, because

From a greater distance, smaller values of C(D) can be measured (and heard), down to an inarticulate bass in ordinary rooms

Thanks for your response. Can you point me to a good resource on understanding these Clarity graphs? The REW help says it’s the ratio between direct and ? sound in dB but I’m not sure if lower or higher is more “clear” and why the lines would not be horizontal whether they should conform to a certain shape or what importance wiggles in the lines have. Thanks.

 

[Flaesh]

I think there is some discussion in this thread. As a metric of the quality of bass reproduction, these indicators are not generally accepted and are quite rough.
See also discussions about MATT test aka Stereophile Test disk 2 track #11.
Ideally, the D50 graph line is approximately horizontal between 99% and 100%
BTW here's an ordinary sound card:

 

[Hexspa]

I think there is some discussion in this thread. As a metric of the quality of bass reproduction, these indicators are not generally accepted and are quite rough.
See also discussions about MATT test aka Stereophile Test disk 2 track #11.
Ideally, the D50 graph line is approximately horizontal between 99% and 100%
BTW here's an ordinary sound card:
View attachment 340251

Thanks for this. I'll check out MATT and review this thread. Cheers.