Share your in-room measurements?

[Juhazi]

Sealed twin 8" woofers in a 3-way dsp active diy speakers. Speakers in the corner of the bedroom, measured around the spot L/R separately. No room eq needed! Stereo image is naturally poor because of too many reflections, but this is just for preliminary testing... RT 0.3

https://photos.app.goo.gl/uBqYxH1G86dHJGfZ6

 

[Coach_Kaarlo]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...here-to-locate-the-speakers.15370/post-666412

 

[thewas]

I correct now my both my systems to the 1974! B&K target curve which matches my loudspeakers directivity and room reverberation characteristics very well. I correct till 300 Hz left and right channel separately (just room mode peaks) and above and only if needed (loudspeaker correction).

My LS50 Anniversary desktop setup, above 300 Hz I correct only the known 2-5 kHz elevated region:

My LS50 Meta couch listening setup, no correction above 300 Hz needed:

 

[YSC]

I correct now my both my systems to the 1974! B&K target curve which matches my loudspeakers directivity and room reverberation characteristics very well. I correct till 300 Hz left and right channel separately (just room mode peaks) and above and only if needed (loudspeaker correction).

My LS50 Anniversary desktop setup, above 300 Hz I correct only the known 2-5 kHz elevated region:

View attachment 112877

My LS50 Meta couch listening setup, no correction above 300 Hz needed:

View attachment 112874

what sub do you use for the anniversary?

 

[Vuki]

what sub do you use for the anniversary?

I guess there's no sub.

 

[YSC]

no sub and goes to 40hz? that's pretty amazing

 

[Vuki]

no sub and goes to 40hz? that's pretty amazing

It's corrected desktop setup.

 

[thewas]

It's corrected desktop setup.

No positive PEQs though, just gain from nearby front wall.

 

[aarons915]

MMM of L and R of my KEF LS50 Anniversary desktop system with full band EQ:

View attachment 103064
(room size approximately 3x6x2,5m, placement close to the front wall, stereo triangle size approximately 1,2 meters)

MMM of L and R of my KEF LS50 Meta sofa listening system with EQ up to only 500 Hz:

View attachment 103067
(room size approximately 3x6x2,5m, placement 50 cm to the front wall, stereo triangle size approximately 1,9 meters)

The meta have a very good response for having no EQ, with EQ in place do you still prefer the meta? Have you tried filling the dip at 3k in the meta?

 

[thewas]

The meta have a very good response for having no EQ, with EQ in place do you still prefer the meta?

Yes, I prefer them, although they are at different locations (same room though) so its not a real valid comparison.

Have you tried filling the dip at 3k in the meta?

Yes, don't like them as much when its filled, with poorer recordings I even prefer a tad less forward presence region in my highly reflective room.

 

[richard12511]

I've seen many comments on how it is always unwise to raise dips? Are there ever situations where you would not want to lower peaks? I'm moving things around atm to better situate the space for the incoming auro 3d setup, and I've got some pretty bad peaks.

A messing about with GLM at the moment. Below is the response after running GLM 4

I found it odd that GLM didn't reduce those peaks, so I ran it through Dirac live afterwards, and to my surprise, Dirac Live didn't touch those peaks either. Could there be a legitimate reason for that? Is there any reason I shouldn't use manual EQ in Roon to pull those down?

 

[ernestcarl]

I found it odd that GLM didn't reduce those peaks, so I ran it through Dirac live afterwards, and to my surprise, Dirac Live didn't touch those peaks either. Could there be a legitimate reason for that. Is there any reason I shouldn't use manual in Roon to pull those down?

The one around ~130Hz is too narrow to matter, well, probably. Second one you could pull down -- though I'd do a spatial average or MMM first.

I've seen many comments on how it is always unwise to raise dips?

I would not say "always" unwise. I do still apply a boost here and there -- but carefully, and as long as it's not a lot.

 

[thewas]

I found it odd that GLM didn't reduce those peaks, so I ran it through Dirac live afterwards, and to my surprise, Dirac Live didn't touch those peaks either. Could there be a legitimate reason for that. Is there any reason I shouldn't use manual in Roon to pull those down?

Is this an L+R measurement and MMM or sweep? Also what GLM target settings did you use?

 

[ernestcarl]

Are there ever situations where you would not want to lower peaks?

Can't really comment on how Dirac or GLM decides what to fix or not.

With my manual EQ... Depends in how narrow those peaks are and where they are located. EQ done for one space will affect the response at other adjacent areas... I could cut some of the left-over peaks post my main listening position EQ, for example -- but it has to be done carefully. Spatial averaging is always better... Below I used 54 sweeps. 9 sweeps per channel at each sitting position, and using 90 degrees calibration.

I suppose if I did some really "strategic" PEQ in the bass it would like the ff.

Predicted curves post EQ

Notably, I can sacrifice a little bit of SPL between 200-290Hz in the main listening position for a better response in the other seats, I guess.

There's also a huge null around +130Hz in both channels in my MLP which I've filled up BUT:

Wavelet spectrogram 1/6 res, 25dB scale

My boost around that null/node doesn't actually fill itself completely -- it's still a black hole -- but that extra energy additionally expands the decay in time which does fill-in the hole in the simple SPL magnitude graphs.

It also does not look too different from an unwanted resonance/extended decay... which could potentially sound bad afterwards, or not -- in this particular case, it sounds totally fine.

 

[richard12511]

Can't really comment on how Dirac or GLM decides what to fix or not.

With my manual EQ... Depends in how narrow those peaks are and where they are located. EQ done for one space will affect the response at other adjacent areas... I could cut some of the left-over peaks post my main listening position EQ, for example -- but it has to be done carefully. Spatial averaging is always better... Below I used 54 sweeps. 9 sweeps per channel at each sitting position, and using 90 degrees calibration.

View attachment 114329

I suppose if I did some really "strategic" PEQ in the bass it would like the ff.
View attachment 114335
Predicted curves post EQ

Notably, I can sacrifice a little bit of SPL between 200-290Hz in the main listening position for a better response in the other seats, I guess.

There's also a huge null around +130Hz in both channels in my MLP which I've filled up BUT:
View attachment 114331
Wavelet spectrogram 1/6 res, 25dB scale

My boost around that null/node doesn't actually fill itself completely -- it's still a black hole -- but that extra energy additionally expands the decay in time which does fill-in the hole in the simple SPL magnitude graphs.
View attachment 114332

It also does not look too different from an unwanted resonance/extended decay... which could potentially sound bad afterwards, or not -- in this particular case, it sounds totally fine.

I should have mentioned that those were spatially averaged measurements.

 

[richard12511]

Is this an L+R measurement and MMM or sweep? Also what GLM target settings did you use?

This is a MMM measurement of the right speaker, though the left shows similar peaking. I'm using GLM default curve. I just found it odd that GLM and Dirac both chose to leave those peaks alone.

 

[ernestcarl]

found it odd that GLM and Dirac both chose to leave those peaks alone.

Did either Dirac or GLM show those same isolated peaks (with similar width) in their graphical views?

 

[Vuki]

This is a MMM measurement of the right speaker, though the left shows similar peaking. I'm using GLM default curve. I just found it odd that GLM and Dirac both chose to leave those peaks alone.

It's really odd to have these narrow band peaks with mmm measurements.

 

[thewas]

It's really odd to have these narrow band peaks with mmm measurements.

Not in my experience, there can be resonances in the modal region which are narrow and in this region MMM and a sweep usually give very similar results.

 

[richard12511]

Did either Dirac or GLM show those same isolated peaks (with similar width) in their graphical views?

Good question, this is what GLM and Dirac show