Share your in-room measurements?

[Nigel Pickmere]

Attached is my LP response for my small 2.5 x 4.8 x 2.4 music studio. LP = 3.36M from speaker
Powered via 1 x 4 ch 800W POWERSOFT QUATTROCANALI 2404 + DSP and Dante.
DSP control via POWERSOFT Armonia +.
Crossover @ 3500Hz 48dB Butterworth gain adjusted for balance. Amp outputs current limited via DSP to match driver specs.
DIY speaker 1 x KEF T27 tweeter (1978 !) 1 x DAYTON RS225-8 tuned to 36Hz.

 

[Vintage57]

Could you please share the mdat?

In general, if everyone posts their mdats we could do a pretty good study. Not very controlled of course.

Is it as easy as attaching the REW file? I’m outside my wheelhouse here

 

[pozz]

Is it as easy as attaching the REW file? I’m outside my wheelhouse here

Depends on the size of the mdat. I don't think you can attach it directly, but a zip might work. If not, then https://wetransfer.com/ is always good for temporary sharing.

 

[Nigel Pickmere]

Could'nt attach mdat but impulse attached , 8.81 mSec distance = speed of sound x microphone distance from speaker?
Waveform @ 1/48 smoothing

 

[Nigel Pickmere]

POWERSOFT Armonia + has a direct input for Smaart V8 but I am happy with the frequency response as is considering my 72 year old ears with tinnitus!!
Armonia + Smaart V8 is used to fine tune major outdoor concerts ie Red Hot Chili Peppers etc & Dave Rat etc
see

 

[ernestcarl]

Is it as easy as attaching the REW file? I’m outside my wheelhouse here

A single separate left and right channel output measurement is all that is needed -- 70 to 85 dB+ and longer sweep lengths like 512k or 2M will contain less noise. Could be a fully equalized response or "raw" unequalized response (maybe both) as long as you are able to set your sub+mains delays and/or xo filters as well as you can. Compressing the mdat to a zip file should allow you to attach it to a post here just fine if you so wish.

Generally, what's more interesting to me in measurements are differences in the decay spectrum and early reflections since our rooms and layout positioning acoustics often significantly vary. The time information is absent in a simple FR graph. Even if we all used the same speakers with the same directivity characteristic, I'm sure there's going to be significant differences found when the full transfer function is examined. An analysis of the raw data and learning how it corresponds to one's subjective impression is always interesting.

 

[ernestcarl]

Attached is my LP response for my small 2.5 x 4.8 x 2.4 music studio. LP = 3.36M from speaker
Powered via 1 x 4 ch 800W POWERSOFT QUATTROCANALI 2404 + DSP and Dante.
DSP control via POWERSOFT Armonia +.
Crossover @ 3500Hz 48dB Butterworth gain adjusted for balance. Amp outputs current limited via DSP to match driver specs.
DIY speaker 1 x KEF T27 tweeter (1978 !) 1 x DAYTON RS225-8 tuned to 36Hz.

40 to 60 dB vertical scale would be easier to "read" and compare with others.

An actual picture of your DIY speaker would also be nice to include since my imagination/visualization skill is quite bad.

 

[mightycicadalord]

As you can see it's used through jBridge (with "Sluggish GUI hack" setting) in foobar2000 with VST 2.4 adapter as the VST is unfortunately only 64 bit, and ASIO4ALL for the Analysis because of UMIK-1. It was a hassle to use three other tools to make it work, I almost gave up on the first attempt.

I use arc in a systemwide setup, I just use the method listed on IK's site. It is a work around but once setup you just forget about it. When wanting to turn it off for headphones I just switch audio outputs in windows.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I recently bought a MiniDSP 4x10HD active crossover / PEQ and have been playing with different setups. Below are REW measurements with the original analog active crossover and with the MiniDSP. These measurements are all taken at the listening position which is 11 feet from the speakers. The room is 20 feet wide by 30 feet long with an 11 foot cathedral ceiling and there are many irregular room surfaces on the back wall behind the listening position. The entire front wall behind the speakers is covered by thick drapes and the front 2/3rd of the room is carpeted. This room could be considered an LEDE room with the listening position in the rear live 1/3rd of the room. The speakers are about 1/3rd out from the front (long) wall and about 6 feet from each side wall, and the listening position is 11 feet from the speakers.

The speakers are Altec Lansing A7-500s and both the LF and HF drivers are driven by vacuum tube amplifiers, the HF being an SET. The subwoofers are four JBL 18" drivers, two per side, each in an 8 cubic foot enclosure and operated in stereo with 1000 watts (500 per side). These subs are positioned in the front left and right corners of the room, behind the mains.

This is the response with the original analog crossovers (12dB per octave Linkwitz-Riley).

And this is the response with the MiniDSP 4x10HD (12dB per octave Linkwitz-Riley).

The MiniDSP 4x10DH obviously benefits from the PEQ. However in actual listening, there is little or no sonic difference between the two, and I have decided to keep using the analog crossover, however it is very easy to swap between the analog and digital if I want to.

The main problem with the MiniDSP is that my gain structure is configured in such as way that most of the signal gain occurs in the preamplifier (vacuum tube) and comparatively little in the power amplifiers. This is done to reduce hiss and other noise from the extremely efficient horns to inaudible levels at any more than with my ear right in the horn mouths. This high signal level hitting the MiniDSP causes it to clip at listening levels below the maximum I listen at, which can be very loud and/or bass heavy with pipe organ music.

Also, even though there is no real 'technical disadvantage' to the extra analog / digital / analog conversions when going through the MiniDSP, doing so just bothers me in my heavily analog based system, although a good percentage of my listening is to digital sources.

For those interested, this is the .mdat file for REW. the microphone used is the MiniDSP UMK-1.

 

[Sal1950]

The speakers are Altec Lansing A7-500s and both the LF and HF drivers are driven by vacuum tube amplifiers, the HF being an SET. The subwoofers are four JBL 18" drivers, two per side, each in an 8 cubic foot enclosure and operated in stereo with 1000 watts (500 per side). These subs are positioned in the front left and right corners of the room, behind the mains.

This is good stuff, thanks for sharing!

 

[Le Concombre]

I recently bought a MiniDSP 4x10HD active crossover / PEQ and have been playing with different setups. Below are REW measurements with the original analog active crossover and with the MiniDSP. These measurements are all taken at the listening position which is 11 feet from the speakers. The room is 20 feet wide by 30 feet long with an 11 foot cathedral ceiling and there are many irregular room surfaces on the back wall behind the listening position. The entire front wall behind the speakers is covered by thick drapes and the front 2/3rd of the room is carpeted. This room could be considered an LEDE room with the listening position in the rear live 1/3rd of the room. The speakers are about 1/3rd out from the front (long) wall and about 6 feet from each side wall, and the listening position is 11 feet from the speakers.

The speakers are Altec Lansing A7-500s and both the LF and HF drivers are driven by vacuum tube amplifiers, the HF being an SET. The subwoofers are four JBL 18" drivers, two per side, each in an 8 cubic foot enclosure and operated in stereo with 1000 watts (500 per side). These subs are positioned in the front left and right corners of the room, behind the mains.

This is the response with the original analog crossovers (12dB per octave Linkwitz-Riley).

View attachment 168711

And this is the response with the MiniDSP 4x10HD (12dB per octave Linkwitz-Riley).

View attachment 168712

The MiniDSP 4x10DH obviously benefits from the PEQ. However in actual listening, there is little or no sonic difference between the two, and I have decided to keep using the analog crossover, however it is very easy to swap between the analog and digital if I want to.

The main problem with the MiniDSP is that my gain structure is configured in such as way that most of the signal gain occurs in the preamplifier (vacuum tube) and comparatively little in the power amplifiers. This is done to reduce hiss and other noise from the extremely efficient horns to inaudible levels at any more than with my ear right in the horn mouths. This high signal level hitting the MiniDSP causes it to clip at listening levels below the maximum I listen at, which can be very loud and/or bass heavy with pipe organ music.

Also, even though there is no real 'technical disadvantage' to the extra analog / digital / analog conversions when going through the MiniDSP, doing so just bothers me in my heavily analog based system, although a good percentage of my listening is to digital sources.

For those interested, this is the .mdat file for REW. the microphone used is the MiniDSP UMK-1.

before I read you kept the analog I wanted to ask you which sounds best to your ears with the idea that I would prefer the analog. Maybe you could give digital another try with the 2 attached mods (if possible) to be on Toole's above #64 Hz while keeping the existing bass level below : bass should be more punchy and timbres more accurate

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

before I read you kept the analog I wanted to ask you which sounds best to your ears with the idea that I would prefer the analog. Maybe you could give digital another try with the 2 attached mods (if possible) to be on Toole's above #64 Hz while keeping the existing bass level below : bass should be more punchy and timbres more accurate

Actually that is exactly what I am going to be doing - I will run the MiniDSP 4x10 HD inputs in parallel with my analog crossover inputs and use the MiniDSP to do the sub crossover and PEQ. The gain structure is not a problem with the subs because there isn't the noise sensitivity problem.

Like I mentioned in the original post, I could not tell any substantial sound quality difference between the two crossovers in regions above the subwoofer. Yes there are differences in the graphs, though not all that much, and not enough difference to justify using the MiniDSP for those higher frequences. Also, the analog crossover has EQ adjustments which have their center frequencies designed specifically for these speakers in this room, and adjustments to preference for different recordings for example are actually easier than booting up the computer to do a simple EQ tweak.

 

[czt]

I use arc in a systemwide setup, I just use the method listed on IK's site. It is a work around but once setup you just forget about it. When wanting to turn it off for headphones I just switch audio outputs in windows.

I'm back with MathAudio, after this forum thread confirmed my own experience.

 

[samysound]

Here is my in-room for a pair of genelec 8351s from GLM screen shots. listening position is about 10ft and room is a ~14ft x 15ft with 12ft vaulted ceiling.

 

[Le Concombre]

Actually that is exactly what I am going to be doing - I will run the MiniDSP 4x10 HD inputs in parallel with my analog crossover inputs and use the MiniDSP to do the sub crossover and PEQ. The gain structure is not a problem with the subs because there isn't the noise sensitivity problem.

Like I mentioned in the original post, I could not tell any substantial sound quality difference between the two crossovers in regions above the subwoofer. Yes there are differences in the graphs, though not all that much, and not enough difference to justify using the MiniDSP for those higher frequences. Also, the analog crossover has EQ adjustments which have their center frequencies designed specifically for these speakers in this room, and adjustments to preference for different recordings for example are actually easier than booting up the computer to do a simple EQ tweak.

I used to have different eQ sets to apply to different recordings but now tend to be very happy with just one ; however if you have a list of your adjustments for easily available/common recordings I'd be interested in giving a try

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I used to have different eQ sets to apply to different recordings but now tend to be very happy with just one ; however if you have a list of your adjustments for easily available/common recordings I'd be interested in giving a try

I'm sure my room and speakers are way different than yours, but generally what I do is cut the highest end for some overly bright recordings and sometimes introduce a 'BBC Dip" for some music, mainly classical. There are two bespoke EQ dip filters for the HF horn but these are very specific to my particular speakers / room.

You can take a look at the .mdat file in my original post which shows the high end normal and reduced in the analog crossover plots.

 

[Le Concombre]

I'm sure my room and speakers are way different than yours, but generally what I do is cut the highest end for some overly bright recordings and sometimes introduce a 'BBC Dip" for some music, mainly classical. There are two bespoke EQ dip filters for the HF horn but these are very specific to my particular speakers / room.

You can take a look at the .mdat file in my original post which shows the high end normal and reduced in the analog crossover plots.

Yes I'm interested in suggestions in the line of Steve Hoffman's in his forum : a dB more there less here for this or that recording, independently of room and speakers, supposed to be running at their best optimisation....
As of the BBC dip, Google is not an easy friend : I understand that it corrected a specific directivity issue of BBC speakers but if some recordings have been mastered/eQed with so tweaked monitors it would then make sense to recreate the dip via eQ to enjoy them as intended even if the intention or used monitors were faulty
what do you apply ? Q/Frequency/dB ?
exemple of classical recording benefiting ?

 

[Nootmuskaatje]

Kef Q150 + SVS PB1000 pro. Lowered the bass by 2dB since measuring. Used PEQ within the SVS app, but most of the work is done by Audyssey XT32.

 

[flipflop]

Kef Q150 + SVS PB1000 pro. Lowered the bass by 2dB since measuring. Used PEQ within the SVS app, but most of the work is done by Audyssey XT32.
View attachment 169074

I would bring down the SPL around 20 and 40 Hz or alternatively fill up the 30 Hz dip.

 

[Nootmuskaatje]

I would bring down the SPL around 20 and 40 Hz or alternatively fill up the 30 Hz dip.

It's already done by a lot. Pre and post EQ: