Room measurements with KEF R3

[abdo123]

No hurt in trying...

It's not possible to reduce RT with DRC. Bass energy ringing/prolonged decay reduction requires significant damping. You're already quite better off above 150Hz than before... Boosting EQ below the transition zone is not something I would recommend; only subtractive, if you feel that it is even necessary.

I remember you commenting on how Dirac evened out the subbas decay in the spectrogram in my room.

 

[hemiutut]

No hurt in trying...

It's not possible to reduce RT with DRC. Bass energy ringing/prolonged decay reduction requires significant damping. You're already quite better off above 150Hz than before... Boosting EQ below the transition zone is not something I would recommend; only subtractive, if you feel that it is even necessary.

I imagine you have seen the frequency response below the Schroeder frequency.

Did you really say that no equalization is needed?
Did you also see the peaks at 300 and 500 Hz?
By the way, the .mdat file comes out with a Psychoacoustic smoothing.
to at least 1/12 at these low frequencies (40 to 160 Hz).

This room-equipment if you can't put more treatment, you have to put a powerful, manual and customizable EQ.
powerful, manual and customizable.

Written with translator

Greetings

 

[ernestcarl]

I imagine you have seen the frequency response below the Schroeder frequency.

Did you really say that no equalization is needed?
Did you also see the peaks at 300 and 500 Hz?
By the way, the .mdat file comes out with a Psychoacoustic smoothing.
to at least 1/12 at these low frequencies (40 to 160 Hz).

This room-equipment if you can't put more treatment, you have to put a powerful, manual and customizable EQ.
powerful, manual and customizable.

Written with translator

Greetings

If I remember correctly, the main complaint was too much low bass and excess reverb. We can't do much more of the latter. Below 150Hz, some of the peaks in one speaker are offset by the dips in the other, balancing out the summed amplitude. While I do still see FR peaks at 300 and 500 Hz, the data is still only from a single point measurement. I'd rather see the result from MMM measurements for more targeted corrections above that area if deemed necessary.

 

[Marcin]

This room-equipment if you can't put more treatment, you have to put a powerful, manual and customizable EQ.
powerful, manual and customizable.

Correct- No more acoustic treatment. Only digital correction now.

While I do still see FR peaks at 300 and 500 Hz, the data is still only from a single point measurement. I'd rather see the result from MMM measurements for more targeted corrections above that area if deemed necessary.

How should those measurements be done? Are there any guidelines here at ASR?

 

[Jdunk54nl]

How should those measurements be done? Are there any guidelines here at ASR?

 

[ernestcarl]

Correct- No more acoustic treatment. Only digital correction now.



How should those measurements be done? Are there any guidelines here at ASR?

Moving microphone measurement/method (MMM) or an averaged set of moving microphone measurements is similar to what one would get after one averages several multi-point measurements together. I get similar results from averaging three MMM takes per channel across my couch (center, left, and right seats) to that of over a hundred sweeps RMS averaged. You could also just focus in on one position: the center main listening position.


Also written instructions with pictures by dominikz here:

Help me choose a pair of monitors (budget max €3500)

The deeper the actual bass response, the stronger that the room interactions will be. A speaker that doesn't actually have much low-end response won't even strongly activate the room modes in the first place so it can seem easier to work with at a glance. When you have a microphone and test...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Even then, some peaks may look worse than they really are perceptually so I wouldn't always necessarily flatten everything out completely.

 

[Marcin]

I did the measurements sitting in my main listening position and moving my microphone more less like Erin described.
Don't know if I did it OK but let's see if you can read something out of it.

Much appreciate your help with all this.

 

[ernestcarl]

I did the measurements sitting in my main listening position and moving my microphone more less like Erin described.
Don't know if I did it OK but let's see if you can read something out of it.

Much appreciate your help with all this.

Try the left and right EQ saved in the mdat file.

I encourage you to listen and compare with/out EQ to the LF test files provided by KSTR here for download -- esp. the 27 - 440 Hz sweep:

Low- and Mid-Frequency Test Signals for Evaluation of Room Modes (and other things)

You may want more or less gain manually adjusted based on what you actually hear with your own ears at the MLP.

 

[ernestcarl]

Sorry, forgot the file:

 

[Marcin]

Try the left and right EQ saved in the mdat file.

I encourage you to listen and compare with/out EQ to the LF test files provided by KSTR here for download -- esp. the 27 - 440 Hz sweep:

Low- and Mid-Frequency Test Signals for Evaluation of Room Modes (and other things)

You may want more or less gain manually adjusted based on what you actually hear with your own ears at the MLP.

Thanks.
I didn't know it's possible to have EQ for separate channels in Equalizer APO. Cool.