• 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!

Post your room modes correction PEQ settings

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
I remember in pictures you have a small room behind a door at the backwall? bass couldd be building up there too (the whole room turns into a (bad) subwoofer).

Here's a photo for context:
1595459139235.jpeg


Remarkably, the sub bass throughout the length of the couch along the back wall is pretty stable in amplitude. Decay is longer though, esp. between 10-20Hz -- but the effect is more of a sensation felt in the body rather than heard as any kind of strong ringing. Above the sub bass is where things get very uneven as one strays further away from the center MLP -- much of that has to do with SBIR as the L&R speakers are practically almost touching the sidewalls. Small rooms can be quite problematic... and leaves one with limited options in terms of placement and ability to add more subs.

1595459356293.jpeg

Very light pink and yellow-green(?) curves corresponds to the center MLP. The horn wave guide of the Sceptre S8 looks like it's doing its job well here.
 
Last edited:

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
Front-half of the room for context:
1595460134219.jpeg

That foam at the ceiling is just to deflect harsh light away from the monitor when the desk is raised.

Zooming closer to my spectogram wavelet and tuning the delays even further improved GD, decay, & the waterfall plot by a small margin, while keeping FR measurements more or less the same.

1595460367358.jpeg


1595460380034.jpeg


1595460425423.jpeg


1595460444885.jpeg

*sub’s peak is within 5ms — which, I believe, is the usual recommendation in terms of time-alignment with the mains.

It's funny that it's only now that I remember doing this before, though I preferred the sound when the sub was just a tad bit more delayed -- I think. BUT, just to be clear, what looks like significant changes in all these graphs are overall really minor effects to me -- I may not be as sensitive to minute changes in the bass frequency adjustments here and there than I would like to imagine. My hearing is in no way as acute as other people in this forum -- and I'm not a 'trained listener'.

With science on my side I'm happy to recommend broad-banded treatment from 100 hz and up to save the insane amount of space needed to absorb frequencies below 80 hz :)

Eventually I'll add thick bass traps (maybe 6-8 inches) along the four corners of the room.
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
2,760
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Front-half of the room for context:
View attachment 74706
That foam at the ceiling is just to deflect harsh light away from the monitor when the desk is raised.

Zooming closer to my spectogram wavelet and tuning the delays even further improved GD, decay, & the waterfall plot by a small margin, while keeping FR measurements more or less the same.

View attachment 74707

View attachment 74708

View attachment 74709

View attachment 74710
*sub’s peak is within 5ms — which, I believe, is the usual recommendation in terms of time-alignment with the mains.

It's funny that it's only now that I remember doing this before, though I preferred the sound when the sub was just a tad bit more delayed -- I think. BUT, just to be clear, what looks like significant changes in all these graphs are overall really minor effects to me -- I may not be as sensitive to minute changes in the bass frequency adjustments here and there than I would like to imagine. My hearing is in no way as acute as other people in this forum -- and I'm not a 'trained listener'.



Eventually I'll add thick bass traps (maybe 6-8 inches) along the four corners of the room.


hey man. I just remembered something. since you have one problem with kind of one center frequency a tuned helmholtz resonator absorber would be perfect. research it. not sure if they can be tuned so low though (and how big it would be)
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
hey man. I just remembered something. since you have one problem with kind of one center frequency a tuned helmholtz resonator absorber would be perfect. research it. not sure if they can be tuned so low though (and how big it would be)

Good lord I've seen pictures of those and they are big...

I've bookmarked this one from GIK:

Scopus Tuned Bass Trap T40 (still big but manageable -- but below 20Hz is still a lost cause)
1595531035376.png


Between 150-400Hz in the extreme ends of the couch is still going to be an issue and so broadband absorbers targeting those on the side walls and maybe even behind the speakers. These are just 'imagined' possibilities that are within the realm of feasibility. I don't personally feel any immediate treatment is necessary.
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
My wavelet graphs (first time I learned about it) looked worse a couple of months ago: subwoofer time alignment

Clearly something has changed since then...

I'm sure I moved the sub & speakers (how much and where, I don't quite remember), and changed the PEQs several times, as well as finally attached the spikes for the sub so that they're coupled with the concrete floor instead of sliding on the carpet. Or it could be my new blanket...

*Actually, could be mainly just the settings

Found the old file from last year and matched the settings for both. It's definitely not an imagined improvement:
1595536004492.png
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
2,760
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Good lord I've seen pictures of those and they are big...

I've bookmarked this one from GIK:

Scopus Tuned Bass Trap T40 (still big but manageable -- but below 20Hz is still a lost cause)
View attachment 74828

Between 150-400Hz in the extreme ends of the couch is still going to be an issue and so broadband absorbers targeting those on the side walls and maybe even behind the speakers. These are just 'imagined' possibilities that are within the realm of feasibility. I don't personally feel any immediate treatment is necessary.


I think a very big and heavie metal plate (sealed airtight) 5cm from the wall could do the trick for 25Hzish without taking space. I never realy studied tuned absorbers. here is a calculator for this: http://www.mh-audio.nl/Acoustics/PResonator.html. there are calculators for other concepts
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
I think a very big and heavie metal plate (sealed airtight) 5cm from the wall could do the trick for 25Hzish without taking space. I never realy studied tuned absorbers. here is a calculator for this: http://www.mh-audio.nl/Acoustics/PResonator.html. there are calculators for other concepts

Glancing at the waterfall graphs, it may look like I need to treat the lower bass... But I don't really think it's essential from what I'm perceptually hearing. I think the more important (and complicated) issue is the SBIR at the extreme ends of the couch in the back of this room.

I've taken some more time to carefully optimize my crossovers and 'house curve' EQ for the couch area, and I think the ff. is already as optimized as I'm willing to go.

Just focus on the lines with the blue dots. The rest is just fluff, depending on your perspective, of course.
1595938278863.png


Yeah, looks like an excessive amount of EQ... but I assure you not a single one of these filters is redundant or useless.

I'm using JRiver for the 'less important' fine PEQs. Often, I find myself using the optical input of my miniDSP to play media from an external streaming box & blu-ray player instead of using the desktop HTPC and routing audio to JRiver.

1595938800316.png


In an earlier post with very similar curves, uneven bass from SBIR extended down to 40Hz -- primarily because I overlapped my xo between 40-60Hz for the speakers and sub respectively.

Gradual adjustments of my crossovers around the highlighted area turned out to be fruitful exercise...
1595938829870.gif


I've finally found the best combination that gave the biggest amplitude boost, but also the least amount of cancellation.
1595938844991.png


It's pretty obvious from the before curve below where the biggest modes and/or peaks that need to be EQ'd are:
1595939291751.png

BTW, all PEQs have been triple checked to work not only with MMM RTA and log sweeps in the center MLP, but also with all measurements obtained at the extreme seating ends of the couch.

1595939634377.gif

Hopefully the above animation helps one to easily visualize the effect of each EQ stage -- steps ranked first on the basis of importance.

1595939762706.png

110dB window makes the overall 'house curve' easier to discern despite minimal smoothing.

And just some more misc. plots that may be of interest:

1595940358829.png


1595940364834.png


1595940373316.png


1595940422861.gif


1595940433721.png


1595940443193.png


1595940454102.gif


There is a time gap in the linearity of the peak energy in the wavelet graph around ~135Hz -- also evident in the GD. I'm not sure what's causing the delay, but it could be the sidewalls(?) or maybe it's just the speakers...

Result is the sub had to be time-aligned around that point in the speakers' FR

1595940899977.gif

Looks strange... but that late peak around 19ms in the speakers' step is amplified precisely without breaking up when the subwoofer is summed to both speakers using the correct time delay.

... and just one last extra image of JRiver's loudness DSP at work in the MLP of the listening/movie watching couch:
1595941263376.png

Recalibrated my volume levels again...

Listening at a volume of 100% to 9% is fine. Anything below that is no good. Not only is the volume too low, the response also become rather unstable.

Anyhows, I'm pretty happy with the bass that I'm getting -- a bit more extension and a little more overall boost without sounding boomy at all or adding any unnecesary distortion.

Sorry if this post was a bit excessive!
 

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
Hi

Which settings do you use to deal with room modes?

Here they are :

129_RoomModesSettings.png


Where is it effective: listening position only or wider area?

It is effective nearly everywhere. Even in other rooms, it is much better with correction than without. We can hear music coming from the next room, instead of a heard of elephants thumping.
It is because the listening position stands at the maximum of the strongest mode.
According to the room simulation, the 54 Hz peak is the second order of the front / back axial mode :

122_ModePropre.png


The level of a 54 Hz frequency across the room is given by the thick blue curves. At the listening position, the measurement says that it is 18 dB too loud. Therefore the right level should be the one given by the two dark green lines.

The bright green areas represent the regions where the -18 dB correction have an optimal effect.
The light green areas represent the regions where the -18 dB correction is better than nothing (better having a notch than a peak).
The orange areas represent the regions where the -18 dB correction is bad (it was ok, but the correction creates a notch).

According to the room simulation, the 69 Hz peak is the first order of the floor / ceiling axial mode :

122_ModePropre2.png

The vertical light green lines represent the actual level at the listener's position.
The vertical dark green lines represent an amplitude 10 dB inferior, that is the ideal amplitude for this frequency.
The bad zone after EQ is the region where the dark blue curves fall inside the dark green lines.

Do you use different settings for each channel?

Not for room modes, but for SBIR, yes.

If we compare the measured frequency response of both speakers playing the test signal together, we can see that the result is not the same as the sum of the frequency responses of the left and right speakers alone :

45StereoEtGD.png


The peaks are higher at 160, 200 and 330 Hz when both speaker are actually playing together because of constructive interference, which adds 6 dB to the initial level, while at higher frequencies, the signals coming from the left and right speakers are incoherently averaged, which gives +3 dB only.
But at 62 and 100 Hz, when the speakers play together, the sound is actually quieter than when they play separately ! (destructive interference).

I prefer equalizing both speaker at the same time because more often than not, music is played in both channels at the same time. Especially in low frequencies, that are 90% mono. Thus the measurement made with both speakers is closer to the actual level.

But since I was never satisfied with the correction of the peak around 200 Hz, and since they are actually two separate peaks for the left and right speakers, I decided to try separate left and right corrections. I don't know for sure it the result is better, though.

Are the corrections different depending on the type of music and loudness?

No. I'm happy with my settings with any kind of music at any level.
 

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
As far as ringing is concerned, here is the low frequency decay before eq :

77_Decay1.png


And after eq :

78_Decay2.png


If we compare the levels at 53.2 Hz on the same graph, we can see that the first 50 ms are greatly improved. But after 100 ms, the equalization is less effective at cancelling the decay.

From left to right : time in milliseconds
From bottom to top : relative level in dB
Blue : without eq
Red : with eq

79_Decays.png


Here are two recordings of the same burst tone at 53 Hz made with the Umik-1 from the listening position. Here we can see for real the cancellation of the decay in the room when the MiniDSP is turned on.

Top : without eq
Bottom : with eq (played at the same level, i.e. with the volume setting 18 dB louder)


recording.png


Last, some group delay graphs.

Green : real group delay (no smoothing)
Grey : theoretical minimal group delay (no smoothing)


05GroupDelayZoomed.png


We can see some excess group delay from 75 to 95 Hz. That's at the bottom of a notch in the frequency response.
The two modes at 54 and 69 Hz have no excess group delay. Thus they are both minimal phase. That's why the eq can work efficiently to reduce the decay.

Here is the group delay before and after eq.

Green : before eq
Purple : after eq


07GroupDelayCancelled.png


Cancelling the 53 and 69 Hz room modes improves group delay at these frequencies.
It also worsens it at 60 Hz. But overall, the max value was 110 ms at 54 Hz before eq, and it is only 70 ms at 57 Hz after eq.
The peak at 82 Hz is of little importance, since this frequency is nearly silent according to the frequency response.


The audible result is first and above all the correction of the frequency response.

But we can also hear the improvement in group delay. 100 ms is huge. When a rhythm box plays at this frequency, without eq, we can hear the "whomp" coming way too late !
As already said, the first improvement is the frequency response. Which means that in this case, what happens after EQ is that we can't hear the "whomp" anymore at all !

But on some tracks, the improvement in group delay and decay are audible. Especially on electronic music playing a sinusoidal continuous melodic bass line at these frequencies. The notes are blurred without eq, but they become sharp and distinct after eq.
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,110
Likes
2,327
Location
Canada
I prefer equalizing both speaker at the same time because more often than not, music is played in both channels at the same time. Especially in low frequencies, that are 90% mono. Thus the measurement made with both speakers is closer to the actual level.

Pretty interesting. I sometimes average the response of different channels to see what can be EQ'd in unison for both.
 
Top Bottom