Share your in-room measurements?

[PowerSerge]

Tekton Double Impacts. Very disappointing speakers. The array actually sounded good but there was too much top end and the low end didnt reach anywhere near as low as the company says (20hz). The woofers were crossed so high they played mid range vocals. On top of that the bass sounded like it never blended well with the rest of the sound like I had a separate sub playing that wasnt tuned correctly. Ended up spending 550 to send them back and going back to Klipsch Forte I.

 

[YSC]

Tekton Double Impacts. Very disappointing speakers. The array actually sounded good but there was too much top end and the low end didnt reach anywhere near as low as the company says (20hz). The woofers were crossed so high they played mid range vocals. On top of that the bass sounded like it never blended well with the rest of the sound like I had a separate sub playing that wasnt tuned correctly. Ended up spending 550 to send them back and going back to Klipsch Forte I.View attachment 282925View attachment 282926

Still looks overall ok, it looks like the table reflection causing the 400-1khz range issues?

 

[Thomas_A]

Still looks overall ok, it looks like the table reflection causing the 400-1khz range issues?

Usually a table at the sofa does not cause reflections at ear height. Placing a mirror on the table and seeing the tweeter or mid reflected in the mirror from LP would reveal primary reflections. Could also be back wall reflections depending on how close the wall is.

 

[YSC]

Usually a table at the sofa does not cause reflections at ear height. Placing a mirror on the table and seeing the tweeter or mid reflected in the mirror from LP would reveal primary reflections. Could also be back wall reflections depending on how close the wall is.

Was just guessing, coz the table looked quite large and the frequency range was apparently above the omnidirectional range and apparently there’s some continuous surface affecting such a broad range

 

[PowerSerge]

Still looks overall ok, it looks like the table reflection causing the 400-1khz range issues?

Im not sure. Here are my Fortes in the same exact position:

 

[IamJF]

View attachment 282912

It has all been said for several times, above room transition frequency we mainly perceive the direct sound and thus in that region we mainly "correct" the loudspeaker and not the room. For this correction anechoic measurements are better as typical measurements at the LP can have there small peaks and dips due to local reflections which if correcting can deteriorate the linearity of the direct sound.

In normal living rooms we sit 100% in the reverberant field. Reverberation radius is often <1m, direct sound is very low.

But our ear is not summing like a measurement microphone - it depends WHEN sound is arriving. We can distinguish between early sound and later reflections and reverb.
BUT - we can not distinguish VERY early sounds. The transition is somewhere in the 10ms area. These early reflections are added to the spectral perception - and on axis flat speakers sound different in the room. 10ms corespond to 3,4m additional reflection path ... that's A LOT reflections in a living room!
Looking at the upper graph and say there should be no corrections >200Hz is way to simple.

But for sure you should not try to correct comb filtering or other strong position depending influences! It's a tricky task and measureing on one position only will always fail.

I have Dirac in my new home cinema Preamp and it helped with the over all sound. Before I used the Yamaha system and while it changed the sound it was not really a setp forward (but also not worse. Tamed 1-2 things).


(p.s.: There is a studio room building technique where you try to keep the listening seats reflection free for the first 10ms but the room over all not to dead. Hardly works in smaller rooms, for these I simply dampen reflections as much as possible.)

 

[anotherhobby]

Do you have any data on how Dirac Live "degrades" the sound?

Yes, my ears, which is really the most important part to me. I don't need to convince anybody else, and I wasn't trying to; I was just letting somebody know their advice was appreciated. If you like your full range correction and are happy with it, then stick with it.

 

[thewas]

But our ear is not summing like a measurement microphone - it depends WHEN sound is arriving. We can distinguish between early sound and later reflections and reverb.
BUT - we can not distinguish VERY early sounds. The transition is somewhere in the 10ms area. These early reflections are added to the spectral perception - and on axis flat speakers sound different in the room. 10ms corespond to 3,4m additional reflection path ... that's A LOT reflections in a living room!

Yes, our ear is of course not summing like a microphone and like you say also the reflections have an influence to the spectral perception, that is why a smooth loudspeaker directivity and room reverberation is very important. If you have both of those then usually your FR curves at the LP are also smooth (and often close to some known "targets") so no real correction is needed, unless there are problems on all axes which can be corrected. The problems arise when the directivity is not smooth and one has to decide if he rather corrects the direct or reflected sound and usually either is a compromise.

But for sure you should not try to correct comb filtering or other strong position depending influences!

Exactly.

It's a tricky task and measureing on one position only will always fail.

Not necessarily, it depends on how the measurement and correction is performed and also if the response should be optimised only for a single listener.

I have Dirac in my new home cinema Preamp and it helped with the over all sound. Before I used the Yamaha system and while it changed the sound it was not really a setp forward (but also not worse. Tamed 1-2 things).

I am sure Dirac worked better than most automatic AVR DRC. In my rather small room and loudspeakers with relatively smooth directivity equalisation works best based on anechoic LW measurements, also because it eliminates the problem of the target slope.

 

[YSC]

Im not sure. Here are my Fortes in the same exact position:
View attachment 282961View attachment 282963

the pattern differs quite a lot, as @Thomas_A said it's unlikely the table, and as the same lateral position yields different result, maybe it's floor and ceiling, no idea for that for sure.

 

[Thomas_A]

Im not sure. Here are my Fortes in the same exact position:
View attachment 282961View attachment 282963

Those speakers are quite different, height being one. Also the mid woofer arrangement of the Tekton makes floor and ceiling reflections irregular. Could be the reason for the dips and peaks.

Tekton Design Impact Monitor loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

 

[YSC]

bought the Genelec 8000-333b stand and raising the speaker with EQ below 200hz gets me this, quite satisified in desktop setup

 

[czt]

Current state of my sub integration and room EQ "studies" (with ESI aktiv 10s, M-Audio BX5 D3). Sub and full range level matched with 8k Pink PN pre EQ.

 

[OCA]

Current state of my sub integration and room EQ "studies" (with ESI aktiv 10s, M-Audio BX5 D3). Sub and full range level matched with 8k Pink PN pre EQ.

Subs are still 2cm too far

 

[PeterNL]

Measuring roughly 10' square with an 8' ceiling, they say I have bad dimensions for getting good room response. Initially, that was definitely the case. It took some perseverance (and lots of room treatment), but I'm incredibly happy with the end result. My system's in room response now matches my target curve incredibly well in both channels from 20Hz-20kHz, and I've done sweeps up to 105 dB with no compression.

The setup is a nearfield desktop system using Revel M105s and four sealed 8" subwoofers that I made using Dayton Ulitmax drivers. Dual Crown amps provide 525w to each Ulitmax, which are running as stereo pairs, making each L/R channel individually full range. The processor is a miniDSP Flex running Dirac Live, with 2 channels going to a Topping PA5 for the Revels, and 2 channels going to a miniDSP 2x4HD to feed the Crowns/subs.

I'm using a 24dB/oct crossover at 80Hz, and then setting delays on each channel according to the measured distances to my ears. I use Tightly Focused Imaging in Dirac Live since the system is used at a desk, and I have my own target I use that I've added to the graphs.

I have to say, I am very impressed at just how tight Dirac was able to correct each channel!

Before Calibration:

View attachment 282168
Dirac Live Calibrated:

View attachment 282169
After how simple the final calibration process ended up being, I feel a bit foolish for how much I was overthinking things. I knew I had to set the XO and delays before running Dirac, and that I should put care into getting them right first. I measured the distances from the drivers to my ears, and set the delays all based on that. I took some initial REW sweeps before calibration, and I didn't like what I saw. Before even trying an initial calibration, I started fine tuning delays until each native response channel looked best to my eyes. Then I ran Dirac and did not get the results I was hoping for. I kept fine tuning and tweaking, moving onto the crossovers, but I was getting disappointing results in Dirac every time. I tried to use MSO to sort it out, and that also went poorly.

I was getting frustrated. By this time, I'd spent days monkeying around. I finally considered that I had never actually attempted to run Dirac with the initial delays that I had calculated based on distance, so why not at least see what Dirac can do with it. Well it turns out that the delays based on actual measurements nailed the best result. Go figure! I could have saved days of monkeying around!

Live and learn! At least I won in the end. It really does sound fantastic, and it's a joy to listen to this rig all day while I work from home.

System diagram is attached.

Looks amazing, great job !

 

[PeterNL]

Here are my measurements of Wharfedale Linton after Dirac correction (default Dirac curve):

Here different target curve vs default:

Here measurements without Dirac correction:

Room is untreated but I will add some bass traps and maybe absorption/diffusion panels in the future.

 

[czt]

Subs are still 2cm too far
View attachment 297761

Working on it...

 

[nat1]

Nearfield/PC Desktop setup with iLoud Micro Monitors + ADAM T10S Sub under the desk at the 120 Hz XO setting. Some EQ below 600Hz and a HPF at ~2Khz to bring down the highs slightly due to non-ideal placement. I don't find it too bright at the current setting.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I rolled the dice on some Persons E66s since they were on sale. I couldn't find any measurements online, but at $240 each, I figured what the heck. I set them up in my office. They are near the sidewalls but about 6 get from the rear wall and a similar distance from the front wall with the MLP being about 1.5 meters from the speakers. After apply ARC and a single PEQ point at 135 hZ, I'm pretty happy with them.

 

[Albert Dagger]

I've used the Audyssey App for room correction, using the three curves below. I have a 4dB low-shelf boost and a slight tilt for all curves, just different cut-offs as the centre and the surround speakers don't run full range. I don't have a sub. Room corrections have a curtain at 4KHz (no room correction beyond that frequency).

My current system:
Denon x6400h AVR, pre-out to Marantz AMP10
Monitor Audio Gold 200 5G, Centre 5G, FX 5G, Monitor Audio in-ceiling speakers.
More details in my profile description.

I've checked how the room responds using REW and a UMIK mic. I've measured at the main listening position, with the mic at 90 degrees. You can see the aggregated results of the 5 bed channels below (the first picture with uncorrected measurements, the second with Audyssey on, Dynamic EQ off, and the target curves above as filters).

The two speakers sloping down after 2KHz are the surrounds. The three speakers with a slight rise after 2KHz are the fronts and the centre. I think I will try to correct that to match the curves of the surrounds. Overall, the bass response has much improved, imaging has improved, and also the level matching between channels. The surround experience is more immersive. The stereo response is also much better.

I've tried a full-range correction and didn't like it because Audyssey was boosting too much beyond 10KHz. The treble sounded unnatural even if more 'airy' (I wouldn't know how else to describe it). It gives the feeling of a wider soundstage. So, I tried different curtains. I first stopped at 500/600Hz and the result was not as good. Correcting up to 3/4KHz is better and I will try even higher to smoothen the response of the fronts. Some instruments and vocals can sound a tad bright because of that rise between 2KHz and 6KHz.

Rt in the room is higher than what you find in treated theatres. T20 is 0.5 at 1KHz and goes up to 0.7/0.8 at 4KHZ/6KHz. Dirac might be able to reduce these values, but I haven't tried.

Note:
Dynamic EQ is off and stays off. I mainly listen to music and these settings are perfectly fine. Dynamic EQ boosts the surround and height speakers, as well as increasing bass and treble. Using Dynamic EQ at -15dB is better but still not good. For me, the best solution is not using Dynamic EQ at all.

Things to try in the near future:
- Use MultiEQ X with increased headroom to further improve on the target curve and the EQ filters.
- Use REW to create EQ filters (I'm reluctant to try this because I am already quite happy with a basic correction like the one I did)
- Use Dirac and compare it with Audyssey.

Here, you can see how I measured the room. Pretty typical stuff, UMIK at 90 degrees at the listening position, ear height. There is no wall from where I took the photo, so an uneven response between the left and right speakers is expected. The room also has many reflective surfaces, and could probably use more absorption (or a reduced volume).

Let me know what you think about the measurements and my ideas. I welcome any suggestion to conduct further tests and aim to improve the results.

 

[radix]

I've used the Audyssey App for room correction, using the three curves below. I have a 4dB low-shelf boost and a slight tilt for all curves, just different cut-offs as the centre and the surround speakers don't run full range. I don't have a sub. Room corrections have a curtain at 4KHz (no room correction beyond that frequency).

My current system:
Denon x6400h AVR, pre-out to Marantz AMP10
Monitor Audio Gold 200 5G, Centre 5G, FX 5G, Monitor Audio in-ceiling speakers.
More details in my profile description.

View attachment 316719 View attachment 316720 View attachment 316721

I've checked how the room responds using REW and a UMIK mic. I've measured at the main listening position, with the mic at 90 degrees. You can see the aggregated results of the 5 bed channels below (the first picture with uncorrected measurements, the second with Audyssey on, Dynamic EQ off, and the target curves above as filters).

The two speakers sloping down after 2KHz are the surrounds. The three speakers with a slight rise after 2KHz are the fronts and the centre. I think I will try to correct that to match the curves of the surrounds. Overall, the bass response has much improved, imaging has improved, and also the level matching between channels. The surround experience is more immersive. The stereo response is also much better.

I've tried a full-range correction and didn't like it because Audyssey was boosting too much beyond 10KHz. The treble sounded unnatural even if more 'airy' (I wouldn't know how else to describe it). It gives the feeling of a wider soundstage. So, I tried different curtains. I first stopped at 500/600Hz and the result was not as good. Correcting up to 3/4KHz is better and I will try even higher to smoothen the response of the fronts. Some instruments and vocals can sound a tad bright because of that rise between 2KHz and 6KHz.

Rt in the room is higher than what you find in treated theatres. T20 is 0.5 at 1KHz and goes up to 0.7/0.8 at 4KHZ/6KHz. Dirac might be able to reduce these values, but I haven't tried.

Note:
Dynamic EQ is off and stays off. I mainly listen to music and these settings are perfectly fine. Dynamic EQ boosts the surround and height speakers, as well as increasing bass and treble. Using Dynamic EQ at -15dB is better but still not good. For me, the best solution is not using Dynamic EQ at all.

Things to try in the near future:
- Use MultiEQ X with increased headroom to further improve on the target curve and the EQ filters.
- Use REW to create EQ filters (I'm reluctant to try this because I am already quite happy with a basic correction like the one I did)
- Use Dirac and compare it with Audyssey.

View attachment 316717

View attachment 316718


Here, you can see how I measured the room. Pretty typical stuff, UMIK at 90 degrees at the listening position, ear height. There is no wall from where I took the photo, so an uneven response between the left and right speakers is expected. The room also has many reflective surfaces, and could probably use more absorption (or a reduced volume).

View attachment 316722

Let me know what you think about the measurements and my ideas. I welcome any suggestion to conduct further tests and aim to improve the results.

I'm not sure which traces are your center, but if it's the blue or purple that die above 1k, you might have voice intelligibility issues. Maybe a rug would help?