Due to using negative gain in my correction, you can reset any Roon headroom setting to 0bB, in case you had that at some negative gain to avoid clipping due to your correction’s 8 dB of boost - this may gain you some more volume.
In your current acoustic situation as measured and seemingly confirmed by the room plan, I would not waste a thought on any minuscule audiophile mantra.
The speakers intrinsic deviations from neutral and the room acoustics’ contributions, as setup in your room, create idiosyncrasies that highlight some spectral components, which may work magnificently with some tracks/instruments/recording techniques, but not necessarily across the board.
Also note, that any correction, convolution or PEQ, can not diminish dynamics, as they’re just a frequency dependent factor to correct for the amplitude response.
You might have misunderstood, but that was meant only regarding overall system gain.
Doesn‘t he have a mic to do a quick sanity check?
That‘s important mainly for multiway speakers, if you‘re planning on using Rephase to optimize time coincidence - you’re using single driver full ranges.
That said, it’ll be more effective to concentrate on getting your ragged amplitude response straightened out some more, as long as you‘re not able to rearrange your listening area.
Thanks for these responses. The free lunch comment was about overall gain only. I have so little to play with currently.
I do understand that the eq is not affecting dynamic range directly but the subjective consensus from listening today was that with convolution applied the sound was more compressed and seemed squeezed between the speakers. We didn’t listen long enough or pay enough attention to gain matching, though. I’m going to listen more when I can, and with a range of music. Weekends are difficult.
I do think the main suspect is the integrity of my measurements in the first place, and that the next step should be a careful redo of the measurements with my Omnimic V2 followed by the same with another mic I have yet to find and a detailed comparison of the two. If they agree then I’ll know I really do have a lost cause room and equipment setup.
If I decided to buy a new mic what would you recommend? I doubt I’ll be getting into speaker design so it would just be for room eq. However, I do need one that mostly tells the truth. Cross Spectrum Acoustics sells Umik 1 and 2 units that are calibrated more thoroughly. Does this matter? What’s worth it for my application?
Unfortunately I cannot make any real changes in furniture layout and I sold my monkey coffin speakers.
A UMIK1 or alike with standard cal file will fully suffice, since the speaker/room distortion contributions usually are orders of magnitude worse.
We shouldn‘t forget, that human auditory perception isn‘t very sensitive to phase anomalies, otherwise multi way speakers wouldn‘t be this popular.
To sum up, I wouldn‘t sweat about the microphone and it‘s calibration too much, besides making sure it‘s not broken, somehow.
BTW, what‘s about your audio-engineer friend - hasn‘t he got some proper tools to bring over?
Anyways, a first and cheap sanity check is to remeasure the corrected response, while trying to replicate the setup as closely as possible - it‘s actually a no-brainer to do that after creating a correction …
I checked with my friend and he doesn’t own any usb measurement mics (what?! And you developed the AES67 standard?). He has others but says they’re not compatible.
It bothers me that the Omnimic doesn’t provide a vertical cal file and I wonder how much that changes the results. However, you’re probably right that these are all small potatoes issues unless the mic is for some reason hopelessly tweaked. I will try again, thanks.
Vector average of L 90d 1, L 90d 2, L 90d 3
PK Fc 20.00 Hz Gain -9.20 dB Q 1.454
PK Fc 53.00 Hz Gain -3.50 dB Q 10.168
PK Fc 58.90 Hz Gain -2.80 dB Q 7.959
PK Fc 107.5 Hz Gain -4.30 dB Q 12.687
PK Fc 129.0 Hz Gain -2.20 dB Q 10.909
Vector average of R 90d 1, R 90d 2, R 90d 3
PK Fc 20.00 Hz Gain -10.70 dB Q 2.223
PK Fc 30.85 Hz Gain -3.90 dB Q 9.532
PK Fc 55.10 Hz Gain -4.70 dB Q 5.261
PK Fc 106.5 Hz Gain -5.30 dB Q 11.483
PK Fc 163.5 Hz Gain -4.20 dB Q 18.891
Any idea what I’m getting wrong here
Very new to REW, and just trying to get started. Happy to provide any information to help get to the bottom of this.
Hi, I suggest you follow this method which only affects the range from 80-250 Hz rather than the one OCA posted previously that I tried first that tries to do the full range. I concluded this one is a fool’s errand after struggling with it a while. In the second video OCA explains why a narrower frequency range for room correction is all that’s needed and that the mics are not really capable of defining a good high frequency correction anyway. Try this new method, but note that OCA gives the incorrect procedure first without the IR windows part and later backtracks to give the full procedure. Pay attention and make sure to copy all his settings. There is no house curve used for this method.
I used this and then added parametric EQ at higher frequencies to correct for the midrange peak and weak highs of my full range single driver speakers. I’m happy with the results!
If you insist on pursuing room correction across a wider frequency range I suggest you ask @Marin_Weigel, who was very helpful when I was struggling with the former method and has an in depth knowledge about the theory behind it all.
