If I'm not mistaken Bruce runs native DSD most of the time. I don't know if he's keen on DSD-PCM conversion for his monitoring.
Speaker/Room calibration
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
The room was designed around a 5.1 Wilson Audio system. The room could also double as a recording space. I've spoken to the original acoustician as well as a second opinion and they both agree that turning the room around 180 degrees would be correct for a 2-channel only system. I would still do all my 5.1 work in the adjacent room. You just can't have a 5.1 and a stereo room in the same space without making compromises for each.
That is correct. When we do mastering, there is a D-A / Console / A-D loop. Since it's going through an analog stage anyway, it would be the lesser of 2 evils.
Here is the latest graph. The room has been turned around. I spent 5-6hr. this morning moving a 1/2 ton of speakers back and forth, moving my seating/microphone position and cheating a little.
+/- 5dB from 5Hz - 118Hz with 1/24 octive smoothing!
Hey there Bruce.... Nice frequency response! Can you tell me where in the room the speakers ended up to produce the graph shown above?
Thanks!
Hi Bruce, Well the response looks even better, see no need for EQ! You are fairly close to flat, certainly better than it was previously, acccording to the graph.
Though I did notice that the graph is different than the first one you posted on page 2 of this thread. Could you please post a graph with the same parameters, IE: 2 to 1000hz, 45 to 105db scale and with the freq axis in logarithmic not linear mode (see how the spacing is different between freq ranges on todays post). This way we can directly compare the two responses to each other. Or perhaps you can post one graph with the original response and the new response in the same graph.
And just to be sure, are you looking for a flat line from 20 to 20,000khz at 75db?
More importantly does it sound better?
Thanks,
Wendell
PS I am thinking of checking my system with this REW program if this works like you say it should. I have been reading up on it. Though I still believe it is our ears we need to please not a computers!
Though I did notice that the graph is different than the first one you posted on page 2 of this thread. Could you please post a graph with the same parameters, IE: 2 to 1000hz, 45 to 105db scale and with the freq axis in logarithmic not linear mode (see how the spacing is different between freq ranges on todays post). This way we can directly compare the two responses to each other. Or perhaps you can post one graph with the original response and the new response in the same graph.
And just to be sure, are you looking for a flat line from 20 to 20,000khz at 75db?
More importantly does it sound better?
Thanks,
Wendell
PS I am thinking of checking my system with this REW program if this works like you say it should. I have been reading up on it. Though I still believe it is our ears we need to please not a computers!
Hi Bruce, Well much better! Except for the "wonky" bit between 100 and 200hz which is worse, but overall much improved.
Is this with all of the contros set flat on the speakers? And can I assume now that you dont feel the need for equalizers?
Very cool. But do you feel that you needed the REW program to accomplish this?
Thanks,
Wendell
Is this with all of the contros set flat on the speakers? And can I assume now that you dont feel the need for equalizers?
Very cool. But do you feel that you needed the REW program to accomplish this?
Thanks,
Wendell
Yes, all the controls are still at factory default. I haven't started tweaking yet. The area around 120 is probably a much easier fix than from 5 - 100Hz.
I feel REW and SMAART were very instrumental for me and really taught me alot. I can use those tools along with my ears to make better decisions when mastering. There is still a way to go and I'm not against using multiple subs and EQ. I'd love to see +/-5dB from 5Hz - 20k
I'm really not looking for a particular sound. You have to remember, this is a working environment and not someplace where you can sit and chill out listening to music. If it sounds good, then fine. I just want it to sound accurate or true to the source that I'm playing. I want to make damn sure that when I add or subtract a dB here or there, it's because the music needed it and not my room/equipment.
Last edited:
Hey Bruce,
Good to see you are back at this again. I was hoping you were not giving up on it.
I am really pleased by the FR you are getting below 100Hz. Can you post your MDAT for us that have REW so we can follow along.
The new measurements how different is the position of the speakers from where they where - did you try the same spot on the other end of the room.
Also do these include all the equipment that is going in there ie. mixing console.
John
Good to see you are back at this again. I was hoping you were not giving up on it.
I am really pleased by the FR you are getting below 100Hz. Can you post your MDAT for us that have REW so we can follow along.
The new measurements how different is the position of the speakers from where they where - did you try the same spot on the other end of the room.
Also do these include all the equipment that is going in there ie. mixing console.
John
Using 1/24 octave smoothing?
I am fighting the same battle with the Aida's. But even with Teflon footers it is a tiring fight!
Following this with great interest. I need to set up my MM3s in a few week's time and my room is about the same size as your studio. With my current speakers I have a few dips of around 10db in the 40-200 hz range - it will probably not be much different with the uncorrected MM3s. Room treatment is far from optimal. I don't think I'll be able to address this with placement and the tweaking options on the MM3's alone. I spoke with Joanthan and he is pretty ademently not favouring room correction, but I think I'll need my Trinnov to smooth out the curve. Of course, additional advantage is a can create my own target response curve which will not be flat. I'll set them up 36" from side wall and 56" from front wall to start with. I'll probably post some measurement with and without room correction.
Hi Bruce, It seems that this thread has run its course, since there are no posts lately. I assume that you are done with the measuring process and that you are happy with the results. While your last posted graph shows a fairly flat response within the parameters that you require, the stated +/- 5db from 5 to 20k (except for that bit around 150hz). Would it be fair to say that you do not have to use EQ whether from the controls on the speakers or outboard EQ?
You also said
"I'm really not looking for a particular sound. You have to remember, this is a working environment and not someplace where you can sit and chill out listening to music. If it sounds good, then fine. I just want it to sound accurate or true to the source that I'm playing. I want to make damn sure that when I add or subtract a dB here or there, it's because the music needed it and not my room/equipment."
Does this mean that a good measuring system in the freq resposnse domain is different from a good sounding system? I mean I want to "chill out" and for it to "sound good". If I measure my system and get a flatter freq response are you indicating that it will not "sound better", just more accurate?
I do not want to destroy the purity and essence of my signal with EQ, which can only add noise, distortion, phase changes, time delays etc. Though I would like to measure my system and if rearranging my speakers in room can make my system better I will do that. I don't need bass response down to 5hz though! My system goes down to around 20hz which is good enough for me.
Also as Edorr wrote that Jonathan is "pretty ademently not favoring room correction" we seem to be in agreement with some very knowledgable fellows.
Thanks,
Wendell
You also said
"I'm really not looking for a particular sound. You have to remember, this is a working environment and not someplace where you can sit and chill out listening to music. If it sounds good, then fine. I just want it to sound accurate or true to the source that I'm playing. I want to make damn sure that when I add or subtract a dB here or there, it's because the music needed it and not my room/equipment."
Does this mean that a good measuring system in the freq resposnse domain is different from a good sounding system? I mean I want to "chill out" and for it to "sound good". If I measure my system and get a flatter freq response are you indicating that it will not "sound better", just more accurate?
I do not want to destroy the purity and essence of my signal with EQ, which can only add noise, distortion, phase changes, time delays etc. Though I would like to measure my system and if rearranging my speakers in room can make my system better I will do that. I don't need bass response down to 5hz though! My system goes down to around 20hz which is good enough for me.
Also as Edorr wrote that Jonathan is "pretty ademently not favoring room correction" we seem to be in agreement with some very knowledgable fellows.
Thanks,
Wendell
Aside: Modern DSP-based equalization and room correction can get the sound much closer to the recording by correcting EQ, phase, and time issues with little if any added noise, distortion, etc. Many of us like the sound of our system and room, with or without EQ, but condeming all such systems seems a little harsh...
Accurate playback of the source is usually the goal in a recording studio. In the home, it's been my experience that few people actually prefer a truly flat system, but it's a starting point so when you make changes, you know what and why.
Accurate playback of the source is usually the goal in a recording studio. In the home, it's been my experience that few people actually prefer a truly flat system, but it's a starting point so when you make changes, you know what and why.
Hi Don, You are correct in that most everyone that I know is happy with the sound of their system without EQ. I am not condeming EQ, its just that I have never heard it sound good, that does not mean to me that it can't sound good though!
Bruce said he would use EQ but it appears he does not need it.
Are you using the same program REW? Please post a response graph of your system.
Also which EQ system do you use? And are you going for a flat response like Bruce is?
I have been reading into the REW program, I already have a radioshack meter.
I dont think that the way you are describing a flat response, is something that would sound good to me or what I would want to listen to.
Everytime you add another piece of equipment you add noise...and distortion. No piece of equipement is perfect.
Thanks,
Wendell
Bruce said he would use EQ but it appears he does not need it.
Are you using the same program REW? Please post a response graph of your system.
Also which EQ system do you use? And are you going for a flat response like Bruce is?
I have been reading into the REW program, I already have a radioshack meter.
I dont think that the way you are describing a flat response, is something that would sound good to me or what I would want to listen to.
Everytime you add another piece of equipment you add noise...and distortion. No piece of equipement is perfect.
Thanks,
Wendell
---...Or you can only EQ the bass (below 80Hz). :b ...Separate Sub EQ or ...
...And use the best pre/pro, like the newest Bryston one for example (no EQ at all).
...And use the best pre/pro, like the newest Bryston one for example (no EQ at all).
Hi Wendell... actually I've been so busy backed up in the studio I haven't had time to pursue it further. Yes, it can greatly be improved upon.
As Don stated, I want the sound to be as accurate as it can be. This is a totally different goal than most people. Studies have shown that people prefer a slow downward linear tilt of the treble. This could confuse me and my clients. If I feel their treble needs to be augmented, then the music could become bright/forward and edgy.
I am not against adding subs and corrective EQ. I just need the TIME!!! (Don't we all)
---We sure do, we sure do Bruce. :b ...Life's just too short to do all the things we would like.
* There's Audio perfectioning, new Music listening, Nature experiencing & loving,
Relationships improving, Family attending, Activities developing,
World ameliorating, and all that Jazz accomplishing ... :b
* There's Audio perfectioning, new Music listening, Nature experiencing & loving,
Relationships improving, Family attending, Activities developing,
World ameliorating, and all that Jazz accomplishing ... :b
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |