the matt test from asc seems like an interesting test for quality of room + speaker + setup, play test signals fron here https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_matt.php but i am having trouble to visualize the recorded result in spl graph form, any idea how to do it?
i guess you don't get the marketing hook of someone selling test tones without a formal evaluation tool to go with it then?
They provide tones for free, what they are selling is an analyze of the recorded in room response and a floor plan to that how to fix a poor response. I am sure there are measurement softwares out there that do can visualize this also, not in a perfect manner but still, this seems like the simpliest task but i have not find any so i asked here
Hi Celef,
I don't get what you are looking for. You want to perform an analysis of your room with audiocheck tones ( which i use and find handy too)?.
Some are interesting to diagnosis possible issues ( the 'rainbow' test often gives interesting results...) but you won't analyse a system this way.
Imho.
You need REW and a mic and learn how to measure and interpret.
Audiocheck's tests are 'audio' test, a quick and easy way to check for some issues by ear in my view.
I don't get what you are looking for. You want to perform an analysis of your room with audiocheck tones ( which i use and find handy too)?.
Some are interesting to diagnosis possible issues ( the 'rainbow' test often gives interesting results...) but you won't analyse a system this way.
Imho.
You need REW and a mic and learn how to measure and interpret.
Audiocheck's tests are 'audio' test, a quick and easy way to check for some issues by ear in my view.
Last edited:
matt test looks interesting since it displays the low frequency response in a room differently then all other measurements tools, with this test the inventor says you also see the articulation quality of the room-setup, so it would be fun to try out
Nope. Look at peak energy time and decay\clarity\definition, if both are fine, the MATT-test will sound good.
How? But undoubtedly, a lot of bass traps will improve the result somewhat in most cases.
Btw, using REW Generator tone bursts with arbitrary frequency\windowing\period may be generated))
You can do the same using rew: in the MATT test files there is one version with variable ( but constant with freq) 'gate' time.
By analyzing under rew or other soft you could tell how long ringing occurs ( between each gate) at which freq for your room and mic location.
Theorically you can do the same in REW.
By analyzing under rew or other soft you could tell how long ringing occurs ( between each gate) at which freq for your room and mic location.
Theorically you can do the same in REW.
the difference with matt is that it suppose to show the dynamic part of the aquired response, frequencies with small dynamic swing means poor sound quality while large dynamic swing means good sound quality, it would be fun to try this out myself
are you sure, i have looked but find no way to store such a long sweep and then showing the response in a db scale, not even in arta
No i'm not sure.
Arta and Rew are not sound editors, but i have a bunch of them ( any DAW but things like Wavelab or even an prehistoric pc xp running Soundforge...). All offer ways to create by yourself your own files.
Arta and Rew are not sound editors, but i have a bunch of them ( any DAW but things like Wavelab or even an prehistoric pc xp running Soundforge...). All offer ways to create by yourself your own files.
Have you listened to the MATT-test? Have you measured in room speakers responce?))
One buddy measured, listened, fixed PET defect(s) and listened again. BTW, according to his reports, the according to his reports, the audibility of improvements when listening to music depends on the music.
i do not understand, by creating your own files, does that mean you can get a frequency response graph that looks similar to the one in the matt-test?
https://6moons.com/audioreviews/theroom/7_3up.jpg