Room correction, too much correction?

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Hey hello.
I have a QA C500 speakers in a smalish room.

As you see, i have a lot of room coloration. Usually i see the standard is 500hz. But i have coloration at like 1.5khz? what? xD.
Well.
With correction at 700hz:

vs Correction at 2khz~

My main problem was around 700hz i got that raise. i also noticed at 1khz i have a minor deep.
The speaker dont have any coloration at that range, is just my room.

I applyed heavy correction with -10dB, I know people dont recomend a lot of boost and bla bla, but i think it works if is done properly with less preamp.
My problem is, usually this is for bass... not midrange? so why i get that change in my speakers L&R at 1khz~ at 1.3khz i have a smalish dip.
Using corrections at 700hz vs 2000hz sound very similar, not much change but i think the 2khz correction sound best. Usually i see people correcting only the lower bass 500hz~, but i noticed a lot of improvement when i let the UMIK1+REW correcting above...

So what should be that minor depresing at 1.xkhz~? i can correct at 500hz just the graph is worse. Maybe it's the desktop ? it's glass tempered

The filters make the graph looks better but the filters are really weird. IMHO sound good.

vs

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Hey hello.
I have a QA C500 speakers in a smalish room.
View attachment 382861
View attachment 382862
As you see, i have a lot of room coloration. Usually i see the standard is 500hz. But i have coloration at like 1.5khz? what? xD.
Well.
With correction at 700hz:
View attachment 382864
vs Correction at 2khz~
View attachment 382865
My main problem was around 700hz i got that raise. i also noticed at 1khz i have a minor deep.
The speaker dont have any coloration at that range, is just my room.

I applyed heavy correction with -10dB, I know people dont recomend a lot of boost and bla bla, but i think it works if is done properly with less preamp.
My problem is, usually this is for bass... not midrange? so why i get that change in my speakers L&R at 1khz~ at 1.3khz i have a smalish dip.
Using corrections at 700hz vs 2000hz sound very similar, not much change but i think the 2khz correction sound best. Usually i see people correcting only the lower bass 500hz~, but i noticed a lot of improvement when i let the UMIK1+REW correcting above...

So what should be that minor depresing at 1.xkhz~? i can correct at 500hz just the graph is worse. Maybe it's the desktop ? it's glass tempered

The filters make the graph looks better but the filters are really weird. IMHO sound good.
View attachment 382867 vs View attachment 382868

This is the graph only corrected at 700 nd the other speaker at 650

and this at 850hz

 

[kemmler3D]

The problem with doing this is that the correction is physically small in size as you go higher in frequency.

If you correct 2khz the "correct" area could be only maybe 10-15cm. Consider that your head is wider than this. So if you move your head a little the sound could actually be worse.

Correcting higher frequencies isn't "wrong" per se but it tends to lead to worse results.

One way to correct higher frequencies without creating new problems:

Use the MMM method (move the mic around while taking a measurement of white or pink noise) and correct only using low-Q filters, i.e. wide filters.

This way you can provide some correction without creating "small size" corrections that are actually worse everywhere else.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

The problem with doing this is that the correction is physically small in size as you go higher in frequency.

If you correct 2khz the "correct" area could be only maybe 10-15cm. Consider that your head is wider than this. So if you move your head a little the sound could actually be worse.

Correcting higher frequencies isn't "wrong" per se but it tends to lead to worse results.

One way to correct higher frequencies without creating new problems:

Use the MMM method (move the mic around while taking a measurement of white or pink noise) and correct only using low-Q filters, i.e. wide filters.

This way you can provide some correction without creating "small size" corrections that are actually worse everywhere else.

let the REW correct at 800~900 kind of solve the problem, doesn't do anything at 1khz+ and looks flat, im not very sure why.
This was 20hz to 900hz, 0 correction above.
Im done for today, 4 hours of measurements, the HF always change no matter what lmao, the 9khz to 20khz change if i breath, lol.
the subbass is kind of boosted in this measurement because i had the port full open, with the O foam ring is more linear

 

[kemmler3D]

the 9khz to 20khz change if i breath, lol.

Exactly... a good reason not to try correcting it.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Exactly... a good reason not to try correcting it.

Doing room correction is very hard, i usually let my ears to be the final judge. Glad the 1.3khz dip was fixed, i think the target was set at<84dB> instead of 85dB, im not sure.


The <Final very final-finalest mk6> EQ present was at 900hz, very very nice sound. Highs sound very clean, transparent and present after REW correction 20hz to 900hz.

Im happy for today, tomorrow i will test again if i like it again.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Doing room correction is very hard, i usually let my ears to be the final judge. Glad the 1.3khz dip was fixed, i think the target was set at<84dB> instead of 85dB, im not sure.

I like the approach with ears.
How was the 1,3k dip "fixed"?