Share your in-room measurements?

[Steve Dallas]

I will re-measure these in 1 session with the same technique to be sure (that null at 150Hz is suspiciously different), but look at the difference between room correction products: Audyssey XT32 (with subs) and AcourateDRC (without subs).

Audyssey was configured with Dynamic EQ, Midrange Compensation, etc. turned off.

These are corrected measurements of my Revel F206s in the media room. This time, they are presented with the same smoothing and scale.

[EDIT]
The measurements methods were different, and the measurements were performed about a month apart.

The Audyssey measurements were taken with my laptop plugged into my 4700 receiver via the front HDMI port using the MMM around the MLP with pink noise from REW with ~90 averages each.

Signal path: Laptop -> AVR-4700H -> Peachtree Nova 150 -> F206 pair

The Acourate measurements were taken with my Blu-Ray player streaming a 20s unfiltered pink noise WAV file (downloaded from Dynaudio's web site) through the OpenDRC-DI. The mic was stationary in the MLP, and each measurement included 28 averages.

Signal path: Sony BRD -> OpenDRC-DI -> Peachtree Nova 150 -> F206 pair

There are obviously enough disparities in the measurement methods to cause some differences. But, I think the data are still relevant and interesting, as long as the above information is known and considered.
[/EDIT]

No correction MMM:

Audyssey correction to 1KHz MMM:

Audyssey correction to 20KHz MMM:

No correction MLP:

AcourateDRC correction to 20KHz MLP:

Wide angle shot of the front of the room:

 

[Chromatischism]

So which one sounded the best? And is that Audyssey with or without Dynamic EQ?

 

[Steve Dallas]

So which one sounded the best? And is that Audyssey with or without Dynamic EQ?

That is Audyssey with Dynamic EQ and all the other stuff turned off. I will edit the post to make that clear.

I can't really do anything like a blind test, but I seem to prefer the AcourateDRC correction. Subjectively, I can say I have this thought run through my head repeatedly when listening to that pathway: "This sounds soooooooooooooo good!" The Audyssey pathway sounds great as well--far better than any other AVR I have ever owned--but I don't have that though swirling in my head as often.

There is meaningful bass extension down to ~32Hz without the subs, so I am not missing out on any sub-bass for most music.

I should have an empty house for a little while this afternoon. I can shoot measurements of both pathways streaming the same pink noise with the mic stationary at the MLP for further comparison. Using the MMM may turn out to be unfair to Audyssey.

Stay tuned...

 

[Chromatischism]

Using the MMM may turn out to be unfair to Audyssey.

I'm not sure about that. Audyssey in fact equalizes to a spatially averaged set of measurements, so you should see very close to the predicted result in the app if you measure identical points to those used for the sweeps.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I'm not sure about that. Audyssey in fact equalizes to a spatially averaged set of measurements, so you should see very close to the predicted result in the app if you measure identical points to those used for the sweeps.

Maybe! This is why we test!

I used 6 measurements around the MLP with Audyssey. When I measured the results using the MMM, I moved the mic around inside that same area for ~80-90 averages. It should be fair.

But, I'll use the same pink noise file streamed via the BRD and the AVR for each pathway and take 28 averages with the mic stationary at the MLP and see how things compare.

 

[bennybbbx]

a good idea, but please post also the step response. its unbelievable but it is also in today speakers a big problem and can not fix with EQ. see in this thread, how can see a usefull step response. and there are from many speakers step responses. from Kali lp6, iloud MTM, Canton Plus x.3 and a celestion 10 Inch guitar speaker on a valve amp(guitar combo) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...6-defect-canton-look-much-better.17854/page-2


https://www.cinemasound.com/x-things-dont-know-transient-response/

Transient Response Should Always Be Considered When Purchasing a Speaker... But if you don’t understand how a speaker works, you may be surprised how inaccurate your speakers are. In this article we’ll briefly cover the 3 things you need to know about one of the most critical characteristics of a speaker: Transient Response.

 

[aarons915]

Wide angle shot of the front of the room:
View attachment 99649

Nice setup and nice measurements. Not to make you re-measure and EQ everything but did you decide on the subs inside your mains after measuring or do you just like the look the best? I am of the opinion that subs in the corners are best because it will excite the room modes and create a bass peak which then gets EQ'd and becomes free efficiency in those ranges. If you measured and it fixed a null or something obviously that makes sense, I was just checking.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Nice setup and nice measurements. Not to make you re-measure and EQ everything but did you decide on the subs inside your mains after measuring or do you just like the look the best? I am of the opinion that subs in the corners are best because it will excite the room modes and create a bass peak which then gets EQ'd and becomes free efficiency in those ranges. If you measured and it fixed a null or something obviously that makes sense, I was just checking.

I used measurements to determine sub placement. In their present location, there is a narrow null above the crossover point, but otherwise look good. I don't really need boundary gain with these in this room. The volume controls are at ~20%, and Audyssey still cuts them -4dB from there.

I did take additional measurements of Audyssey and Acourate results. I just need to find the time to export the images, which may be a bit, because of the BMR Roadshow...

 

[Steve Dallas]

Alrighty... Images exported while listening to the BMRs... Multitasking!

All of the following measurements were taken during a single session, in 30 minutes time, with the UMIK-1 positioned at the MLP and stationary. REW's Real Time Analyzer was used to measure 28 averaged samples as an uncorrelated pink noise WAV file was played for 19 seconds. I attempted to level match each measurement to within 1dB of 75dB with the SPL meter set to C weighting and slow response.

The Uncorrected, Manual PEQ, and AcourateDRC signal path was Sony BRD operating as a network streamer -> miniDSP OpenDRC-DI -> Peachtree Nova 150 -> Revel F206.

The Audyssey signal path was Denon AVR-X4700H via Heos -> Peachtree Nova 150 in HTB mode -> Revel F206.

No correction (without subs):

With manual PEQ in the OpenDRC (without subs):

[Did not do that much for the 40Hz room mode, even though it was pulled down by a significant amount in both channels.]

AcourateDRC correction (without subs):

[Was not able to repeat that beautiful graph from the previous post. Tried a few mic positions after all the other measurements were taken. Might have been an error or fluke?]

Audyssey XT32 correction to 1KHz (with subs):

Speaking of in-room measurements... Coming soon to a review near you:

 

[ernestcarl]

Audyssey XT32 correction to 1KHz (with subs):

I think we can conclude that AcourateDRC can do a better job of EQ correction than Audyssey...

BTW, those speakers are stunning!

 

[ernestcarl]

a good idea, but please post also the step response. its unbelievable but it is also in today speakers a big problem and can not fix with EQ. see in this thread, how can see a usefull step response. and there are from many speakers step responses. from Kali lp6, iloud MTM, Canton Plus x.3 and a celestion 10 Inch guitar speaker on a valve amp(guitar combo) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...6-defect-canton-look-much-better.17854/page-2


https://www.cinemasound.com/x-things-dont-know-transient-response/

You could start a new dedicated thread for this if you want. I’m not sure if this is really the best place to fill with speaker step response and impulse graphs.

 

[Chromatischism]

I think we can conclude that AcourateDRC can do a better job of EQ correction than Audyssey...

BTW, those speakers are stunning!

Were the Acourate corrections done using the same measurement points as Audyssey? I've never used it before so I'm not sure if it's a spatial average or single point.

 

[ernestcarl]

Were the Acourate corrections done using the same measurement points as Audyssey?

I did presume the last set of measurements were done in a similar fashion so as to level the playing field(?) But @Steve Dallas should be the one to confirm this...

 

[Steve Dallas]

I think we can conclude that AcourateDRC can do a better job of EQ correction than Audyssey...

BTW, those speakers are stunning!

I'm not sure we can conclude that, considering our ears do not hear in the same way a microphone "hears".

The fit and finish is immaculate. Even the port is stunning. They are truly special, but more on that later.

Were the Acourate corrections done using the same measurement points as Audyssey? I've never used it before so I'm not sure if it's a spatial average or single point.

When I say "MLP," I mean the center of my noggin, between where my ears would be, if I were sitting up straight.

AcourateDRC is a simplified version of Acourate and supports only a single measurement. When that measurement was taken, the mic was in roughly the center of the box I used for Audyssey, which would be the MLP (see below).

The idea was to use both products as designed, then measure the result at the stationary MLP for comparison. The validity of this idea is up for debate.

I did presume the last set of measurements were done in a similar fashion so as to level the playing field(?) But @Steve Dallas should be the one to confirm this...

When I performed the Audyssey setup measurements, I took 6 measurements around the MLP, effectively making a 24"w x 10"h x 10"d box. The Audyssey measurements in post 201 show the result of using the MMM to take ~80 measurements inside that box.

Another useful data set might be to use the MMM in that box and take another complete set of measurements, as shown in post 209, in a single session, using the same pink noise. The trouble is using REW's sound generator with the miniDSP, as the pink noise file is not long enough to capture a meaningful number of averages using the MMM. I don't have a laptop with a digital output, and the OpenDRC-DI is digital in and out only. I could experiment with setting the pink noise track to repeat and see how REW reacts to the ~1s of silence, as the repeat is not gapless on either streamer, and the gap is not the same. Some extra noise floor averages would be added, and the number of those would not match.

Or, I could just call it good and move on to messing with the BMRs...

 

[Chromatischism]

Thanks for clarifying.

So we need to keep in mind that Audyssey's goal is to get as close to the target as possible based on the spatial average of the measurements. In essence, it is making the sound better in the area you will inhabit by knowing more about the space. Room Correction that targets only a single point can't take into account the effects its corrections will have in the space around it, including any negative effects. Therefore when you measure a single point AcourateDRC will look "better" at that point, but I'm not sure it would sound better.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Thanks for clarifying.

So we need to keep in mind that Audyssey's goal is to get as close to the target as possible based on the spatial average of the measurements. In essence, it is making the sound better in the area you will inhabit by knowing more about the space. Room Correction that targets only a single point can't take into account the effects its corrections will have in the space around it, including any negative effects. Therefore when you measure a single point Acourate will look "better" at that point, but I'm not sure it would sound better.

Correct on all points.

 

[thewas]

Here a MMM LP comparison of my KEF LS50 Meta vs my ex Kali IN-8 without EQ:

As it can be seen both have very similar tonality and do not really need really much of EQ, the Kali have a little more bass and the KEF a little more mids. The dip at 130 Hz is a stereo summation problem due to room asymmetry and relative phase rotation of L and R.

 

[bennybbbx]

You could start a new dedicated thread for this if you want. I’m not sure if this is really the best place to fill with speaker step response and impulse graphs.

thats only 1 picture post more, and need in rew or arta no additional measure. how sound changes with diffrent impulse responses can hear in this other thread. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...of-the-synth-sound-in-the-attached-mp3.18401/ did you hear diffrence between slow or fast transient ? . thread name is share your in room measurements. so it is not limit to only frequency response

 

[Chromatischism]

Here a MMM LP comparison of my KEF LS50 Meta vs my ex Kali IN-8 without EQ:

View attachment 100198

As it can be seen both have very similar tonality and do not really need really much of EQ, the Kali have a little more bass and the KEF a little more mids. The dip at 130 Hz is a stereo summation problem due to room asymmetry and relative phase rotation of L and R.

Does the 130 Hz problem appear in single speaker measurements? If not, I wonder on how much content this would be noticable. It would depend how often they mix to mono in that range. I've read that's typically done for bass but I'm not sure how high up that extends.

 

[ernestcarl]

thats only 1 picture post more, and need in rew or arta no additional measure. how sound changes with diffrent impulse responses can hear in this other thread. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...of-the-synth-sound-in-the-attached-mp3.18401/ did you hear diffrence between slow or fast transient ? . thread name is share your in room measurements. so it is not limit to only frequency response

That was merely a suggestion. I may have time to read more on this later, though I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment.