Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs - Page 217 - AVS Forum
First ... 215  216  217 218  219  ... Last
Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat > Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 08:42 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post


I figured it out...What am I zipping up btw ?

 

When you figure out what you were doing wrong, it would be appropriate to share here.  We can learn from others' mistakes.

 

To share measurements:

 

- Locate the file with the REW measurements (file extension .MDAT)

- Create a .ZIP file

- Create an account on a file sharing site (dropbox.com is a good one)

- Upload the file to the file sharing site

- Publish the public link to the uploaded file here

 

Should I include detailed instructions for REW file sharing in the guide?



jkasanic's Avatar jkasanic 08:46 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
Should I include detailed instructions for REW file sharing in the guide?

 

I personally don't think it's necessary but wouldn't mind either way.  Since you can attach files in posts here on AVS, I was suggesting if the file was small enough that he could post it right here.  I think there are limitations on the file type but I think this is easily bypassed by changing the extension or zipping the file.


AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 08:48 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post
 

 

I personally don't think it's necessary but wouldn't mind either way.  Since you can attach files in posts here on AVS, I was suggesting if the file was small enough that he could post it right here.  I think there are limitations on the file type but I think this is easily bypassed by changing the extension or zipping the file.

 

True, but my REW measurement sessions are typically ~24MB, which I believe is too large for AVS upload.  And you are correct, a .ZIP file can be uploaded.


AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 08:50 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post


ETC symmetry comes from room symmetry. And that includes all objects in the room that can create reflections.

But I am not so sure it matters that much, within reason, once your -25db or -30db down. I dont see anything in your graph thats a red flag to me.

 

Thanks, Jim, I needed a kind word.  I have been having a tough time the last couple of days with my new tuned membrane traps.


djbluemax1's Avatar djbluemax1 08:55 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Thanks, Jim, I needed a kind word.  I have been having a tough time the last couple of days with my new tuned membrane traps.
What problems have you been having?


Max
jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 09:01 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Thanks, Jim, I needed a kind word.  I have been having a tough time the last couple of days with my new tuned membrane traps.

Getting them to work as intended?
jlpowell84's Avatar jlpowell84 09:15 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

When you figure out what you were doing wrong, it would be appropriate to share here.  We can learn from others' mistakes.

To share measurements:

- Locate the file with the REW measurements (file extension .MDAT)
- Create a .ZIP file
- Create an account on a file sharing site (dropbox.com is a good one)
- Upload the file to the file sharing site
- Publish the public link to the uploaded file here

Should I include detailed instructions for REW file sharing in the guide?

Oh I got you. I meant something else. I didn't figure out how to get it attached. I was a bit distracted and thoroughly disgusted as an Oregon Duck fan...Sigh...mad.gif
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 09:23 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

OK, we will call it the philosophy you have adopted smile.gif
Is "preference" really such a dirty word to studiophiles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

The problem with folks setting things up the way they like is most don't know what they like. That is, they haven't had the experience of your approach vs mine as an actual listening experience, or any of the popular models taken to their full extent. Its hard to fixate on a specific goal when you don't know what the different choices sound like.
Hard to reconcile what you just wrote with the requirement to fixate on a specific studio model as a goal. If most folks really don't even know what their own preference is, then what are the chances they will be familiar with differences between various studio models?

At least with preference based approach they can audibly discover what they like by trying different things, keeping what they enjoy and tossing what they don't. All the time using music and movie soundtracks that they're familiar with, played back on a system that they're used to, in a room they know well.

By comparison, how are we ever supposed to do an audible comparison between various acoustic models (let alone with familiar source material, gear and room)? Short of binaural room scans and a Smyth Realizer, seems near impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

The Haas kicker (-7db @ 24ms) I employ broadens my image very slightly, so I have a bit of an understanding what you mean.
That's what I meant by keeping reflections consistent left to right in order to have a symmetrical soundstage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Still, I wish you lived next door so I could hear what you got going.
See my reply to Keith, which I wrote before reading your post.
jlpowell84's Avatar jlpowell84 09:32 PM 11-07-2013
Ok thats twice now tonight I have gotten a high pitch squeal out of the left speaker. Good think i had my finger on the mute button because it was bad! Running a 5-300 sweep
jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 09:42 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


Hard to reconcile what you just wrote with the requirement to fixate on a specific studio model as a goal. If most folks really don't even know what their own preference is, then what are the chances they will be familiar with differences between various studio models?

At least with preference based approach they can audibly discover what they like by trying different things, keeping what they enjoy and tossing what they don't. All the time using music and movie soundtracks that they're familiar with, played back on a system that they're used to, in a room they know well.

By comparison, how are we ever supposed to do an audible comparison between various acoustic models (let alone with familiar source material, gear and room)? Short of binaural room scans and a Smyth Realizer, seems near impossible.

By choosing a model, what I really meant was:

1) Killing all reflections (little to no room interaction)
2) Killing certain ones (specific room interaction)
3) Trying to preserve most of them in a specific way (lots of room interaction)

(copied from above)

Your other questions/statements illustrate the inherent problem. That being we are left to almost choose a direction blindly and see how its sounds as we go along (which I think is sorta what you are saying). I suppose some of my thoughts are a bit idealistic. Ill try and cut down on that and be more REALISTIC.

I suppose at the end of the day, doing a little at a time and discovering along the way what works and what we like maybe the only game in town. Admittedly, this is what I did as well. With 20/20 hindsight, I could have saved a heap of time and some money if I had somehow known what I wanted and had listening experiences to confirm it from the get go. I suppose I have been trying to steer folks in way to avoid some of things I wish I had been able to.
jkasanic's Avatar jkasanic 09:44 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

Ok thats twice now tonight I have gotten a high pitch squeal out of the left speaker. Good think i had my finger on the mute button because it was bad! Running a 5-300 sweep

I've noticed if I try to limit the sweep in REW then the squeals can happen.  I always take full measurement sweeps even if I'm just working with subs.  I haven't a bad sound since I started doing this but YMMV.


AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 09:53 PM 11-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post


What problems have you been having?


Max

I'll post my experiences tomorrow.


sdurani's Avatar sdurani 12:51 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Your other questions/statements illustrate the inherent problem. That being we are left to almost choose a direction blindly and see how its sounds as we go along (which I think is sorta what you are saying).
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Except it's not quite blindly. The more things you try, the more you learn about your own tastes, and the more you narrow your path (rather than continuing blindly in arbitrary directions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

With 20/20 hindsight, I could have saved a heap of time and some money if I had somehow known what I wanted and had listening experiences to confirm it from the get go. I suppose I have been trying to steer folks in way to avoid some of things I wish I had been able to.
But that IS the hobby. Well, at least for me. Discovering new things I can do to improve the sound is the fun part in all of this, the part that gives me the rush. Guess my interest in this hobby is the journey, not the destination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Let be neighbors tongue.gif
Yup, it's the only way you will know that you and Keith were wrong and I was right.
Bwahahahahahah...cough, cough, cough....wheeze.
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 12:57 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyal Mellor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Everyone needs to grasp the baseline, or speaking apples and oranges
How is this for starters?
Audio%2520Subjective%2520parameters.JPG

Nice, is that from an AES paper?

In another thread that got derailed by the never ending topic of "do our ears hear what measurements show", I was trying to engage the people into what I thought was a good endeavor:

Make a correlation between Subjective sound quality (what our ears hear) vs objective sound measurements (what all the fact based objective measurement we "love" to take and post).
So, I did a search, found what I thought was a good, concrete definition of subjective sound quality terms, and found that.....sorry to say but can't remember it's base source, good point I will add that to my image captions for future.

Realizing some have strong and weak correlations, my thought was using a "Quality function deployment" pyramid like approach to make it visually easy to grasp.
Example of one below.


I will not clutter this thread with that, but rather I will build a QFD for that purpose first as a starter, then start a separate thread for the "fun" discussion.

It's the P.E. in me, and the Engineering Manager in me.
I realize that not everything is all black/white, there are shades of gray, the QFD is a great tool to visualize that and grasp it.

[edit]
I found my post, gottal love google image search, it found that right away!
Not AES, but EBU Technical Review
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1489493/do-audio-measurements-correlate-with-sound-quality/30#post_23720181
Quote:
As an engineer I"m looking for some table the correlates subjective sound quality parameters with the various objective testing methods that are available, does such simple/visual table exist?

Looking for baseline definition of Sound Quality - Audio Quality, this paper has good baseline definition;
"Subjective assessment of audio quality"
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_274-hoeg.pdf
Page 5,
Quote:
3.2. Subjective parameters
A set of subjective main parameters has been defined
to cover the technical quality of “acoustic
music”:
– spatial impression;
– stereo impression;
– transparency;
– sound balance;
– timbre;
– freedom from noise and distortions;
– main impression.
Audio%2520Subjective%2520parameters.JPG

Then that would have a cross correlation to objective testing, sorta like a "Quality Functional Deployment" table.

mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 01:04 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


Hard to reconcile what you just wrote with the requirement to fixate on a specific studio model as a goal. If most folks really don't even know what their own preference is, then what are the chances they will be familiar with differences between various studio models?

At least with preference based approach they can audibly discover what they like by trying different things, keeping what they enjoy and tossing what they don't. All the time using music and movie soundtracks that they're familiar with, played back on a system that they're used to, in a room they know well.

By comparison, how are we ever supposed to do an audible comparison between various acoustic models (let alone with familiar source material, gear and room)? Short of binaural room scans and a Smyth Realizer, seems near impossible.

By choosing a model, what I really meant was:

1) Killing all reflections (little to no room interaction)
2) Killing certain ones (specific room interaction)
3) Trying to preserve most of them in a specific way (lots of room interaction)

(copied from above)

Your other questions/statements illustrate the inherent problem. That being we are left to almost choose a direction blindly and see how its sounds as we go along (which I think is sorta what you are saying). I suppose some of my thoughts are a bit idealistic. Ill try and cut down on that and be more REALISTIC.

I suppose at the end of the day, doing a little at a time and discovering along the way what works and what we like maybe the only game in town. Admittedly, this is what I did as well. With 20/20 hindsight, I could have saved a heap of time and some money if I had somehow known what I wanted and had listening experiences to confirm it from the get go. I suppose I have been trying to steer folks in way to avoid some of things I wish I had been able to.

Jim - I've seen you at gearslutz also, nice thread there on your Listening Room and your acoustic application.
I suggest others here read it for great learning, here is his room layout.
Quote:
This illustrates basically how the sound is bounced around the room.

Black = Bass traps / Absorption panels
White = Reflection panels
Orange = Diffusers

jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 01:13 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Except it's not quite blindly. The more things you try, the more you learn about your own tastes, and the more you narrow your path (rather than continuing blindly in arbitrary directions).

I did say "almost blindly". And even then, I meant it as an initial condition. Once out of the gate, the blinders start to come off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

But that IS the hobby. Well, at least for me. Discovering new things I can do to improve the sound is the fun part in all of this, the part that gives me the rush. Guess my interest in this hobby is the journey, not the destination.

I cant disagree here. But I think imagining what the destination may be like (sound like) is often the catalyst to get the journey started in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yup, it's the only way you will know that you and Keith were wrong and I was right.
Bwahahahahahah...cough, cough, cough....wheeze.

I think some of us are fortunate that we reach a state with our system that we begin to imagine its special. That perhaps few others have sound as good as ours. But unfortunately, we are probably in error. And furthermore, we will probably never have the opportunity to prove or disprove our notion.
jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 01:17 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Jim - I've seen you at gearslutz also, nice thread there on your Listening Room and your acoustic application.
I suggest others here read it for great learning, here is his room layout.

That pic is a bit dated (more recent ones exist later in the thread)

But thanks for the props! smile.gif
mtbdudex's Avatar mtbdudex 01:27 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

Jim - I've seen you at gearslutz also, nice thread there on your Listening Room and your acoustic application.
I suggest others here read it for great learning, here is his room layout.

That pic is a bit dated (more recent ones exist later in the thread)

But thanks for the props! smile.gif

Takes a few days to read and digest all 12 pages, I'm not there yet wink.gif
....I suggest you put the latest layout/strategy in post#1 after your initial layout/strategy, with comment to show the latest one is where you are at in evolution of your acoustic journey.
jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 01:34 AM 11-08-2013


sdurani,

This is my smoothed (200us) ETC. I actually share some of your zeal for more room interaction. I think where we differ is where in the time domain to have it. The added green line is where id like to try to get to, but cant conceive how to get there.

Ive even given thought to putting additional speakers in the room located laterally with the proper delay to achieve this end. But been stubborn so far in wanting to accomplish it acoustically though.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 01:40 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

I don't see how your walls seem to disappear when left bare. Can you explain?
The side walls act as reflectors, creating virtual speakers on the other side of the walls. If you extend a line from main listening position to the reflection and keep going past the wall to the speaker plane, you'll see where the virtual speakers are. Because of this, soundstage width and imaging are asthough the walls weren't even there.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 01:44 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yup, it's the only way you will know that you and Keith were wrong and I was right.
Bwahahahahahah...cough, cough, cough....wheeze.
I think some of us are fortunate that we reach a state with our system that we begin to imagine its special. That perhaps few others have sound as good as ours. But unfortunately, we are probably in error. And furthermore, we will probably never have the opportunity to prove or disprove our notion.
Yeah, that last part of my post needed a smiley or winky or something.
jim19611961's Avatar jim19611961 01:46 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yeah, that last part of my post needed a smiley or winky or something.

No. I got the implication biggrin.gif
jlpowell84's Avatar jlpowell84 02:41 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

I've noticed if I try to limit the sweep in REW then the squeals can happen.  I always take full measurement sweeps even if I'm just working with subs.  I haven't a bad sound since I started doing this but YMMV.

Ok, good to know
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 03:43 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

The problem with folks setting things up the way they like is most don't know what they like.

I would disagree slightly. They don't know what is possible. So my family appreciates every change I make that improves the sound but
(a) They didn't know a slight change would make it better.
(b) They don't necessarily know how it could be better.

Then we always have to fight
(c) It's good enough already why do you keep messing with it.

Personally, I want a pinpoint soundstage. I haven't achieved anything close to it but when I do maybe I'll back off and do like sdurani.

 

I think there is a lot of merit in your comments. People don't usually know what is possible and just as often they may think that what they have is all that is possible. Gradual education is the answer I think - when you have demonstrated to the skeptics in your household how the last change made a nice difference which they could benefit from, they will be more inclined to believe that the next, proposed change may also bring even greater benefits. Eventually you will bring them round to room treatments LOL!


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 03:57 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
 
This is why I encourage people wanting to improve things seriously to seek out those who have already done the work and listen to theirs.

 

Sounds great on the surface but how exactly does one achieve this in reality?  Once you are able to get passed the room differences (or design them out as the models would imply) then how do you account for differences in speakers, placement etc. let alone all of the other variables that get introduced in the process (e.g. look at how many holes were punched in this "unbiased" review of different speakers...ok, admittedly not the best example but I think you get where I'm going).  As it stands right now, I only know 2 people who have even attempted to replicate a specific model and that's you and J and although J lives 'relatively' close to me (3-4hrs) his room isn't even complete.  Everyone else in this thread or even on most of the other sites is basically a hybrid of something else that they found works best for them.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to bring to light the near impossibility (imho) of sampling the various models to make an informed decision on the direction one should take with their room.  Ultimately, I believe trial and error will prevail as I just can't seem to wrap my head around a systematic approach to this. :confused:

 

Joe, I think you have to just bite the bullet and go for the one that seems, based on your research, that it will give you most closely what you want. It's an imperfect way to make the decision but it seems to me the be the only one open to most people. Not only do I not live close to anyone who has a HT that is sufficiently developed to be useful for this sort of comparison, but I don't even know anyone personally who cares!  I'd love to be able to listen to Jim's and Jerry's and Sanjay's systems - but it would be a round trip of about 12,000 miles!


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 04:20 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post
 
But lets pair this down a bit. What one approaching a new room design should be most interested in are those aspects that make the different approaches different. You dont have to get right away all the subtlety and details. So what are these things? Mostly, its just one thing: Reflection control.

I would argue that this is the most distinguishing characteristic from one approach to another. Your either:

1) Killing all reflections (little to no room interaction)
2) Killing certain ones (specific room interaction)
3) Trying to preserve most of them in a specific way (lots of room interaction)

While this list is a gross oversimplification, I think you are well on your way if you can just decide which of these three choices most suites you. And I would assert that most treated rooms are aiming for one of the above.

 

My two cents on this... I opted for 1). They are not all killed but most are. This, to me, emulates the dozens of sound editing suites I worked in over my career when making radio and cinema commercials. My room sounds like those rooms, when I go in there and speak. Many people would find it 'dead' and certainly one often reads that nobody would want to 'hold a conversation' in there. But I don't go into the room to hold a conversation. I go in to watch movies. Note that I did not say 'listen to music'. I do believe that if I used the HT for music I may want something different. 

 

At risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, I believe that all of the ambient cues and so on that I need to hear are already included in a good multichannel mix. Again, this is only for multichannel movies. If I listened to stereo music in there, I may want something different. What I find is that the room then becomes the scene in front of me on the screen. if it is a small room I am seeing on the screen, that is what it sounds like here. If it is an aircraft hangar, then it sounds - if I close my eyes - like I am in an aircraft hangar. If it is a busy New York City street, it sounds like that. To me, this is 100% what I am aiming for. I want to remove my room from the equation as much as possible.

 

There may be psychological factors at work: I am very, very interested in how movies are made as well as enjoying them as pieces of communicative art. So maybe I tend to be over-analytical. I want to hear everything in the mix, analytically. I really enjoy the 'tack sharp imaging' I get because that is what we used to get in the editing suites I mentioned. It enables me to hear every little aspect of the mix, individually, as well as as a 'whole' and I personally like that. Others may not. For similar reasons, I like my system to be brutally honest in the way it allows me to hear what is going on, even if what is going on is ugly. Some prefer a more 'pleasing' presentation. Remember I watch movies multiple times - most people don't. On the first watching, I am mostly interested in the plot and the dialogue. On subsequent watchings I may concentrate solely on the editing, or the score, or the production design, or the cinematography and so on. Most people do not watch movies like this so it is understandable that their requirements for their HT differ from mine.  For all these reasons, I would not 'recommend' that anyone follow my own path, unless of course, they share my objectives (I have yet to meet anyone who does! LOL).

 

@Joe - does this help explain what I meant in my earlier post to you when I said 'decide what you want and then bite the bullet'?  This is how I did it and it works for me, with my personal objectives. At some point we have to take the plunge - otherwise we are forever just walking around the pool and never enjoying the water. 


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 04:30 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
 
 I trust adding room treatments will make the walls disappear as I have heard Keith explain before.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Incidentally, I find, with my movies, that the walls do more or less 'disappear' here.
From what I remember, Jim re-directs early reflection energy, you absorb it and I leave those reflections alone. Yet all three of us hear our walls disappear. I can guarantee you that all three of our systems sound different. Which obviously means that each of us is using that word to mean something different. It's times like these that I wish we lived close enough to each other to actually hear what the other guy is talking about. 

 

If only we could do that!  What I really should say rather than 'making the walls disappear' is 'making the room disappear'. I don't want any influence of the room at all if I can help it. I don't want the room to 'add spaciousness' or 'add ambience' etc as I believe it is all already there, in the multichannel recording (movies only). I appreciate others have different objectives and use their rooms in different ways though, so ultimately I think it comes down to preference, which leads me on to the next part of your post, quoted below...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is one of the things that I always like about your posts - you do not offer a dogmatic "this is the way to do it and nothing else is good enough" approach.
Thanx. It's very deliberate, as you've probably guessed. There are only a couple-three things that I'm willing to have go from preference to philosophy (i.e., from liking something myself to encouraging it for others). Aside from tuning for preference, I've actively recommended symmetry (left to right) and smoother frequency response (especially in the lower frequencies). But that's about it.
 

 

Yes - I think your approach is excellent as it leaves open the possibility that our various preferences are different. It seems to me there is no one way to do this simply because we have different objectives. Jim's room, your room and my room will all sound different to each other, I would expect, yet we are all happy and we all describe what we are hearing in similar ways. Maybe that is because we have all achieved** our goals but the goals are different, as are therefore the ways of achieving them. 

 

** Wrong tense - it seems to be a permanent evolution, so maybe "are achieving" is more accurate.


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 04:38 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post


Your either:

1) Killing all reflections (little to no room interaction)
2) Killing certain ones (specific room interaction)
3) Trying to preserve most of them in a specific way (lots of room interaction)

OK, given that I'm interested in pinpoint soundstaging and I'm willing to give on the HT in favor of music which of the above does that imply? I think #2? Do you have any suggestions on what resources I can use to I learn more about achieving that?

Of course, this also requires that the FR be reasonably flat and no bass ringing so those issues have to be addressed as well.

I think kbarnes is doing #1 and sdurani is doing #3?

 

I am certainly aiming to do #1. But we all have different goals, different needs, and different rooms. Remember my own room is a pig. It is small, it is square. But, most importantly, it is dedicated. So I can do whatever I need to do in there to improve the sound. Most do not have this luxury and their rooms have to double as normal living spaces. If that was the case here, I would not pursue this objective - there is no way I could. I would absolutely definitely not want to 'live' in this room! 


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 04:39 AM 11-08-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

post your mdat file

it says that file not allowed as an ext...

 

Zip up the mdat and post it as a ZIP file. Or link to it from your public folder in Dropbox. (No Dropbox account - get a free one!  They are very useful for sharing stuff with friends and family).


Brian Fineberg's Avatar Brian Fineberg 04:55 AM 11-08-2013
I seem to have a null right around 14hz...cant get rid of it...guess Ill have to wait till I build a dedicated room:


Tags: Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew
First ... 215  216  217 218  219  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop