I have beams, walls, windows, a chimney breast etc, all in the wrong places (perhaps) and i expect some absorption will be beneficial. to start with i shall get them set up and see what measurements look like. Depending on agreement at home i might consider a complete front wall treatment the same depth the TV stands off so it would appear flush, then that will do the back side of all sorts of reflections...........but only a thought for now! - it will be interesting if anyone can interpret measurements to attribute to specific features leading to improvements.......
Hoping its awesome as you say!
Hoping its awesome as you say!
Share your results with us and we can take a look. Try to show the IR of the array, separate left and right measurements, more specifically the first 10 to 15 ms is of interest to sort out the room reflections you have to deal with. Especially everything parallel to the arrays like parallel planes and ridges/corners will be of influence. If something isn't nearly as tall as the arrays, then it's influence will be "averaged out" so to speak. So common things one might find in a room might not be all that bothersome.
The frequency curve needs all the help it can get from EQ, hope you can EQ left and right separately. As soon as you have useful and repeatable results we'll go into that part.
I still have no regrets building my arrays and learning to adjust them to my liking. They still give me goosebumps and shivers down the spine on a regular basis. Still learning to get the most out of all of the adjustability I've created for myself. With the arrays, subwoofers and ambience channels I have there's simply a lot to play with. And still I think of new things to add or try 😀. Just trying to push the envelope of 'uniting' the results of 'the speakers plus the room' they are in. As far as I'm concerned, there-in lies the wining ticket to get good and fun results.
The frequency curve needs all the help it can get from EQ, hope you can EQ left and right separately. As soon as you have useful and repeatable results we'll go into that part.
I still have no regrets building my arrays and learning to adjust them to my liking. They still give me goosebumps and shivers down the spine on a regular basis. Still learning to get the most out of all of the adjustability I've created for myself. With the arrays, subwoofers and ambience channels I have there's simply a lot to play with. And still I think of new things to add or try 😀. Just trying to push the envelope of 'uniting' the results of 'the speakers plus the room' they are in. As far as I'm concerned, there-in lies the wining ticket to get good and fun results.
So far, i can only tell that they "work" in that they produce sound discernible as what was intended, e.g the news etc !
Now that may not sound a very high bar, but its better than a top of the range sound bar etc!
I can EQ left and right separately, not yet sure how, but watch this space!
M
Thanks for your support!
Now that may not sound a very high bar, but its better than a top of the range sound bar etc!
I can EQ left and right separately, not yet sure how, but watch this space!
M
Thanks for your support!
I can now tell they work and sound very pleasant!
I am already at the "happy i did the project" stage
The importer of the Flex DSP entirely justified my leap of faith when i bought from him with little knowledge but following his advice. He said, don't worry i will help you and yesterday gave me a 3 hour tutorial over phone and computer giving time, help, support and advice, it was a fantastic tutorial session delivered in a well structured, professional and very enjoyable manner from someone who very obviously masters their field.
Now i can experiment and get things set up.
M
I am already at the "happy i did the project" stage
The importer of the Flex DSP entirely justified my leap of faith when i bought from him with little knowledge but following his advice. He said, don't worry i will help you and yesterday gave me a 3 hour tutorial over phone and computer giving time, help, support and advice, it was a fantastic tutorial session delivered in a well structured, professional and very enjoyable manner from someone who very obviously masters their field.
Now i can experiment and get things set up.
M
And here are the initial measurements i made, an initial measurement at listener head position, then 4 close by, 2 forward by 150mm, two back and two left two right, there is not as much variation as i expected in that respect.
If you want us to look at reflections in the room we'd need the separate measurements.
These averages can be used to EQ though. But in all fairness, the best corrections I've had were based on correcting for the exact sweet spot measurements. Doing Left and right separately. Yes I've done average measurements ad nauseum. But the sweet spot measurements actually are real close to being equal to those average measurements. But it's working with averages that I've had some errors creeping in. Then again, in all fairness, I was using vector averages.
These averages can be used to EQ though. But in all fairness, the best corrections I've had were based on correcting for the exact sweet spot measurements. Doing Left and right separately. Yes I've done average measurements ad nauseum. But the sweet spot measurements actually are real close to being equal to those average measurements. But it's working with averages that I've had some errors creeping in. Then again, in all fairness, I was using vector averages.
Many thanks, i did post them all but the files were too big, let me try just the fundamental position. i agree there is little difference across them.
BTW these were just using the REW averaging tool
BTW these were just using the REW averaging tool
From this last attachment:
Left IR:
After correcting the peak to time zero, we see a big spike at about 7,3 ms.
The wavelet belonging to this IR:
A big dent from ~700Hz to about 1 KHz due to that strong reflection. Moving mic position might move this dip. So EQ won't be the answer to all problems.
The Right IR:
A bit earlier peak happening here, let's see the wavelet what the consequences are;
Quite similar to the left, just a bit slide up-warts in frequency.
The first ~6 almost 7 ms are reasonably clean. From personal experience I'd say try to EQ the arrays to your liking and listen/enjoy.
I think you might get away with it like this and have truly enjoyable sound. I went out of my way to get all that fuzzyness after the first peak down to under 10%.
Yet it had multiple effects. Yes, the music cleared up and details improved, but I started to miss some excitement that was there when I still had some peaks at about 7 ms.
In my case those peaks came from the wall behind te listener. And in hindsight they had quite a pleasing effect. Sure they obscured some finer detail but brought a liveliness that was quite enjoyable.
So before anything else, just start with EQ to get the frequency curve in shape. Just don't try to boost the dips too much. In all honesty I don't think you can boost a lot of bass in your case. That's just bad luck due to room size/shape not working with you as much as it did for me. You have similar drop offs in bass frequencies on both sides meaning you can't compensate with one channel for the other.
Hoping some more eyes will look at this so you'd get more opinions than just mine, I'm looking at @nc535 and @fluid and @koldby and others with array experience...
Left IR:
After correcting the peak to time zero, we see a big spike at about 7,3 ms.
The wavelet belonging to this IR:
A big dent from ~700Hz to about 1 KHz due to that strong reflection. Moving mic position might move this dip. So EQ won't be the answer to all problems.
The Right IR:
A bit earlier peak happening here, let's see the wavelet what the consequences are;
Quite similar to the left, just a bit slide up-warts in frequency.
The first ~6 almost 7 ms are reasonably clean. From personal experience I'd say try to EQ the arrays to your liking and listen/enjoy.
I think you might get away with it like this and have truly enjoyable sound. I went out of my way to get all that fuzzyness after the first peak down to under 10%.
Yet it had multiple effects. Yes, the music cleared up and details improved, but I started to miss some excitement that was there when I still had some peaks at about 7 ms.
In my case those peaks came from the wall behind te listener. And in hindsight they had quite a pleasing effect. Sure they obscured some finer detail but brought a liveliness that was quite enjoyable.
So before anything else, just start with EQ to get the frequency curve in shape. Just don't try to boost the dips too much. In all honesty I don't think you can boost a lot of bass in your case. That's just bad luck due to room size/shape not working with you as much as it did for me. You have similar drop offs in bass frequencies on both sides meaning you can't compensate with one channel for the other.
Hoping some more eyes will look at this so you'd get more opinions than just mine, I'm looking at @nc535 and @fluid and @koldby and others with array experience...
Thanks for that great input!
I have kept tinkering and currently have the attached response in comparison to my target curve (Harman)
Each iteration improves results and i can already hear why folks like these setups
I look forward to further inputs please.
Also i don't really understand IR analysis at all but read that you probably feel this isn't too terrible?
I have kept tinkering and currently have the attached response in comparison to my target curve (Harman)
Each iteration improves results and i can already hear why folks like these setups
I look forward to further inputs please.
Also i don't really understand IR analysis at all but read that you probably feel this isn't too terrible?
Yup, I don't think it is terrible, mainly because there's some time between the music and the stronger room replies. If there were some strong early reflections in the 0 to 6 ms area I'd look at it way different and would recommend looking into room treatment.
Even if I glance at the RT60 numbers:
It's looking quite alright with all graphs below about 500 ms, not showing all of them here, only one for left and right.
If anything, the bass could use some support down the road if you feel up to it. Adding subwoofers could help even out the bass frequencies and give much more balanced results where the room rules. Bass treatment isn't for family rooms as things tend to get big. Yeah that stuff works, but it takes up valuable space, space you saved with the current speakers.
A bit of EQ applied will even out the stuff after the IR peak even more and it's up to you to judge if it sounds pleasant/pleasing enough 😉.
Look into a good balance between left and right channel SPL levels somewhere upward of 200 - 500 Hz and imaging should be good too.
Don't be afraid to try a few things. Your room, your rules. If your DSP can handle it, FIR processing could tighten things up further.
Even if I glance at the RT60 numbers:
It's looking quite alright with all graphs below about 500 ms, not showing all of them here, only one for left and right.
If anything, the bass could use some support down the road if you feel up to it. Adding subwoofers could help even out the bass frequencies and give much more balanced results where the room rules. Bass treatment isn't for family rooms as things tend to get big. Yeah that stuff works, but it takes up valuable space, space you saved with the current speakers.
A bit of EQ applied will even out the stuff after the IR peak even more and it's up to you to judge if it sounds pleasant/pleasing enough 😉.
Look into a good balance between left and right channel SPL levels somewhere upward of 200 - 500 Hz and imaging should be good too.
Don't be afraid to try a few things. Your room, your rules. If your DSP can handle it, FIR processing could tighten things up further.
Hi Mike and Wesayso
I have been talking to Mike about his arrays, actually I think I inspired him to start this journey in the first place.
I try my best to guide, but I have very little experience with making filters from REW measurements and even lees using them in Flex (or any other miniDSP device). On the other hand i can testify, that wesayso is the oracle here and he has done a great job helping me , even though I use Audiolense in my system to make the correction files to be used in a PC based convolver.
I thought I subscribed to this thread , but I haven´t received any notifications about activity so I thought it was dead. I will correct that . I can see that I am watching this thread, so it puzzles me I do not get notifications...
I have been talking to Mike about his arrays, actually I think I inspired him to start this journey in the first place.
I try my best to guide, but I have very little experience with making filters from REW measurements and even lees using them in Flex (or any other miniDSP device). On the other hand i can testify, that wesayso is the oracle here and he has done a great job helping me , even though I use Audiolense in my system to make the correction files to be used in a PC based convolver.
I thought I subscribed to this thread , but I haven´t received any notifications about activity so I thought it was dead. I will correct that . I can see that I am watching this thread, so it puzzles me I do not get notifications...
Karsten was certainly instrumental in my decision to go this way and backed by volumes of information and guidance such as the Two Towers and guidance on the thread remains very useful.
Another interesting thing is when little snippets raise new areas,
FIR processing could tighten things up further.
Now i can look up FIR as well as anyone else but at that point i am lost!
So far i think i have taken good guidance, built them, got them working and with some help mastered setting up the DSP miniDSP Flex sufficient that i can listen to all the sources i wished and they sound good.
A review of Post #1 says we are doing OK so far.
The set up is user friendly, and the Flex unit is a good implementation for me.
They live in the corners as required.
It is noticeable how the sound spreads around the room and the multi listening positions work, i don't know what comb filtering would sound like but haven't noticed any strange effects close to.
My wish is to achieve a sound that if you close your eyes allows you to imagine you are really there.
Getting the frequency response roughly right has started to move us towards that, i am sure there is more to go.
Input from Wesayso is much appreciated, i am still reading again and again to understand the details
Doing that filtering in a specific way using settings in REW (with the help of Lee at Strictly Stereo where i bought the Flex) has improved things there. I will go on searching the best way to implement the filters to offer dynamics and detail that enhance the impression i seek.
All inputs and ideas are most welcome
M
Another interesting thing is when little snippets raise new areas,
FIR processing could tighten things up further.
Now i can look up FIR as well as anyone else but at that point i am lost!
So far i think i have taken good guidance, built them, got them working and with some help mastered setting up the DSP miniDSP Flex sufficient that i can listen to all the sources i wished and they sound good.
A review of Post #1 says we are doing OK so far.
The set up is user friendly, and the Flex unit is a good implementation for me.
They live in the corners as required.
It is noticeable how the sound spreads around the room and the multi listening positions work, i don't know what comb filtering would sound like but haven't noticed any strange effects close to.
My wish is to achieve a sound that if you close your eyes allows you to imagine you are really there.
Getting the frequency response roughly right has started to move us towards that, i am sure there is more to go.
Input from Wesayso is much appreciated, i am still reading again and again to understand the details
Doing that filtering in a specific way using settings in REW (with the help of Lee at Strictly Stereo where i bought the Flex) has improved things there. I will go on searching the best way to implement the filters to offer dynamics and detail that enhance the impression i seek.
All inputs and ideas are most welcome
M
If you have a straigh/goodt FR and still don't get that "be there" feeling, you need to start glancing towards the electronics... they do make a difference... congrats to the build!!
Are you measuring at the listening position? If so, I would still suggest you try at say 1 meter and go for a flat (no hf drop) target and then listen to that in you favourite position. Do a couple of iterations so that you get a FR with very few and small dips/peaks... could be worth it. For my lines, this gave me in the end the most satisfactory result.
//
Are you measuring at the listening position? If so, I would still suggest you try at say 1 meter and go for a flat (no hf drop) target and then listen to that in you favourite position. Do a couple of iterations so that you get a FR with very few and small dips/peaks... could be worth it. For my lines, this gave me in the end the most satisfactory result.
//
Thanks TNT.
I have a (bad?) habit of always assuming there is something better possible with small adjustments......
Yes, i am measuring at the listening position and have done some averaging around it.
One thing i find complex is making comparisons of small changes, i expect its my poor use of REW.
I intend to try and closely match the straight/good FR's side to side particularly through 200-500 as suggested above, but am not sure how best to persuade REW to do this!
I have a (bad?) habit of always assuming there is something better possible with small adjustments......
Yes, i am measuring at the listening position and have done some averaging around it.
One thing i find complex is making comparisons of small changes, i expect its my poor use of REW.
I intend to try and closely match the straight/good FR's side to side particularly through 200-500 as suggested above, but am not sure how best to persuade REW to do this!
Keep mic in one pos, measure L, then measure R. Let REWs auto EQ suggest the filters for each channel and add them to your DSP. Repeat until channels are within +/- 1 dB.
//
//
Thanks for that TNT, but doesn't REW go back to basics each time and start a new filter set?
So if i measure with the current EQ settings, and calc new filters it doesn't take account of the original EQ that was being used?
So if i measure with the current EQ settings, and calc new filters it doesn't take account of the original EQ that was being used?
Yes it does, but that is the point TNT makes I think. REW makes a new set of files that corrects the errors of the original files, so you just have to add these new files to the old ones in you miniDSP. AFAIK