Room correction measurments with Mathaudio Room EQ

[Snarfie]

I'm a bit puzzeld about my room correction measurments and the out come The picture below shows on the left side my measurement with resonance (gray line arc) and the predominantly straight-oriented line calculated by Mathaudio Room EQ. The right side is the original measurement of IMF measured over 35 years ago from my Compact II probably done in a lab environment a dead room or something. As you can see the Mathaudio straight line is quite similar to the IMF measurement, even the -15db mark is almost the same. So I would say I have done a good measurement if you compare both well with my untrained eye. What I find strange is that with the IMF measurement from -15db upwards the next level is -20db and with Mathaudio -10db. The question is to what extent can the two measurements be compared with each other, so the scales are not correct, but the frequency characteristics (what a word I had to google that one) are quite similar.

Can tell you the difference with or without roomcorrection in my partly threated room is huge. For instance i'm not using both subwoofers any more. After roomcorrection they where obsolete.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The right hand measurements were done with 1/3 octave pink noise. Most likely in an anechoic chamber or perhaps outside. You are not able to compare to your recent measurements very well at all. Because you are in a room with reflections and resonances. At most general trends might apply from one to the other. I would expect some similarities above 500 hz.

Now I'm not familiar with your MathAudio software.

You might wish to repeat your in room measurement with REW. Not that there is anything wrong with MathAudio just that more of us are users of REW. You can get it for free here.
https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

I also would think you can use the RoomEQ of MathAudio. Then with a separate computer measure the result with REW to see how much it really helped.

 

[Snarfie]

The right hand measurements were done with 1/3 octave pink noise. Most likely in an anechoic chamber or perhaps outside. You are not able to compare to your recent measurements very well at all. Because you are in a room with reflections and resonances. At most general trends might apply from one to the other. I would expect some similarities above 500 hz.

Now I'm not familiar with your MathAudio software.

You might wish to repeat your in room measurement with REW. Not that there is anything wrong with MathAudio just that more of us are users of REW. You can get it for free here.
https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

I also would think you can use the RoomEQ of MathAudio. Then with a separate computer measure the result with REW to see how much it really helped.

Thanks for the comment. Yes i know REW problem is i can't get the REW file not in Foobar2000 or any other mediacenter like VLC in a simple plug&play manner as Mathaudio does in Foobar2000.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thanks for the comment. Yes i know REW problem is i can't get the REW file not in Foobar2000 or any other mediacenter like VLC. Mathaudio is as an add-on intergrated in Foobar2000 plug & play. Maby i'm not aware but is there an way to get the calculated REW file in any mediaplayer under windows 10?.

You could use an equaliser with Foobar and do the EQ curve yourself based on the REW measurements. I'm not sure that there's any other way to do it.

Just to clarify what you're doing, are you using Marthaudio to EQ the sound to flat at the listening position? If so, doesn't it sound a bit thin/bright with the EQ on?

Re: the subwoofers, using them should still be beneficial as they will take a lot of stress off the speakers' midwoofers, allowing them to play cleaner and louder.

 

[FrantzM]

The way I understand it " Room Correction" is much more than mere EQ...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The way I understand it " Room Correction" is much more than mere EQ...

Depends on your use of the terms. EQ can be more than mere amplitude adjustments in the frequency domain.

 

[FrantzM]

Depends on your use of the terms. EQ can be more than mere amplitude adjustments in the frequency domain.

Tru that!

In the context of the OP however we seem to be dealing with “mere” amplitude adjustments.

 

[Snarfie]

You could use an equaliser with Foobar and do the EQ curve yourself based on the REW measurements. I'm not sure that there's any other way to do it.

Just to clarify what you're doing, are you using Marthaudio to EQ the sound to flat at the listening position? If so, doesn't it sound a bit thin/bright with the EQ on?

Re: the subwoofers, using them should still be beneficial as they will take a lot of stress off the speakers' midwoofers, allowing them to play cleaner and louder.

Iam using mathaudio as a roomcorrection addon wich works very good(understatement) i have totaly different speakers now which not require a bass boost anymore. I never encounterd suche difference. Because of this roomcorrection i needed a more powerfull amp so the NAD C350 is changed for the C370 which amplifies the (partly) increas in Db difference effortless. As FrantM descrives as Amplitude adjustment ( i supose) The white strait line is the corrected/calculation by mathaudio so all the highs/resonance ( see gray arc) is corrected so lows are for the first time on the forground much more balanced in every sence depth clearity stereo image etc.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Tru that!
In the context of the OP however we seem to be dealing with “mere” amplitude adjustments.

Tru dat (unfortunately).

 

[RayDunzl]

The white strait line is the corrected/calculation by mathaudio so all the highs/resonance ( see gray arc) is corrected so lows are for the first time on the forground much more balanced in every sence depth clearity stereo image etc.

Do you have a measurement after the correction?

 

[Snarfie]

Do you have a measurement after the correction?

I did look into that but with the mathaudio app you can't because you have to run the pink nois sweep thru the calculated measurment which is not possible (as far as i know). Maby there are other possibilities let me know.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I was not implying you substitute REW for MathAudio for room correction. I was suggesting you with no correction measure your speakers with REW to evaluate your results versus those from the 1980s.

Also you should be able to apply MathAudio and measure with REW. It is possible to record the sweep as a wav file and play it the way you play music. And REW can use that and do a measurement even if you ran REW and the measuring mic on another separate computer. This would tell you how well MathAudio is really straightening up the sound from the speaker. It also might let you alter your target response to a better one.

 

[Snarfie]

I was not implying you substitute REW for MathAudio for room correction. I was suggesting you with no correction measure your speakers with REW to evaluate your results versus those from the 1980s.

Also you should be able to apply MathAudio and measure with REW. It is possible to record the sweep as a wav file and play it the way you play music. And REW can use that and do a measurement even if you ran REW and the measuring mic on another separate computer. This would tell you how well MathAudio is really straightening up the sound from the speaker. It also might let you alter your target response to a better one.

Will look into this.

 

[Krunok]

Will look into this.

Although I don't like his new avatar I have to admit @Blumlein 88 is right. It's well explained here. You need to make test file with timing reference signal using REWs generator. After that you inititate measurement with REW with "Wait for timing reference signal" checked, play that file and REW will start measutring when it hears the timing reference signal.

 

[gorg]

I'm a bit puzzeld about my room correction measurments and the out come The picture below shows on the left side my measurement with resonance (gray line arc) and the predominantly straight-oriented line calculated by Mathaudio Room EQ. The right side is the original measurement of IMF measured over 35 years ago from my Compact II probably done in a lab environment a dead room or something. As you can see the Mathaudio straight line is quite similar to the IMF measurement, even the -15db mark is almost the same. So I would say I have done a good measurement if you compare both well with my untrained eye. What I find strange is that with the IMF measurement from -15db upwards the next level is -20db and with Mathaudio -10db. The question is to what extent can the two measurements be compared with each other, so the scales are not correct, but the frequency characteristics (what a word I had to google that one) are quite similar.

Can tell you the difference with or without roomcorrection in my partly threated room is huge. For instance i'm not using both subwoofers any more. After roomcorrection they where obsolete.

What kind of mic you're using? I don't see any pre-loaded calibration filename displayed on your MathAudio plugin screenshot.

 

[Snarfie]

What kind of mic you're using? I don't see any pre-loaded calibration filename displayed on your MathAudio plugin screenshot.

IK Multimedia MEMS mic. used for ARC2 system. I lend it. This week a Superlux ECM999 will be deliverd.
https://www.bax-shop.nl/meetmicrofoons/ik-multimedia-mems-microfoon-voor-arc-systeem

 

[jhaider]

The way I understand it " Room Correction" is much more than mere EQ...

The way I see it, room correction is much less than EQ. In terms of bandwidth at least.

"Room correction" is compensation for room modes in the transition region and below.

"EQ" is potentially room correction, plus alteration of a speaker's voicing.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"EQ" is potentially room correction, plus alteration of a speaker's voicing.

Or just a subjective tone control. To me, EQ is a generic term for almost any tonal manipulation.

 

[SIY]

IK Multimedia MEMS mic. used for ARC2 system. I lend it. This week a Superlux ECM999 will be deliverd.
https://www.bax-shop.nl/meetmicrofoons/ik-multimedia-mems-microfoon-voor-arc-systeem

The ARC2 mike is very much not flat. Big treble peak, rolloff below 60 Hz. The ARC2 system compensates for that, but if you're using it with something else, you absolutely need to load a cal file.

 

[Snarfie]

The ARC2 mike is very much not flat. Big treble peak, rolloff below 60 Hz. The ARC2 system compensates for that, but if you're using it with something else, you absolutely need to load a cal file.

Thanks for that will do new measurment with the new mic shortly. However i got already despite the ARC2 mic a much better sound. By the way do i need for my Superlux ECM999 also a calibration file because Superlux does not provide such file. However i saw that the freq respoinse was already quite flat of the Superlux.

Interesting is how al the room correction software have their own signature/filosofy how to tackle the compensation. One of the intersting features of Mathaudio is that some low frequencies are not enhanced see below their statement why.

"It is also possible to see that MathAudio Room EQ doesn't boost the spectral components lying below the green line. This important feature prevents the large excursions of the speaker diaphragm that can be caused by the ideal linearization of the frequency response. Besides that this feature allows you to avoid the overcompensation of your room. As a result you will not get a muddy sound that is peculiar to conventional linearizing equalizers."

And how it compensate or avoid Pre echo (distortion) with their algorithem. https://mathaudio.com/why-room-eq.htm Looks like REW, Sonarworks ARC2 etc etc have their own ways to compensate room correction.