I tend to prefer them a litte out from my walls so 90cm isnt unusual, however I should take some new sweeps with them closer to the wall for comparison.
Since I was initially running them un-EQ's I took them out from the wall to reduce the added behaviour.
As far as teh graphs posted, response excluded - they seem legit? I mean there is no apparent consern for faulty readings? I am asking since I am new with REW/mic.
I am using a 2009 Macbook, OS10.5.8 running REW 5.1Beta using a MiniDSP UMIK1 mic. Output from MB is from 3.5m headphone slot using RCA/AUX input to receiver. Receiver is in direct mode (S-Direct) on, pre-out to power amp (Emotiva UPA5)
Since I was initially running them un-EQ's I took them out from the wall to reduce the added behaviour.
As far as teh graphs posted, response excluded - they seem legit? I mean there is no apparent consern for faulty readings? I am asking since I am new with REW/mic.
I am using a 2009 Macbook, OS10.5.8 running REW 5.1Beta using a MiniDSP UMIK1 mic. Output from MB is from 3.5m headphone slot using RCA/AUX input to receiver. Receiver is in direct mode (S-Direct) on, pre-out to power amp (Emotiva UPA5)
As I said before.. I can't figure out why there is no obvious loss of high frequency output. I cannot explain that, is it a calibrated mic and are you using the calibration file in REW?
Looking forward to measurements with the arrays closer to the wall. Listening distance would be about 3 meters with them placed there right?
Wife is making cakes so I get to play in the music room 😉
Yes, mic is calibrated and cal.file is used. Distance is close to 4m.
Image 1:
First sweep is for the B&W DM604S2´s (Baffle 65cm out from wall)
Second is Line Array´s non-EQ´d (Baffle 45cm out from wall)
Third is Line Array´s EQ´d (same)
Two major dips at approx 66hz and 220hz while the LF peak is at 37hz.
Image 2:
Single measurement of arrays with freq. evened out by EQ. This resultet in unsatifactory listening experience. Image 4 show a sweep where SQ is percieved as much improved.
Image 3:
Waterfall
Yes, mic is calibrated and cal.file is used. Distance is close to 4m.
Image 1:
First sweep is for the B&W DM604S2´s (Baffle 65cm out from wall)
Second is Line Array´s non-EQ´d (Baffle 45cm out from wall)
Third is Line Array´s EQ´d (same)
Two major dips at approx 66hz and 220hz while the LF peak is at 37hz.
Image 2:
Single measurement of arrays with freq. evened out by EQ. This resultet in unsatifactory listening experience. Image 4 show a sweep where SQ is percieved as much improved.
Image 3:
Waterfall
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm just guessing here but there must be something going wrong with the measurements?
The last picture (4) shows a remarkable resemblance to the first picture of the B&W.
If that is what sounds good (60Hz to 250 Hz is down by -20 dB compared to 1-10 kHz) something must be wrong. At least, that's what I make of it... Can't imagine a speaker with that kind of output sounds good.
The last picture (4) shows a remarkable resemblance to the first picture of the B&W.
If that is what sounds good (60Hz to 250 Hz is down by -20 dB compared to 1-10 kHz) something must be wrong. At least, that's what I make of it... Can't imagine a speaker with that kind of output sounds good.
After judging the sound balance, had you the mic placed exactly at the same position where your head was, when you were enjoying the sound?
Anyhow, I wish I would have the possibility to build similar towers, as they seem to have a great potential for extremely nice sound.
OT: Well, kitchen table is the best working place I have available, but The SWMBO has slightly different opinions whether it can be used for that kind of hobby....
I think what we are seeing is that Halair's listening room must be a cavernous box with hard walls. The fact that the response from the B&W and the line array both have dips at 70Hz and 200Hz indicates these are room effects. And the line array does a good job of reducing the room effects which also include floor bounce cancellation as the dips with the array are not as deep and narrower. I would do an additional very near field (30cm) measurement in front of the B&W and the middle driver of the line array. That will have very little room effect. The HF's shown by the line array are excellent and at 4m away I don't expect any comb effects to be significant. If the mic is calibrated and your ADC (sound card) is calibrated, the measurement should be good within 2dB. That is one reason I use USB mic's - the ADC is always calibrated with mic because hey are the same unit. If you get a chance do a measurement with 1 speaker on only at 30cm, 1m, 2m, 3m. That will shed some light on those big dips because they should move around with distance. If it it intrinsic in the speaker they won't move so much. Hope that helps.
I'd like to "hear" it at the listening position. Do you have a tablet or something similar that could record a piece of music at that listening position? Preferably something with bass and highs. While not ideal it could help with judging what is happening.
Forgive me disturbing though have no MacBook experience, i'm on Windows. On some Windows laptop or desktop DSP enhancement for microphone and speaker sometimes run DSP hardware accelerated or software based for greater sound wise experience and normally can be turned off somewhere behind. Any chance the MacBook could have such DSP or tone control that disturb measurements all time. Or is another Laptop easily available to quick test if REW response is same.
Last edited:
Good point - sometimes in Windows there are background apps that force an EQ on all sound going through sound output. Sometimes you have to reboot for it to be removed.
Agree 🙂
The 60Hz and the 160Hz dip are definitely room resonances, the 220 Hz one may be interference between the direct signal diaphragm to microphone when mixed from first reflection from floor in between, the 400Hz one might be cabinet edge diffraction/interference.
That said, your results are no bad at all, but realistic, it´s what your speakers sound like in that room, that position.
To compare, remeasure with the microphone very close, a few inches from the diaphragm, most of the problems you see will disappear.
Of course, you will not use your speakers as "Texan Headphones" , inches away from your ears 🙂
Won´t even suggest any specific room treatment, whole library shelves have been written on that 😱
I believe I have deactived all hardware/software EQ from the Macbook as I knew of the potential disturbed readings. Same reason I run my processor in source-direct mode. I will double check 😉
Diffraction/front baffle. Itis currently 115mm wide with untreated edges (sharp)
I will also do close distance measuring of the B&W and arrays with incremental increase in distance. Outside testing is not possible today due to rain 😉
Thanks everyone for all input given, I am learning more and more 🙂
Diffraction/front baffle. Itis currently 115mm wide with untreated edges (sharp)
I will also do close distance measuring of the B&W and arrays with incremental increase in distance. Outside testing is not possible today due to rain 😉
Thanks everyone for all input given, I am learning more and more 🙂
I have done two new groups of measurements, gathered under this link - Index of /rew
Common for both is that I have measured the B&W and array seperately (just one speaker, the left one) at incremental distances. No EQ performed on either set.
Mic distance specified in inches on the mdat data
Hope these can shed more light 🙂
Wesayso - I can make a sound recording later, perhaps a video.
Common for both is that I have measured the B&W and array seperately (just one speaker, the left one) at incremental distances. No EQ performed on either set.
Mic distance specified in inches on the mdat data
Hope these can shed more light 🙂
Wesayso - I can make a sound recording later, perhaps a video.
Last edited:
Just looked at your data files from REW and you'll notice an upwards slope in both the line arrays and the B&W data files. It seems to me about a 3 dB/octave rise across the range from ~ 40 Hz to 10 kHz. It looks like the difference between white noise compared to pink noise.
Did you use noise or a sweep? Seems to me very close to what I'd expect for a measurement made with white noise. That would also account for the lack off drop of seen in the high frequencies.
Did you use noise or a sweep? Seems to me very close to what I'd expect for a measurement made with white noise. That would also account for the lack off drop of seen in the high frequencies.
Last edited:
Updated with v2 REW measurements, downloadable at Index of /rew
Images with graphs shown below. Are these still dubious?
I went through the REW setup process once more but during calibration I get a message that the difference is say 70dB between 20-20000hz and this might not give me a good calibration. There is also a clicking noise during sweep/measuring. I googled that and tried the suggested fixes to no avail.
BYRTT - previous post was an answer to wesayso´s question 🙂
Images with graphs shown below. Are these still dubious?
I went through the REW setup process once more but during calibration I get a message that the difference is say 70dB between 20-20000hz and this might not give me a good calibration. There is also a clicking noise during sweep/measuring. I googled that and tried the suggested fixes to no avail.
BYRTT - previous post was an answer to wesayso´s question 🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.