SVS17 measurements

[Boidek]

Hi all, new here

I have the SB17 Svs sub, used the rew to measure my sub.
My living room has no special treatment in it.
Got the following results:

Any suggestions what can be done using the svs app. If at all?!

Thanks

 

[IngMishael]

Hi all, new here

I have the SB17 Svs sub, used the rew to measure my sub.
My living room has no special treatment in it.
Got the following results:
View attachment 480776
Any suggestions what can be done using the svs app. If at all?!

Thanks

set the smoothing to no smoothing or 1/48 smoothing for bass and set the limits dB vertically to 50dB difference. Basically it should be 50 t 100 on the vertical scale not 25 to 105

only then can we make good deductions from your measurement

 

[Boidek]

set the smoothing to no smoothing or 1/48 smoothing for bass and set the limits dB vertically to 50dB difference. Basically it should be 50 t 100 on the vertical scale not 25 to 105

only then can we make good deductions from your measurement

 

[EAXAE]

To me it looks as good as it gets, given you are using just one subwoofer.

 

[IngMishael]

View attachment 480869

pretty good for one sub tbh. you might have remarkable barebones acoustics. the real issue is the 40Hz dip which is nota narrow dip. we care less about the other vagaries. I am jealous lol

 

[ppierre]

My living room has no special treatment in it.

View attachment 480869

What size and dimensions is the room?

 

[90sNintendoKid]

As others have said, I would say that looks good. I would try moving it slightly to see if you can reduce the dip around 40 hz.

 

[Boidek]

The sub is marked in pink, and I can't realy move it anywhere (wife's order)
I currently have a 5.1 setup.
My gear is:
Avr: Maranz 7015
Amp: buckeye NCx500 3-channels for the front stage.
Speakers: Paradigm Founder F80, Center Paradigm Founder 70LCR, Rear Paradigm cinema
Subwoofer: Svs sb17

My Livingroom:

 

[ppierre]

The big open space seem to help to avoid many stationary node.
Except for 40hz, due to the length of space (~10m) ?

An other SVS17 on the other side of the sofa wouldn't pass past your wife ;-) ?

 

[levimax]

This looks good. Most people worry about dips that look much worse than they sound and they tend to over correct with DSP in general. Use Psychoacoustic smoothing and most if not all issues will go away. If you decide to do some DSP correction base it off of Psychoacoustic smoothing and you will avoid over correcting which sounds worse that leaving well enough alone.

 

[janbth]

If you decide to do some DSP correction base it off of Psychoacoustic smoothing and you will avoid over correcting which sounds worse that leaving well enough alone.

That us not a good idea if the aim is to knock down peaks in the bass region. Then use no smoothing or Var smoothing to get the correct width (Q-value) of the PEQ filters.

 

[levimax]

That us not a good idea if the aim is to knock down peaks in the bass region. Then use no smoothing or Var smoothing to get the correct width (Q-value) of the PEQ filters.

We can agree to disagree. I have tried it several different ways and have better results (my preference) using Psychoacoustic smoothing. This is most likely because the Q values are much lower and you use fewer filters as well. All filters, and high Q filters especially, cause phase and timing issues and in general are suboptimal. The human brain does not hear the same as a microphone and has abilities to "hear through" the room so you don't have to hammer the response perfectly flat to get good sound. I alway try Var smoothing and Psychoacoustic smoothing before generating corrections and almost always prefer the Psychoacoustic smoothed filters. YMMV.

 

[janbth]

We can agree to disagree. I have tried it several different ways and have better results (my preference) using Psychoacoustic smoothing. This is most likely because the Q values are much lower and you use fewer filters as well. All filters, and high Q filters especially, cause phase and timing issues and in general are suboptimal. The human brain does not hear the same as a microphone and has abilities to "hear through" the room so you don't have to hammer the response perfectly flat to get good sound. I alway try Var smoothing and Psychoacoustic smoothing before generating corrections and almost always prefer the Psychoacoustic smoothed filters. YMMV.

Ok, I agree to disagree I’m talking about the one PEQ filter that would knock down the peak of one resonance. Since this is a minimum phase phenomenon it will be inverted by a single PEQ - provided the Q is correct, of course. Floyd Toole gives a nice account of the situation in Sound Reproduction, Section 8.2.4 in the 3rd edition. And see Figure 8.12 for how the impulse response is affected.

 

[levimax]

Ok, I agree to disagree I’m talking about the one PEQ filter that would knock down the peak of one resonance. Since this is a minimum phase phenomenon it will be inverted by a single PEQ - provided the Q is correct, of course. Floyd Toole gives a nice account of the situation in Sound Reproduction, Section 8.2.4 in the 3rd edition. And see Figure 8.12 for how the impulse response is affected.

OK, but if we are going the "appeal to authority" route @j_j recommends "ERB smoothing" (which is very similar to Psychoacoustic smoothing) before adding a correction
I would recommend trying both and listening to see which you prefer.

 

[janbth]

OK, but if we are going the "appeal to authority" route …

Guilty as charged! But appealing to authority isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Floyd Toole and JJ usually brings value to a discussion. As a general comment I would say that there is too little use of references and links in discussions here at ASR.

… @j_j recommends "ERB smoothing" (which is very similar to Psychoacoustic smoothing) before adding a correction

Are you sure @j_j was talking about corrections below the Schroeder frequency? I’m talking about isolated peaks in the frequency response coming from an excitation of a room mode. If I’m missing something, I’d like to know.

 

[levimax]

Guilty as charged! But appealing to authority isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Floyd Toole and JJ usually brings value to a discussion. As a general comment I would say that there is too little use of references and links in discussions here at ASR.

Are you sure @j_j was talking about corrections below the Schroeder frequency? I’m talking about isolated peaks in the frequency response coming from an excitation of a room mode. If I’m missing something, I’d like to know.

I got this from a post on ASR and saved it, I can't find the post right now but I think the .ppt mentioned is around.

From JJ (Acoustic and Psychoacoustic issues in Room Correction room_correction.ppt):

• Large peaks should be equalized (especially for first reflections)
• Large, sharp dips are not to be touched, remember the energy storage issue
• Broad dips can be equalized out for a broader listening area
• Don’t eq phase
• Equalize gain and delay from each speaker just for the first arrival, which locks in the spatial cues
• If you equalize only below 500Hz or so, you get a .5 foot radius space, give or take, where the cancellation makes some sense
• Flattening each channel individually … provides the measurably “flattest” response
• Recommends fixing l-r matching as most important “corrects the most obvious defects”
• First reflection cancellation… individual adjustment for each channel
  • It removes the “boxy” sound to some extent
  • Fixing this for the listening location means that putting more impairments elsewhere in room
  • Can be adjusted to avoid obvious impairments and still have some productive effect.
  • Can clean up “boom” to some extent as well
• Ear’s equivalent rectangular bandwidth: BW resolution of ear. Use this for setting the smoothing of the measurement used for EQ.

 

[j_j]

OK, but if we are going the "appeal to authority" route @j_j recommends "ERB smoothing" (which is very similar to Psychoacoustic smoothing) before adding a correction
I would recommend trying both and listening to see which you prefer.

First, let's not talk about Schroder frequency, there is a world of debate there.

Second, at low frequencies where individual room peaks are audible due to obvious modes, you have to disappear peaks, although you can't make the phase issues and hangover go away without treating a room. Remember a room with big peaks also probably has big zeros, and that's not a fixable problem without eliminating the energy storage in the room. Adding more energy doesn't help, and adding less where there is a peak will make the room flat, but distort the first arrival, and then you'll have a decay problem anyhow.

Fix the room in such cases if you can.

 

[j_j]

Ok, I agree to disagree I’m talking about the one PEQ filter that would knock down the peak of one resonance. Since this is a minimum phase phenomenon it will be inverted by a single PEQ - provided the Q is correct, of course. Floyd Toole gives a nice account of the situation in Sound Reproduction, Section 8.2.4 in the 3rd edition. And see Figure 8.12 for how the impulse response is affected.

To some extent you're talking about two different things, I suspect. Are these peaks (not at under 300Hz or so) due to loudspeaker? Fixing a loudspeaker that way isn't necessarily a bad thing, but fixing a room that way, because room reflections do that, is maybe a very bad idea, because you're going to shrink the listening area in the room to a space smaller than your head.
Some clarification may be in order.

 

[Boidek]

To some extent you're talking about two different things, I suspect. Are these peaks (not at under 300Hz or so) due to loudspeaker? Fixing a loudspeaker that way isn't necessarily a bad thing, but fixing a room that way, because room reflections do that, is maybe a very bad idea, because you're going to shrink the listening area in the room to a space smaller than your head.
Some clarification may be in order.

Seeing my rew result on the low frequencies, would you recommend changing anything using the subs eq or do nothing at all?

 

[ppierre]

Maybe make some measurements at others listening positions and see if some of the bumps are consistent at certain frequency.

Other wise, just let Audyssey MultEQ XT32 of the Marantz do his job ?