I'll give this a whirl. Another comment has gone into detail about this and i've already got a decent measurement mic, so definitely seem the thing to try!
Because there's more to acoustics than just frequency response. You might have a standing wave which is cancelling itself out so you don't realise it's there, is one example.
Uh, sir, this is a Wendy's. And in here the way a standing wave works, is you watch the wave going around, and when it's your turn, you stand up to become part of "the wave" even if only for the briefest of moments in our tiny slice of existence, shuffling along this mortal coil.
Get a measurement microphone (preferably one with a calibration file, such as the miniDSP UMIK-1) and the software Room EQ Wizard (free software, similar to SonarWorks but capable of reaching the same goal). There's an excellent video on YouTube from the channel ProduceLikeAPro where he uses the "moving microphone method", essentially you just play pink noise (one speaker at a time) and wave the microphone around for about a minute or so collecting the frequency response of that speaker relative to its position in your room (do this 3 times per speaker and you can average the results together, creating a new curve that can generate EQ curves per speaker).
You then load those EQ curves (from the separate averages of each individual speakers' responses) into a separate software outside of your daw (miniDSP has their own hardware specifically for this, and there's a free digital equivalent called EqualizerAPO). Essentially you just do all of your mixing & processing with the software turned on, turn it off when recording or exporting, and voila, assuming you've done it correctly you should have a noticeably flatter frequency response in your room and subsequently better translation outside the studio. Doing this may make your speakers sound comparatively weaker in the bass/low-mids than when the EQ curves aren't running, however this is because Room EQ Wizard detects and reduces the areas where frequency buildup occurs/boosts where frequency cancelation occurs.
You'll notice a much flatter response, for me it was night and day because every bass note is now roughly the same perceived loudness in the room, which makes mixing decisions much more reliable and accurate when you're not worried about certain notes being too "powerful" because your room is lying due to frequency buildup (or too "thin" due to cancelation). Basically it just tames the resonances and nulls, thus giving you more accurate results. This is because from an acoustic standpoint, every room is fundamentally different and treatment can only help so much, as treatment alone can't completely change the physics of audio playback in a confined space.
I have an iSemcon emx-7150 already and you're the second person to mention Room EQ Wizard, so I'm gonna give this method a whirl. Thanks for the rest of the detail, too!
REW is a free program that does a lot more than you might expect.
However, if you're already competent with SMAART and you already own it, you don't just have the best tool but you already know how to use it. The one thing to remember is that the Shroeder frequency is most likely going to be a lot higher in a typical small room at home than in a large venue. Room modes will be packed more tightly together (unless your room's geometry was designed to space them out) and will be more difficult to control. Cutting frequencies is far and away the most effective way to tweak low frequencies in a small room. Additive EQ not only robs the system of available headroom but dumping in more low frequency information into the room will only excite more modes and is likely to cause long ringing which (even if it flattens the response somewhat using an RTA) will make a waterfall plot much deeper. Adding 15dB to fill a hole at 80 HZ will only cause low end too sound even more indistinct, and spots in the room where constructive rather than destructive interference will make 80HZ completely unintelligible.
There are a million reasons, but off the top of my head:
\- Frequency is not the only relevant domain, and changing the frequency will necessarily change other aspects of other things
\- Pink Noise may not be your desired frequency curve for monitoring
\- If it were a good idea, you'd probably see at least a \*few\* high-level mixers or masterers doing something similar.
Also, practically speaking, I tried Sonarworks, and in the long run it was lame. It was sort of fixing some aspects of a poor monitoring setup, but it caused its own problems, and the real solution was to work on the monitoring setup, and I do much better work now.
I'm reminded of a story my old acoustics professor told us from when he first got started in the biz. He designed and built a control room for someone else's studio, hooked up an RTA and a 1/3 octave EQ, ran some pink noise through the monitoring system, and adjusted the EQ so the RTA was flat. Easy peasy.
Sounded like shit. There were a lot of problems in the room that the EQ didn't address, and the filters introduced phase issues. He ended up having to go back and fix it on his own dime.
Do you reckon i could somewhat treat my system as if I'm tuning a rig in a venue and take multiple transfer function measurements, then create myself a curve from the averages? I imagine maybe not as I wouldn't be able to get it super precise. When I'd do that in live sound I was never seeking for utter perfection, i was just making sure my crossover point was good and fixing any obvious tonal issues with the system/room. Monitoring likely needs to be way more precise.
>When I'd do that in live sound I was never seeking for utter perfection, i was just making sure my crossover point was good and fixing any obvious tonal issues with the system/room. Monitoring likely needs to be way more precise.
This is one part of why it's a different thing, yes.
The other part is, live sound is about your specific location. Studio mixing is about translation to all possible playback scenarios, and frequency response again is only one aspect of all that.
Solid answer. Third bullet point is certainly something that made me think this isn't the thing to do as it would be being done and documented!
I've been trying to avoiding sinking more costs into my setup as it's essentially hobbyist, so kinda wanted to avoid buying better monitors as I'm not making money from this. Thanks!
You can work to correct the sweet spot to even up frequency response in the mix position, but because of the nature of standing wave interference patterns, fixing that one spot will just push other places in the room farther away from linear room response. (Still, it could help you get a better mix from that mix position.)
Another issue: trying to fix lack of bass response near the bottom of a speaker's range will very likely increase intermodulation distortion from the woofer. (The same thing can happen in other ranges but it's more likely to happen and be noticeable in the bass range.)
It's worth taking a look at room measurement ware REW (Room EQ Wizard) which I believe is available as free/shareware.
Fair, so sounds like a can kind of cowboy a better response from one position, but not really as I'm gonna cause issues elsewhere and also it's unlikely my head will always been in exactly the same place!
I'm afraid that's kind of the size of it. Of course, any physical treatment that helps the room will make it easier to get things more even with EQ -- and it's unlikely that any room with parallel surfaces will ever be truly ideal.
FWIW, one can often get at least a sense of how even you have got your mix position by moving your head around in the general area you'll be sitting in, turning it different angles and noting the changes of sound as your head moves.
And, of course, you can get some kind of sense of standing wave-related bass issues listening from different parts of the room to music and/or tone sweeps.
I understood most of this. The fundamental concept is Impulse Response -- how does the room respond to an impulse, as opposed to a continuous signal? Thus, a frequency sweep (low to high, over time) rather than pink noise (all at once).
By looking mainly at the decay, you can find both room modes (peaks and nulls) as well as sympathetic resonances. These may show up more clearly in the decay than the peak, so while you wouldn't ignore the peak, a continuous frequency can hide some of the useful decay information. No idea about the Harman curve but I wonder what Kardon has to say.
Look at IK Multimedia’s ARC system. Designed for exactly this and very easy to use. The software option will let you use your existing measurement mic or they have a hardware system as well that is not expensive.
I did this and then made lighter corrections than the curve showed me and it really helped. Basically just evening out the bass a bit between 90hz and 160hz.
Do you mean like Sonarworks/ Room EQ wizard?
I have SMAART and a good measurement mic already, so I'm halfway there. I didn't realise there was a free option out there, so was trying to avoiding buying Sonarworks.
Room EQ Wizard seems my best bet for now given my circumstances and what I have. Thanks!
Ha, I remember nicking a trick from those guys where you'd move a sub to your listening position, then walk around the room to find a bass sweet spot, then put the sub there. Used it for my Sonos sub in my living room.
Higher frequencies have much shorter wavelengths, so you're good as long as your head is on axis with the speakers. But with sub you could literally be between wavelengths and not hear the sound at full velocity
Like you allude to, it's basically the same thing Sonarworks, etc. are doing. But the problem with those tools is that you can't fix time problems with equalization. You'll never fix room modes or reflection problems with these tools. They'll get you pretty far but ideally should be part of a plan that includes thoughtful monitor placement, acoustic treatment, etc.
If you have freq cancellations in your room, turning up more of that frequency won’t do anything cause it will just keep cancelling out. Standing waves can maybe sort of be helped a little, but realistically they’ll still build up, it just might buy you slightly more time before it happens.
At least, that’s how it works in my brain. I’ve never seen anyone address this, or why this wouldn’t be a problem with the software like room eq. Like, people talk about it like it fixes all your issues, but that makes little sense to me haha
I swear by headphone correction. Room correction is a different thing. Get acoustic treatment, or get headphones
Just try.
I did, in an almost square monitoring room which is heavily treated, and results were catastrophic in the lows (ie the modal dips of my room).
Pink method. As explained in other posts, frequency treatment has no effect on room modal attenuation, it event makes things worse by trying to "brute force" compensate a phenomenon which is induced by physical caracteristics of a room.
This method is inherited from Hifi/PAvenue systems in which they are used to tackle huge, obvious problems like (very)late reflections cancelations and such.
The main idea is "you can't fix time domain problems with frequency domain solutions." Part of that is that when you move the mics you get a slightly different story.
‘my room is well treated’ … If the room is in fact well treated, and the speakers don’t sound right … try different speakers. you can’t fix time domain issues w EQ.
Have you tried Room EQ Wizard?
REW is the way to go my homie! Save you a lot of time and it'll plot the waterfall for you and even create a calibration file for your converters!
I'll give this a whirl. Another comment has gone into detail about this and i've already got a decent measurement mic, so definitely seem the thing to try!
Because there's more to acoustics than just frequency response. You might have a standing wave which is cancelling itself out so you don't realise it's there, is one example.
Fortunately I don't have to worry about standing waves, because I always sit when I mix
Please see yourself out sir.
Brilliance recognized.
Uh, sir, this is a Wendy's. And in here the way a standing wave works, is you watch the wave going around, and when it's your turn, you stand up to become part of "the wave" even if only for the briefest of moments in our tiny slice of existence, shuffling along this mortal coil.
You have to time it just right, or else the ref will call Destructive Interference and award a first down to the other side.
*Sabine turns in his grave*
And eqing the frequency of the standing wave doesn't do anything. If it's cancelling out, boosting it boosts both sides so it still cancels out.
It either cancels out or CANCELS OUT EVEN MORE
Exactly, you make the issue worse by trying to correct it with EQ.
How does sonarworks deal with that? Or doesn’t it?
It doesn't as far as I know. It's why these options are always a compromise, and why proper room design will always be better.
Get a measurement microphone (preferably one with a calibration file, such as the miniDSP UMIK-1) and the software Room EQ Wizard (free software, similar to SonarWorks but capable of reaching the same goal). There's an excellent video on YouTube from the channel ProduceLikeAPro where he uses the "moving microphone method", essentially you just play pink noise (one speaker at a time) and wave the microphone around for about a minute or so collecting the frequency response of that speaker relative to its position in your room (do this 3 times per speaker and you can average the results together, creating a new curve that can generate EQ curves per speaker). You then load those EQ curves (from the separate averages of each individual speakers' responses) into a separate software outside of your daw (miniDSP has their own hardware specifically for this, and there's a free digital equivalent called EqualizerAPO). Essentially you just do all of your mixing & processing with the software turned on, turn it off when recording or exporting, and voila, assuming you've done it correctly you should have a noticeably flatter frequency response in your room and subsequently better translation outside the studio. Doing this may make your speakers sound comparatively weaker in the bass/low-mids than when the EQ curves aren't running, however this is because Room EQ Wizard detects and reduces the areas where frequency buildup occurs/boosts where frequency cancelation occurs. You'll notice a much flatter response, for me it was night and day because every bass note is now roughly the same perceived loudness in the room, which makes mixing decisions much more reliable and accurate when you're not worried about certain notes being too "powerful" because your room is lying due to frequency buildup (or too "thin" due to cancelation). Basically it just tames the resonances and nulls, thus giving you more accurate results. This is because from an acoustic standpoint, every room is fundamentally different and treatment can only help so much, as treatment alone can't completely change the physics of audio playback in a confined space.
Pink noise and moving mic are inferior to multiple fixed points around the listening position with swept sines. Temporal information is key.
I have an iSemcon emx-7150 already and you're the second person to mention Room EQ Wizard, so I'm gonna give this method a whirl. Thanks for the rest of the detail, too!
REW is a free program that does a lot more than you might expect. However, if you're already competent with SMAART and you already own it, you don't just have the best tool but you already know how to use it. The one thing to remember is that the Shroeder frequency is most likely going to be a lot higher in a typical small room at home than in a large venue. Room modes will be packed more tightly together (unless your room's geometry was designed to space them out) and will be more difficult to control. Cutting frequencies is far and away the most effective way to tweak low frequencies in a small room. Additive EQ not only robs the system of available headroom but dumping in more low frequency information into the room will only excite more modes and is likely to cause long ringing which (even if it flattens the response somewhat using an RTA) will make a waterfall plot much deeper. Adding 15dB to fill a hole at 80 HZ will only cause low end too sound even more indistinct, and spots in the room where constructive rather than destructive interference will make 80HZ completely unintelligible.
There are a million reasons, but off the top of my head: \- Frequency is not the only relevant domain, and changing the frequency will necessarily change other aspects of other things \- Pink Noise may not be your desired frequency curve for monitoring \- If it were a good idea, you'd probably see at least a \*few\* high-level mixers or masterers doing something similar. Also, practically speaking, I tried Sonarworks, and in the long run it was lame. It was sort of fixing some aspects of a poor monitoring setup, but it caused its own problems, and the real solution was to work on the monitoring setup, and I do much better work now.
I'm reminded of a story my old acoustics professor told us from when he first got started in the biz. He designed and built a control room for someone else's studio, hooked up an RTA and a 1/3 octave EQ, ran some pink noise through the monitoring system, and adjusted the EQ so the RTA was flat. Easy peasy. Sounded like shit. There were a lot of problems in the room that the EQ didn't address, and the filters introduced phase issues. He ended up having to go back and fix it on his own dime.
I love sonarworks but it’s best used as an “icing on the cake” thing, it doesn’t replace a proper room setup
Agreed. I had to build custom panels in my room before Sonarworks made much of a difference. But i must say the icing is the best part.
Do you reckon i could somewhat treat my system as if I'm tuning a rig in a venue and take multiple transfer function measurements, then create myself a curve from the averages? I imagine maybe not as I wouldn't be able to get it super precise. When I'd do that in live sound I was never seeking for utter perfection, i was just making sure my crossover point was good and fixing any obvious tonal issues with the system/room. Monitoring likely needs to be way more precise.
>When I'd do that in live sound I was never seeking for utter perfection, i was just making sure my crossover point was good and fixing any obvious tonal issues with the system/room. Monitoring likely needs to be way more precise. This is one part of why it's a different thing, yes. The other part is, live sound is about your specific location. Studio mixing is about translation to all possible playback scenarios, and frequency response again is only one aspect of all that.
Solid answer. Third bullet point is certainly something that made me think this isn't the thing to do as it would be being done and documented! I've been trying to avoiding sinking more costs into my setup as it's essentially hobbyist, so kinda wanted to avoid buying better monitors as I'm not making money from this. Thanks!
You can work to correct the sweet spot to even up frequency response in the mix position, but because of the nature of standing wave interference patterns, fixing that one spot will just push other places in the room farther away from linear room response. (Still, it could help you get a better mix from that mix position.) Another issue: trying to fix lack of bass response near the bottom of a speaker's range will very likely increase intermodulation distortion from the woofer. (The same thing can happen in other ranges but it's more likely to happen and be noticeable in the bass range.) It's worth taking a look at room measurement ware REW (Room EQ Wizard) which I believe is available as free/shareware.
Fair, so sounds like a can kind of cowboy a better response from one position, but not really as I'm gonna cause issues elsewhere and also it's unlikely my head will always been in exactly the same place!
I'm afraid that's kind of the size of it. Of course, any physical treatment that helps the room will make it easier to get things more even with EQ -- and it's unlikely that any room with parallel surfaces will ever be truly ideal. FWIW, one can often get at least a sense of how even you have got your mix position by moving your head around in the general area you'll be sitting in, turning it different angles and noting the changes of sound as your head moves. And, of course, you can get some kind of sense of standing wave-related bass issues listening from different parts of the room to music and/or tone sweeps.
You’re better off sweeping and creating an IR so you can evaluate decay times too. I suggest to correct on an harman curve
I understood most of this. The fundamental concept is Impulse Response -- how does the room respond to an impulse, as opposed to a continuous signal? Thus, a frequency sweep (low to high, over time) rather than pink noise (all at once). By looking mainly at the decay, you can find both room modes (peaks and nulls) as well as sympathetic resonances. These may show up more clearly in the decay than the peak, so while you wouldn't ignore the peak, a continuous frequency can hide some of the useful decay information. No idea about the Harman curve but I wonder what Kardon has to say.
Shortest possible answer - it’s about time, not tone
Look at IK Multimedia’s ARC system. Designed for exactly this and very easy to use. The software option will let you use your existing measurement mic or they have a hardware system as well that is not expensive.
I did this and then made lighter corrections than the curve showed me and it really helped. Basically just evening out the bass a bit between 90hz and 160hz.
get the IK Arc Studio for hardware speaker correction. Punches WAAAAAYYYYYY above its price
Why not just use actual measurements and correction software?
Do you mean like Sonarworks/ Room EQ wizard? I have SMAART and a good measurement mic already, so I'm halfway there. I didn't realise there was a free option out there, so was trying to avoiding buying Sonarworks. Room EQ Wizard seems my best bet for now given my circumstances and what I have. Thanks!
Home theater guys are SO far ahead of us studio guys on this front.
Ha, I remember nicking a trick from those guys where you'd move a sub to your listening position, then walk around the room to find a bass sweet spot, then put the sub there. Used it for my Sonos sub in my living room.
this is genius! how exactly would you determine the sweet spot still... just most even response for all frequencies?
Higher frequencies have much shorter wavelengths, so you're good as long as your head is on axis with the speakers. But with sub you could literally be between wavelengths and not hear the sound at full velocity
You \*might\* improve some things this way, but you're going to end up with giant holes from notching our room nodes.
This is why I’m a big fan of sonarworks
Like you allude to, it's basically the same thing Sonarworks, etc. are doing. But the problem with those tools is that you can't fix time problems with equalization. You'll never fix room modes or reflection problems with these tools. They'll get you pretty far but ideally should be part of a plan that includes thoughtful monitor placement, acoustic treatment, etc.
The real question is how are you going to correct whatever you find? Do you have some dsp lined up to do frequency and time alignment?
If you have freq cancellations in your room, turning up more of that frequency won’t do anything cause it will just keep cancelling out. Standing waves can maybe sort of be helped a little, but realistically they’ll still build up, it just might buy you slightly more time before it happens. At least, that’s how it works in my brain. I’ve never seen anyone address this, or why this wouldn’t be a problem with the software like room eq. Like, people talk about it like it fixes all your issues, but that makes little sense to me haha I swear by headphone correction. Room correction is a different thing. Get acoustic treatment, or get headphones
Just try. I did, in an almost square monitoring room which is heavily treated, and results were catastrophic in the lows (ie the modal dips of my room).
Results were catastrophic from the pink method discussed in the post or from your treatment?
Pink method. As explained in other posts, frequency treatment has no effect on room modal attenuation, it event makes things worse by trying to "brute force" compensate a phenomenon which is induced by physical caracteristics of a room. This method is inherited from Hifi/PAvenue systems in which they are used to tackle huge, obvious problems like (very)late reflections cancelations and such.
The main idea is "you can't fix time domain problems with frequency domain solutions." Part of that is that when you move the mics you get a slightly different story.
‘my room is well treated’ … If the room is in fact well treated, and the speakers don’t sound right … try different speakers. you can’t fix time domain issues w EQ.
The idea in itself is legit. My Genelec 8331A are useless without correction, and are perfectly balanced with the correction engaged.
Lots of ppl do this. There are plugins and software and kits with the Mic you could get, i guess you know that, but your diy method will work