|
Post by longscale on Jun 3, 2019 21:01:14 GMT -6
I decided to pick up the Sonarworks XREF20 mic as a way to try this out without having to drop $250 right away. I had spent some time listening to their canned headphone profiles first before I ordered the mic. I got the mic and did the measure dance to build a profile for one set of my monitors. I was astonished to see the *giant* drop of over 12dB down just below 100Hz and the giant lift of +6 above 100Hz. I really need to build some DIY room treatment. I'm sort of allergic to the idea of EQ to fix acoustic problems - but since I have no room treatment right now I thought I'd give this a go as a way of at least getting in the ballpark of a workable room. While I realize I have to spend considerable time with this yet to know if I can make it translate I do like what I'm hearing so far. Low end presents with much more clarity - punch and snap.
I was a little freaked out when the speaker distance measurement was a full two inches off. Not sure if that is common - or indicates some other trouble.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 10, 2019 4:53:22 GMT -6
I've been using the headphone trial recently and just a heads up for anyone else thinking about buying, Sonarworks has a 20% off their products this week with a summer sale.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 10, 2019 14:38:46 GMT -6
I decided to pick up the Sonarworks XREF20 mic as a way to try this out without having to drop $250 right away. I had spent some time listening to their canned headphone profiles first before I ordered the mic. I got the mic and did the measure dance to build a profile for one set of my monitors. I was astonished to see the *giant* drop of over 12dB down just below 100Hz and the giant lift of +6 above 100Hz. I really need to build some DIY room treatment. I'm sort of allergic to the idea of EQ to fix acoustic problems - but since I have no room treatment right now I thought I'd give this a go as a way of at least getting in the ballpark of a workable room. While I realize I have to spend considerable time with this yet to know if I can make it translate I do like what I'm hearing so far. Low end presents with much more clarity - punch and snap. I was a little freaked out when the speaker distance measurement was a full two inches off. Not sure if that is common - or indicates some other trouble. I wouldn't worry about the speaker measurements being off. You can always adjust that in the confirmation step right after that. Mine too was a bit off, but being a 3-way monitor, and I used the midrange as my point for measuring, It's a bit difficult to say that it would be prefect anyway. I made the measurements their way and then typed in the true distances. Pretty incredible sound upgrade. I too wish my room was perfect, but I don't know that will ever be in my budget. I do have good GIK treatment but most of the issues are under 200hz, where absorbers have much less effect.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 10, 2019 15:00:19 GMT -6
Speaker measurement came out bang on for me.
I, of course, bought the software when the demo expired. Wouldn’t want to be without it after having experienced it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 8:13:46 GMT -6
I checked it out again for headphone use. Turns out it even has a profile for my cheap recording headphones. So I could use it as intended. Yes, that is quite a correction. And it works as advertised. Although, I had already some eq settings for correcting frequency response on my headphones for mixing at night. What I still really miss, is the functionality of a HRTF and room emulation to simulate monitor speaker position in a room. This makes a huge difference in how comfortable one can be mixing on headphones. Waves has NX plugin, that does this really good, I already also mentioned the beyerdynamicVS, that I use regularly. The Systemwide driver seems more stable since the last time i demoed Sonarworks. If I would more frequently use headphones that are supported, the headphone edition would maybe make sense. The room correction system is interesting, because it would be integrated in the systemwide driver, working quite hassle free on my Win 8.1. As I said previously, there are other room correction software packages available, free/open source and commercial with similar functionality. Still, I think the Sonarworks really is an easy to use all-in-one hassle free solution at an acceptable pricing. I understand why people go for it. Even the averaged eq profile for my recording headphone type made a significant difference in listening while mixing. I guess to the better, because it was nice to hear and in conjunction with a hrtf software actually made a pretty at least half-way realistic room impression with fairly accurate monitors. Enough to work on a mix at night comfortably ...
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Jun 11, 2019 20:03:50 GMT -6
I did take advantage of the sale - as my demo was about to expire and this is a must have bit of software for me right now. However I'm now where Johnkenn was some posts back; nothing makes any sense anymore. Old mixes tell me I should have done things differently. New tracking full of indecision as old choices about eq, mic selection and placement are now all questioned. New mixing in a shambles as my tried and true moves all suck now. Ha. What great fun. I could not be more happy with how this system makes my room sound. Reference material is sounding awesome. I now feel I can trust my low end choices. I'm super excited even though it feels like I'm standing on ice.
I'm now more interested than ever in trying to build some simple room treatments. I suck at building but have just enough tools to make is possible (with a good friend that is more than competent). I need to find some plans that are worth building. If people have suggestions pm me please (or we move that to some other thread - happy to talk in public about it just don't want to eat up this thread space).
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2019 20:10:58 GMT -6
I did take advantage of the sale - as my demo was about to expire and this is a must have bit of software for me right now. However I'm now where Johnkenn was some posts back; nothing makes any sense anymore. Old mixes tell me I should have done things differently. New tracking full of indecision as old choices about eq, mic selection and placement are now all questioned. New mixing in a shambles as my tried and true moves all suck now. Ha. What great fun. I could not be more happy with how this system makes my room sound. Reference material is sounding awesome. I now feel I can trust my low end choices. I'm super excited even though it feels like I'm standing on ice. I'm now more interested than ever in trying to build some simple room treatments. I suck at building but have just enough tools to make is possible (with a good friend that is more than competent). I need to find some plans that are worth building. If people have suggestions pm me please (or we move that to some other thread - happy to talk in public about it just don't want to eat up this thread space). You can do a lot of damage to your room issues with just some simple broadband absorption. No fancy carpentry required at all. Highly recommended. Just get some rock wool strapped across as many surface intersections as you can and get those first reflection points absorbed and it’ll make a world of difference.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 11, 2019 20:42:24 GMT -6
Gik sells some diy wood frames for broadband traps. Source some local rock wool or Owens Corning, wrap in breathable fabric and boom, audio bliss.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 12, 2019 9:51:59 GMT -6
Speaker measurement came out bang on for me. I, of course, bought the software when the demo expired. Wouldn’t want to be without it after having experienced it. Did you use the mid driver as the source for the distance measurements or the woofer? I used the mid and my measurements were a couple inches off.
|
|
|
Sonarworks
Jun 12, 2019 10:21:14 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by ragan on Jun 12, 2019 10:21:14 GMT -6
Speaker measurement came out bang on for me. I, of course, bought the software when the demo expired. Wouldn’t want to be without it after having experienced it. Did you use the mid driver as the source for the distance measurements or the woofer? I used the mid and my measurements were a couple inches off. I used the mid, yeah.
|
|
|
Sonarworks
Jun 12, 2019 13:51:37 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 12, 2019 13:51:37 GMT -6
I wonder if the measurements being a little off is really a function of how linear the room is !
The more linear the room the more accurate the speaker distance measurement?
As this measurement is actually software driven analyzing sonic responses without any correction (yet), maybe being off a few inches results from by how the test signal is acted on by your room ?
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jun 21, 2019 11:58:15 GMT -6
SW reference mic came. Here's my room. Gonna do some listening tests with/without SW later tonight. I just bought Reference 4 with their mic after demoing it with my Behringer mic and the calibration file. Yesterday, I measured with the SW mic and the results were quite different than the Behringer mic/Calibration file. However, I am now learning that the SW mic has a calibration file. Did you use the SW calibration file when you measured? During the setup process, it asked if I was using their mic (which I was) and the ID number, but it didn't prompt me for their calibration file. So, I'm confused, but want to make sure I'm measuring correctly. EDIT: Asnoted below, if you are using the Sonarworks XREF 20 measurement microphone, you can enter the Microphone ID (written on the microphone) during the setup process. This will load your unique microphone calibration file from their servers.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 21, 2019 12:57:12 GMT -6
It knows what file to use by the serial number of the mic. You don't have to load a different file. its pretty smart like that.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 21, 2019 12:58:48 GMT -6
When you put in your mike’s serial #, it defaults to reading that mike’s calibration file: your measurements should be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 17, 2019 17:39:34 GMT -6
I jumped in and built some broadband absorbers. I built four 16 x 48" broadband absorbers that are 3" deep (filled with one layer of Roxul Safe n sound Rockwool). I put two on the front wall (one behind each speaker), and then the other two on each side on the left and right wall basically even with my listening position. I then built one more 16 x 48 absorber but that one I made 6" deep (two laters of Rockwool) that I placed on the back wall near the floor (it actually fit perfectly on the lower shelf of my Yamaha electric piano). The builds were not that difficult and I covered the absorbers with a nice charcoal colored linen fabric and hung them up with a cleat on the wall. I was happy with how they turned out and they look quite nice. The sound difference was subtle but big. The stereo image got larger left and right, and deeper if that makes any sense. It is easier to listen to individual parts - they present in a more focused way now. Its subtle but made me very very happy. I'm encouraged that a small amount of simple treatments made a difference I could hear. I'll likely be going after some corner bass traps next, and trying to convince my wife that hanging a cloud above my head would be ok.
I did run the measurements with Sonarworks post the install of the absorbers. I still have my giant hole around 80Hz, and a fairly good peak around 145 but overall the curve is now much less wiggly and more flat overall (for sure less hash in the low mids). I was happy to see that I could see the results of the treatment on the graphs, and I could hear a difference. I remain very impressed with Sonarworks, and find it invaluable in my crappy room. I'm going to be paying more attention to room treatments over the next few months to see if I can improve things even more from here.
I think my only regret is not going for the 24" wide Roxul and using the 16. If I had to do it over I'd have build 24x48 absorbers instead. Live and learn.
|
|
|
Sonarworks
Aug 17, 2019 17:42:57 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by kcatthedog on Aug 17, 2019 17:42:57 GMT -6
Glad that worked out, if you space the one’s you have off the wall 1-3 inches they will absorb deeper frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 19, 2019 8:55:52 GMT -6
I jumped in and built some broadband absorbers. I built four 16 x 48" broadband absorbers that are 3" deep (filled with one layer of Roxul Safe n sound Rockwool). I put two on the front wall (one behind each speaker), and then the other two on each side on the left and right wall basically even with my listening position. I then built one more 16 x 48 absorber but that one I made 6" deep (two laters of Rockwool) that I placed on the back wall near the floor (it actually fit perfectly on the lower shelf of my Yamaha electric piano). The builds were not that difficult and I covered the absorbers with a nice charcoal colored linen fabric and hung them up with a cleat on the wall. I was happy with how they turned out and they look quite nice. The sound difference was subtle but big. The stereo image got larger left and right, and deeper if that makes any sense. It is easier to listen to individual parts - they present in a more focused way now. Its subtle but made me very very happy. I'm encouraged that a small amount of simple treatments made a difference I could hear. I'll likely be going after some corner bass traps next, and trying to convince my wife that hanging a cloud above my head would be ok. I did run the measurements with Sonarworks post the install of the absorbers. I still have my giant hole around 80Hz, and a fairly good peak around 145 but overall the curve is now much less wiggly and more flat overall (for sure less hash in the low mids). I was happy to see that I could see the results of the treatment on the graphs, and I could hear a difference. I remain very impressed with Sonarworks, and find it invaluable in my crappy room. I'm going to be paying more attention to room treatments over the next few months to see if I can improve things even more from here. I think my only regret is not going for the 24" wide Roxul and using the 16. If I had to do it over I'd have build 24x48 absorbers instead. Live and learn. I don't know where your speakers are placed but maybe you could help the dip by moving them closer to the front wall. I found that my speakers were off the wall at the 1/4 wave length of 90 hz. With the reflection off the front wall, that caused the 1/2 wave out of phase null I measured at 90 hz. I know a lot of formulas have the speakers further into the room. The problem is that the absorbers are not good at the lowest frequencies. By putting the speakers closer to the front wall, with a broadband absorber behind it, you raise the null frequency to the point that the absorbers actually do something. I reduced my 90HZ dip from 12dB to 6dB by moving the speakers closer to the wall. Give it a shot. You might be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 19, 2019 20:37:50 GMT -6
Appreciate the suggestions and tips. My speakers are about as close to the front wall as I can get them at the moment. They are around 6" out. So that is 3" of air, and then 3" of my newly built broadband absorber and then wall. My room is fairly small so I'm sort of in that 80Hz dip land where there is not much I can do about it given the size of my space. I can open the door to the room - and let some bass spill out. I might try adding some corner bass traps on the front wall. I'm not sure at this point given the size of the space there are many good options. But things are not all gloomy here - I think the place sounds better now than it ever has. I'm finding I even enjoy listening to reference material much much more.
I'll push the speakers 3" back at some point so they are basically nearly flush with the absorber behind them - but that will require some major monitor (computer monitor) shuffling to get that pushed back behind the speakers if I remain in that setup. Will be an activity for a rainy day just for fun.
I do have the absorbers off the wall by a little over a 1/2" at the moment (from the cleat at the top, and then rubber spacers at the bottom to maintain that gap). I'll likely try to build some 24x48 6" traps soonish and swap those in or add them to the collection to see what that presents.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 20, 2019 10:27:45 GMT -6
To expand (and seem as if I am knowledgeable)... In my studio, I had the speakers placed so the front of the speaker was about 38" from the front wall. This is where a room calculator said would be the best spot. But... A 90HZ waveform is 150.66" long. If the speaker front is at the 1/4 wave length (37.66") from the front wall, it is at the 1/4 wave length of 90HZ. Refection from the front of the speaker to the front wall is 37.66" and then the reflection coming back from the front wall to the speaker is another 37.66". That puts the round trip at 75.33", which is the half wave length. Because it is a half wave length, it is out of phase with the sound directly radiating from the front of the speaker. That is what causes the dip at 90HZ (in my case). I have 4" of OC703 on my front wall. The 4" absorbers don't have much effect at 125HZ, much less 90HZ or below. If I had unlimited space, I would have made my walls 12-24" deep, filled with OC703. Then I could use some reflective materials to get a little life back into the room. Unfortunately, that won't happen in my current studio, so I do what I can.
Hope this helps someone.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 20, 2019 16:05:08 GMT -6
I have to admit...my brain goes numb a bit reading this kind of stuff. When I first set up my room, I moved my desk about two feet from the wall - per GS. Lol. Recently, I tried to back it up to the back wall - which is weird because the table has like wings, and then I’ve got like a sidecar thing that the cables start stretching...and I measured again and didn’t really see any improvement, so I just went back. I still think it might be better though because I kind of half assedly did it. Anyway. Maybe one day.
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Aug 22, 2019 12:08:20 GMT -6
Checking out the demo of SW. I already owned a calibration mic and was able to use its calibration file, so downloading and using demo was a breeze. Pretty impressed so far. I've got a very small room (10'x11'x7'), but it's pretty heavily treated. My main issue is a fairly shallow, but somewhat wide, dip at 160Hz, as can be seen in the screenshots below. I feel like I got pretty close with my room treatments, but it's just impossible to get all the way there in such a small room. SW seems to be getting me closer to ideal. It will be interesting to work with it for a couple weeks to see what difference it really makes in how stuff turns out.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 22, 2019 16:35:42 GMT -6
Checking out the demo of SW. I already owned a calibration mic and was able to use its calibration file, so downloading and using demo was a breeze. Pretty impressed so far. I've got a very small room (10'x11'x7'), but it's pretty heavily treated. My main issue is a fairly shallow, but somewhat wide, dip at 160Hz, as can be seen in the screenshots below. View AttachmentView AttachmentI feel like I got pretty close with my room treatments, but it's just impossible to get all the way there in such a small room. SW seems to be getting me closer to ideal. It will be interesting to work with it for a couple weeks to see what difference it really makes in how stuff turns out. Love to have a room that looked like that graph.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Aug 22, 2019 20:33:19 GMT -6
Checking out the demo of SW. I already owned a calibration mic and was able to use its calibration file, so downloading and using demo was a breeze. Pretty impressed so far. I've got a very small room (10'x11'x7'), but it's pretty heavily treated. My main issue is a fairly shallow, but somewhat wide, dip at 160Hz, as can be seen in the screenshots below. I feel like I got pretty close with my room treatments, but it's just impossible to get all the way there in such a small room. SW seems to be getting me closer to ideal. It will be interesting to work with it for a couple weeks to see what difference it really makes in how stuff turns out. Your room looks really good. The 160 null might be from speaker distance from front wall.
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Aug 23, 2019 9:06:10 GMT -6
Checking out the demo of SW. I already owned a calibration mic and was able to use its calibration file, so downloading and using demo was a breeze. Pretty impressed so far. I've got a very small room (10'x11'x7'), but it's pretty heavily treated. My main issue is a fairly shallow, but somewhat wide, dip at 160Hz, as can be seen in the screenshots below. I feel like I got pretty close with my room treatments, but it's just impossible to get all the way there in such a small room. SW seems to be getting me closer to ideal. It will be interesting to work with it for a couple weeks to see what difference it really makes in how stuff turns out. Your room looks really good. The 160 null might be from speaker distance from front wall. It's certainly possible. I haven't bothered to really do the math to try to figure out why that particular null is there primarily because I'm so space-constrained it's doubtful I could make any meaningful adjustments even if I did understand it better. I have rear-ported speakers (really terrific JBL LSR28p), so I have the speaks pulled out a few inches as measured at the inside corners. They're towed in a bit so the average space from the front wall is maybe 5 or six inches. If I had front or side-ported speakers I could play around with placement a bit more. I definitely can't pull them farther into the room. I've already given up almost a full foot of space at the back of the room with treatment (the entire back wall is fluffy pink fiberglass, and I've got another 2'x4' floor to ceiling fluffy pink stuff in each front corner).
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 23, 2019 9:11:09 GMT -6
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. You might want to have them closer to the front wall, not further into the room. Still, pretty good result!
|
|