Share your in-room measurements?

[thewas]

My KEF LS50, without and with EQ to equalised to below Harman target MMM based (var. smoothing):

 

[9radua1]

Have you tried listening with the bass around 40-60Hz lowered just a tad bit? Or do you prefer it that way? Looks like ~+11dB from the rest of the FR. I think I’ve seen others have it higher up to 15dB. Of course, with loudness compensation at lower listening levels, say, ~60dB SPL for example — boosting the bass should sound perfectly okay to most.

Yes, for my usual listening level at 70-75 dB, I actually prefer this bass level. I have a preset for higher levels, where the bass is shelved down 3 dB from 120Hz and down. But generally, this curve sounds natural to me. But it may be because the in-room experience with reflections from side walls and front window accentuates the mids somewhat...or because I compensate for that mid/lower mid region which is still not quite there yet. Working on some other placements and sub xover to try to integrate that better. If the mids were more linear, maybe a lower bass would sound more natural?

 

[Harmonie]

yes, I tried it. It works ok, and the bass is actually more even, but I loose the good stereo image and the center image becomes diffuse. The room is an open plan thing, so the only way to get L/R symmetry is setting It up where it is now. Next step would be heavy drapes behind each speaker, I think. And another sub

Though it depends on the speakers, (dipole ESL like open plan rooms), I'm surprised. What you describe about the stereo image is maybe because the speakers are too far apart and leave a "hole in the middle", or toeing -in would help IMHO.

 

[9radua1]

Though it depends on the speakers, (dipole ESL like open plan rooms), I'm surprised. What you describe about the stereo image is maybe because the speakers are too far apart and leave a "hole in the middle", or toeing -in would help IMHO.

Right, experimenting with toe-in may help to stabilize the center image. But I have often noticed that when speakers are set up asymmetrically in a room, the center image becomes diffuse - for instance a typical mono lead vocal in a stereo mix. Not as a “hole” between the speakers, but the phantom center appearing as a larger nebulous “cloud” rather than a point source right between the speakers as it should be. When placed symmetrically in the same room, this phantom center becomes more stabil and almost like a point source. Even if the side walls are still untreated and reflective.

I think this makes scientific sense, since Clark and Toole have shown that side wall reflections doesn’t matter that much. The important thing seems to be that the L/R reflections for a mono source are identical (and that the directivity plot of the speaker is smooth), so that the stereo image sums to phantom center mono correctly for things like lead vocals. This can’t happen in an asymmetrical setup, unless it’s dead enough that the precedence effect wins out.

So, for me, symmetry is preferred, even if the bass response becomes harder to calibrate, because it can still be calibrated, unlike the phantom center. Does that make sense?

 

[Harmonie]

Right, experimenting with toe-in may help to stabilize the center image. But I have often noticed that when speakers are set up asymmetrically in a room, the center image becomes diffuse - for instance a typical mono lead vocal in a stereo mix. Not as a “hole” between the speakers, but the phantom center appearing as a larger nebulous “cloud” rather than a point source right between the speakers as it should be. When placed symmetrically in the same room, this phantom center becomes more stabil and almost like a point source. Even if the side walls are still untreated and reflective.

I think this makes scientific sense, since Clark and Toole have shown that side wall reflections doesn’t matter that much. The important thing seems to be that the L/R reflections for a mono source are identical (and that the directivity plot of the speaker is smooth), so that the stereo image sums to phantom center mono correctly for things like lead vocals. This can’t happen in an asymmetrical setup, unless it’s dead enough that the precedence effect wins out.

So, for me, symmetry is preferred, even if the bass response becomes harder to calibrate, because it can still be calibrated, unlike the phantom center. Does that make sense?

Sure it make sense, who wouldn't prefer a perfect symmetry ?
My ESL (ML) prefer having no side walls at all.
Pink noise is a helpful tool to pinpoint the right spot, just a few inches aside changes a lot with some LS like mine - Ok I admit, directivity is not their strength .

 

[ernestcarl]

If the mids were more linear, maybe a lower bass would sound more natural?

Not sure if they would sound more natural to you unless you have another neutral (audio system) as point of comparison, but it should theoretically sound better the less uneven the response. The closer you are to neutral at your reference volume, though, the less likely you would feel the need to adjust the bass or volume when listening between vastly different tracks, albums, or genres -- i.e. very random, eclectic playlist.

 

[9radua1]

Not sure if they would sound more natural to you unless you have another neutral (audio system) as point of comparison, but it should theoretically sound better the less uneven the response. The closer you are to neutral at your reference volume, though, the less likely you would feel the need to adjust the bass or volume when listening between vastly different tracks, albums, or genres -- i.e. very random, eclectic playlist.

Sure. I read somewhere Toole said that a true calibration will still leave much to be desired from differently mixed tracks. Some will lack a lot of bass (older stuff), some will be fine, som will be harsh in the treble etc. I agree that a neutral system makes it less likely that you'd want to adjust tone controls/EQ all the time. My thought here was that the lower mids are often subject to cancelations from floor bounce and SBIR, so it would make sense that this is where people typically try to compensate by adding bass volume, myself included. Its hard to get those lower mids just right in my room, man

My neutral system for comparison is my friend's mastering studio which is acoustically calibrated, where I spend as much time as I can, but of course not available for timely A/B comparisons.

 

[vavan]

Some will lack a lot of bass (older stuff), some will be fine, som will be harsh in the treble etc

the reasons of existence of auto-eq solutions are not unfounded

 

[Asinus]

JBL SUB18 no EQ applied but it is band-limited by the amp.

 

[Lattiboy]

Canton CT120s with Audyssey dynamic EQ off (red) and on with offset to -10db (blue). Really do think DEQ -10 is a tremendous dsp setting and everybody who has Audyssey should try it. Subjectively it is much better to my ears. Both readings are with the “reference curve” active below 400Hz.

(1/12 smoothing from 20-20k, level matched at 75db I think)

 

[Steve Dallas]

Audyssey results with Revel F206s in a 12.5' x 13.5' x 10.5' lightly treated room.

Signal chain:
Streamer -> Denon AVR-X4700H -> Peachtree Nova150 -> Revel F206
SVS SB2000 subs x 2

What I measured before correction without subs:

What Audyssey was supposed to do:

What Audyssey thought it could do:

What Audyssey actually did (correction limited to below 1KHz):

What Audyssey did if allowed to correct up to 20,000 Hz:

I am reasonably pleased with this, even if Audyssey is a bit optimistic about its capabilities. The 30Hz wide nulls centered around 60Hz and 135Hz look (and sound!) much better. The choppyness between 200 and 1KHz is difficult to tame, and it did a better job of it when allowed to correct the full spectrum for some reason.

Both correction profiles are saved in the receiver as presets, and I can switch between them with a button on the remote. Honestly, I don't hear much difference with most music, but I have a slight preference for the one limited to under 1KHz.

 

[9radua1]

What Audyssey actually did (correction limited to below 1KHz):

I think that correction looks very, very good by most standards! The nul at 60 Hz was probably not a cancelation nul, and could therefore be corrected, while the 135 Hz nul may be an interference that can’t be. Plus, you got much better bass extension out of those speakers, it seems.

What is your reason for correction up to 1KHz? Have you tried making a preset just correction the bass? When moving into the midrange, the sound power and speaker directivity makes for a lot of uncertainties, and high Q corrections may do more harm than good.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I think that correction looks very, very good by most standards! The nul at 60 Hz was probably not a cancelation nul, and could therefore be corrected, while the 135 Hz nul may be an interference that can’t be. Plus, you got much better bass extension out of those speakers, it seems.

What is your reason for correction up to 1KHz? Have you tried making a preset just correction the bass? When moving into the midrange, the sound power and speaker directivity makes for a lot of uncertainties, and high Q corrections may do more harm than good.

Yeah, I normally do this manually, and I am pretty happy with what it did automagically.

The extra bass extension comes from the addition of the subs. That first measurement was shot through the Peachtree without subs to get a baseline on the speakers themselves in the room.

With the editor app, you can slide the limit around effortlessly, so experimentation is quick and easy. I thought I would start with 1KHz to see what it could to with the peaky-ness between 200 and 1KHz. I normally achieve best results by limiting correction to the Schroeder frequency or twice that, which is 219 or 438Hz, respectively. I will fiddle with it, until I find the best sounding parameters. This was literally the first shot.

 

[ernestcarl]

Both correction profiles are saved in the receiver as presets, and I can switch between them with a button on the remote. Honestly, I don't hear much difference with most music, but I have a slight preference for the one limited to under 1KHz.

I'm curious... What do you prefer about the correction which is limited to 1kHz? Is it because there is a bit more bass or does the full-range correction somehow alters the overall tone above 1kHz too much?

 

[Steve Dallas]

I'm curious... What do you prefer about the correction which is limited to 1kHz? Is it because there is a bit more bass or does the full-range correction somehow alters the overall tone above 1kHz too much?

I have not put a lot of thought into it, and the differences are subtle, but the 20K correction is brighter, and music with wide soundstage sounds artificially narrowed. Or at least, that is my quick impression. Perhaps it is unwise to mess with Revels in the range where they do their best work?

I made a typo when I prepared those graphs. If you look closely, the target SPL is not the same. They are both supposed to be 76.5dB, but I typed 75.5dB into the red 1K graph, which makes it look brighter than it is. Both measurements were taken using the MMM, and they were taken one immediately after the other with no changes, other than preset. Here are the corrected graphs:

 

[ernestcarl]

I have not put a lot of thought into it, and the differences are subtle, but the 20K correction is brighter, and music with wide soundstage sounds artificially narrowed. Or at least, that is my quick impression. Perhaps it is unwise to mess with Revels in the range where they do their best work?

I made a typo when I prepared those graphs. If you look closely, the target SPL is not the same. They are both supposed to be 76.5dB, but I typed 75.5dB into the red 1K graph, which makes it look brighter than it is. Both measurements were taken using the MMM, and they were taken one immediately after the other with no changes, other than preset. Here are the corrected graphs:

View attachment 89165

View attachment 89166

Thanks for trying to describe it anyhows.

I suspect the type of correction the higher you go needs more data (ideally from spinorama) to really get right.

The JBL correction from the link above, for example, may work well in tandem with one’s own in-room measurements and correction below or just around the transition zone.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Thanks for trying to describe it anyhows.

I suspect the type of correction the higher you go needs more data (ideally from spinorama) to really get right.

The JBL correction from the link above, for example, may work well in tandem with one’s own in-room measurements and correction below or just around the transition zone.

No worries. I have just begun to mess with this, and have not had much time for critical listening. I will do more, once I have the house to myself again.

In other news, the mic included with the receiver is accurate enough for this type of work. I'm sure there is some error baked in there, but it is far from glaring as confirmed by the UMIK-1 measurements.

 

[nick-v]

Just got my Umik-2 yesterday and quickly did up some measurements of my JBL HDI-3800 this morning. Average of 6 measurements.

 

[Chromatischism]

There is not much verticality to your graph, which makes the response appear flatter. Also 1/6 octave smoothing will make it appear even better.

Your measurements from a couple of months ago looked better. Is this a new computer?

 

[nick-v]

There is not much verticality to your graph, which makes the response appear flatter. Also 1/6 octave smoothing will make it appear even better.

Your measurements from a couple of months ago looked better. Is this a new computer?

Yes, laptop instead of desktop. I re-worked the file above and captured at 1/12 octave smoothing.