or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How... - Page 92

post #2731 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I think we're getting to the 'going around in circles' stage so maybe we should consider drawing this to a close soon?  I was just trying to say that the dialogue and other 'noises' in the soundtrack are all considered as one by the mixer when he is producing a balanced mix (on a properly mixed track). If the dialogue cannot be clearly heard when reproduced through a capable system that is properly set up, then there is either a problem with the mix or a problem with the room.
Oh, the list is a lot longer than that Keith. Dialog intelligibility is due to higher frequencies where the speaker dominates, not the room. I sat in a double blind test at Harman of speakers and the difference in each speaker with respect to dialog was night and day even though the room and my seat did not change at all. Above transition frequencies of a few hundred hertz, speaker response dominates over the room. Go to any audio shop and switch between speakers and ignore the bass for a moment. Don't they sound different and hugely so even though you are in the same room and same listening position?

And no having a "capable" audio system does not mean you are hearing the same signals as the producer heard. For one thing, what is the criteria for capable? Who says yours or the mixer's speakers are capable? And that aside, capable doesn't mean hearing the same signal.

Importantly, the mixer is differently situated than you. He may listen to the same track many times. He may have the script, etc. In other words, he may know what the words are unlike us listening for the first time to the movie soundtrack.
Quote:
If we discount problems with the mix (but it makes no sense to optimise one's room for bad mixes) then there is just the room. In my room, treating it to remove reflections as far as possible improved dialogue intelligibility significantly. That's all I can say really.
Optimizing for good dialog performance is a benefit to good and bad mixes. It does not have a down side in that regard. As to your experience, the improvement may be for an entirely different reason which I explained in the last post. Early reflections (i.e. less than 0.1 seconds) are useful and what this discussion is about. Later reflections (>0.1 seconds) reduce dialog intelligibility although they do improve subjective preference for music and such. When you add absorption of any kind, you are not only reducing early reflections but also the late ones. You may very well be benefiting from the latter and not the former. The way to know which is which is to put the absorber elsewhere and perform some kind of blind experiment to know if that has the same result or not. If it does, then it is the late reflections that are having that impact on you and the point is not supportive of suppressing early reflections.

Alas, conducting the above tests without bias and potential for placebo is hard. So best thing is to start with the position of research community here as opposed to what we think is right. And that position is not that all reflections are bad. Some are good and one needs to acknowledge that.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2732 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Even more interesting:  what are you doing to tame the reflective harshness of a tile floor in your listening room?  eek.gif



It's a wood floor with plain linoleum tiles. The spikes actually rest on hard rubber pads for more isolation.

 

It's still going to be pretty reflective though, to Jerry's point...

post #2733 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I suspect we are boring the other members now, as none have joined in, so if you want to leave it here, that's fine by me.
Keith, I'm putting my reply in spoiler tags so that readers bored of this discussion won't have to view the text.

BTW, if you're one of those members, then you merely have to say so in your reply to close out this discussion. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If we discount problems with the mix (but it makes no sense to optimise one's room for bad mixes) then there is just the room. In my room, treating it to remove reflections as far as possible improved dialogue intelligibility significantly.
If it makes no sense to treat a room for bad mixes, why did you treat your room to improve dialogue intelligibility? Or would you contend that improved intelligibility was a byproduct of you normally treating the side walls, because then the same can be said for those that leave their side walls bare. So the "optimize the room for bad mixes" argument is a red herring, since neither side is doing that. Both are setting things up based on their preference, and claiming improved intelligibility as a happy side effect.

But if you review the research on early reflections, dating back to Helmut Haas, then you'd be hard pressed to find results that show early reflections having a negative effect on intelligibility, with most results ranging from neutral to positive effects. So using intelligibility as an excuse to fiberglass side wall reflections away isn't supported by research. Doing it for personal preference is a different story. For example: Kevin Voecks of Revel Speakers has absorbtion across the entire length of his side walls, which puts him at odds with his Harman brethren (Toole, Olive, Devantier). But that's what he prefers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

My comments on all reflections being bad were, as all my comments are unless specifically mentioned otherwise, in connection with HT rooms not two channel listening spaces, which I believe are different and have different requirements (hence my keeping them as two separate rooms).
In your 2 channel room, you have vocals coming from two speakers. In your HT room, you typically have dialogue coming from one speaker. When it comes to speech intelligibility, that's not much of a difference in direct sound vs reflected sound.

HT rooms can afford to be more absorbent, since you have speakers reproducing recorded ambience, but that doesn't mean they have to be more absorbent. By comparison, it pays to be careful how much absorbtion you use with 2-speaker playback, since you're using the room as a surround processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Well, if we are meaning Nyal, he doesn't say what you seem to be saying he says.
I'll reference what you posted earlier: "What I am trying to do is understand why he is saying that bare side walls aid speech intelligibility in a properly set up HT...". So the "preference" argument is another red herring, since his subjective preference is not the discussion, but something more objective: intelligibility. Forget his preference and ask yourself why he is saying that bare side walls aid speech intelligibility in a properly set up HT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The other room is 2ch stereo and is a normal living room. I have possibly learned to hear through the room over the years or maybe I am less critical in that room. Also, most of my musical tastes mean that I only very rarely listen to tracks that have dialogue in them (vocals) so discussing dialogue intelligibility in that context is probably not relevant. But I doubt if it side wall reflections that contribute to the intelligibility of the vocals I do occasionally listen to. These would mainly be Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Nat Cole, Sinatra etc and they all have very clear diction and are very well mic'd by their producers, so probably not a very good test.
You've learned to "hear through" the reflections in your casual living room but never learned to do that in your dedicated theatre room? Ella, Nat and Frank have "very clear diction" compared to the actors speaking dialogue in the movies you've watched? Those music recordings had well miked singers compared to the close miked dialogue in movies?

Keith, look at the excuses you have to resort to in order to explain why your normally furnished living room with no treatments doesn't exhibit the kind of intelligibility problems that you say would occur in your HT if you didn't fiberglass the reflections away. Is the alternate explanation, that the untreated reflections in your living room aren't as damaging as you believe, so unreasonable to consider? Reminds me of a Toole quote: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'm not really after 'preference' in the HT (but yes for the 2ch room). In the HT I am after accuracy.
Accuracy to what? Amir posted the measurements of something like 20 film mixing stages and movie theatres. None of them measure the same. So even in an industry that has reference standards (as opposed to the music biz), we have no idea whether the people doing the mixing were hearing the soundtrack in a room that adhered to those standards. With that in mind, I'm not quite sure what you think your HT room is accurate to.
post #2734 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Even more interesting: what are you doing to tame the reflective harshness of a tile floor in your listening room? eek.gif

It's a wood floor with plain linoleum tiles. The spikes actually rest on hard rubber pads for more isolation.

It's still going to be pretty reflective though, to Jerry's point...

I have to look that up. I thought the reflectivity had to do with linoleum on cement floors. Anyway I have a large area rug covering most of the floor. I hope that helps.

I will post measurements later today of the subs and see the effect with and without the stands. Finally got around to reading the Welcome to Audyssey MutiEQ FAQ and Audyssey 101 help guides and discovered, among other interesting things, that the low sub signal is normal during calibration. Wish I had read it sooner.
post #2735 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I suspect we are boring the other members now, as none have joined in, so if you want to leave it here, that's fine by me.
Keith, I'm putting my reply in spoiler tags so that readers bored of this discussion won't have to view the text.

BTW, if you're one of those members, then you merely have to say so in your reply to close out this discussion.

 

Hey Sanjay!  Good idea that... I have guests here today so I will reply asap. I am interested in the discussion but not sure we are really getting anywhere with it (that will be my fault not yours). I'll reply later... Cheers, Keith

post #2736 of 9622
No rush Keith. We can even continue via PM if you prefer.
post #2737 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

In the context of discussing speech intelligibility, it is simply content that is not speech.

im afraid i do not follow your logic.
how is the perceived gain of the speech increased (due to multiple indirect signals arriving within the "time-smearing" haas zone), yet the rest of the content in the mix (the "noise", apparently) not?

are the speakers magically only directing "speech content" to the sidewalls and not the remainder of the recording/reproduction??
or is the ear-brain system suddenly only fusing the speech signals and not the non-speech signals??

if the sidewalls are bare (this particular example), then both the "speech" and the "noise" (remainder of the content) have increased perceived gain. if the center channel is only producing dialog, then i can agree there - , but the speech intelligibility is only increasing by nature of being "heard" - NOT articulation and other aspects of speech. so you are making a compromise.

gain is but one aspect of speech intelligibility

when someone mentioned turning up the center channel gain, you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That solution means those folks are: a) turning up everything else in the centre channel as well,

yes, and "everything else" (the "noise") being reproduced in the center channel is also perceived as higher gain due to sidewall reflections!!


this isn't the same context as the unamplified speech room studies constantly presented - as in those cases, the source (human speaking) is the speech only - and the speech intelligibility is increased due to higher perceived gain against the ambient noise floor (thus, increasing SNR and increasing speech intelligibility by allowing the speech to be heard).

there is no increased perceived gain of the "noise" as the human is not contributing to the "noise" - there is no "everything else".


speech room: fused indirect signals contribute to increased perceived gain of speech only (perceived gain of noise does not increase).
reproduction room/theater: fused indirect signals contribute to increased perceived gain of the speech and the noise (the remainder of the content that is "not speech", as you state).

it is apples to oranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The Haas fusion zone is only a fusion zone when it comes to localization (i.e., we hear the direct sound and its early reflection from one fused location rather than two different directions). For other aspects, like intelligibility, we not only hear early reflections but benefit from them. Everyone from hearing-aid designers to conference room architects will tell you that.

any citation or clarification on how you can insist that indirect signals arriving within the fusion zone are only relevant to "localization". this is easily disproved with headphones (delayed signal) or in the exaggerated case of any auditorium or large space with mis-aligned PA or lack of early reflection control (where gain is more than adequate yet what is being spoken is nothing but an unintelligible blob).

tell me about the speech intelligibility issues you experience when you wear headphones; do you perceived increase in speech intelligibility when you add delayed copies of the signal?
Edited by localhost127 - 5/1/13 at 8:14am
post #2738 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

tell me about the speech intelligibility issues you experience when you wear headphones?

When I wear headphones, I can't understand anything anyone says to me.

biggrin.gif

Can this discussion go elsewhere, please.

Michael

post #2739 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

When I wear headphones, I can't understand anything anyone says to me.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
Quote:
Can this discussion go elsewhere, please.
Michael
We have gone 92 pages on how to measure. Surely this is time to figure out what to do when you have measurements, no? The current stated remedies do not pass the test of scientific research in acoustics leading people to run and potentially make the sound in their rooms worse, not better. What is the point of measuring if there is no interest in understanding what to do about the data???
post #2740 of 9622
Jerry, here are the results. I did not have time to run a test with the sub on the floor.

The red line is with no room correction. The blue line shows Audyssey and Anti-Mode enabled. The difference with the stand is amazing, but what really worked was using the crossover settings established by Audyssey. Actually, the ones that worked for me are the fronts and center at 50 Hz and the surrounds set to 80. Will this ruin my amps???

I will post more tonight. Must leave for work.

Left speaker, 1/6 smoothing
post #2741 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

We have gone 92 pages on how to measure. Surely this is time to figure out what to do when you have measurements, no? The current stated remedies do not pass the test of scientific research in acoustics leading people to run and potentially make the sound in their rooms worse, not better. What is the point of measuring if there is no interest in understanding what to do about the data???

It is 28 pages for us power users with it set to 100 posts per page. wink.gif

Anyway, I agree with you, but offer the following observations: Some members may be here because the first word in the thread is "Simplified", and they may consider this "remedy" too complex? I don't know for sure, because I have not read through the entire thread; I only subscribed recently.

When it comes to reflections, it would seem one needs to examine them as Nyal's article suggested; in bandpass filtered in one-octave segments (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz). I think that can be done with one full-range measurement and then just making several ETC's as noted. I have only set up REW (A special shout out to AustinJerry's Guide), but have not yet measured my speakers. However, based on my research (REW Help on HT Shack), I think my assumption is correct.

I think in order to continue the discussion here, we should probably get confirmation from Jerry that he is thinking to modify his guide based on this discussion. If that is not the case, perhaps the relevant posts (starting from when Jerry first brought up Nyal's article) should be moved to the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread.

What I would not prefer to happen is that many posts go back and forth trying to convince Keith of what he should do with his room; it is his room, his ears, and his preference. For reflections, it has been stated to first measure, and then try different treatment / non-treatment methodologies to determine what the user's PREFERENCE is for reflections, and then proceed accordingly. As also pointed out, this is not easy to do, so might be at odds with the "Simplified" word in the title of this thread.

For me, I would like to see the discussion moved to the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread, but alas, I am not an administrator. What I think should happen is that all the theories on reflections are combined into a document and then digested into specific instructions on how to achieve the goals of the theories. Let the user read the arguments and research for all theories on reflections, like time decay (10ms or 15-20ms), attenuation (-10dB or -15 to -20dB), and let them decide how to proceed.

As some of you know from my work on the "Audyssey Setup Guide", I am a pretty competent "collector" of information. While some may think I am too thorough, and desire more distilled instructions, I prefer to have too much information rather than too little. Forturnately, Keith stepped in to create the Audyssey FAQ and 101 guides for those who considered my document too cumbersome to read through in its entirety. After all, It takes all kinds to make the world go around, gents.

I have been collecting little pieces of information from the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread for several years, in preparation for when I finally got around to measuring my room. A few months ago, I decided to take action, and printed the entirety of the REW help guide, and read through it while commuting. After reading that, I still didn't know (exactly) how to set up REW or what measurements to take, but thanks to Jerry's Guide, both of these are laid out. That said, the information I had collected in the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread for several years dictated a more complex measurement set than what is outlined in Jerry's guide.

I have limited time in my life, and wanted to have all my ducks in a row before I proceeded, so that I could be sure I was doing it right the first time. So, what I have done (for my own edification) was to create a document that has detailed instructions on what to measure, how to measure, how to create graphs from those measurements, how to interpret the measurements, and how to fix issues. This is mostly based on information collected from the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread over the course of several years. I also have various theories represented in the document, so that I can reference why I may have written a certain recommendation in the instructions. My plan was to present the document for comment in the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread, to ensure my thinking was correct. It was almost ready, but now I have to incorporate Nyal's reflection measurement guidelines noted in his article.

Perhaps the document would be useful to some in this thread, once it has been completed and subsequently vetted.

Mark
post #2742 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by giomania View Post

It is 28 pages for us power users with it set to 100 posts per page. wink.gif
Well, for the point I was trying to make, the normal mode of reading was far more effective. biggrin.gif Thanks for the well reasoned post. Some comments below.
Quote:
Anyway, I agree with you, but offer the following observations: Some members may be here because the first word in the thread is "Simplified", and they may consider this "remedy" too complex? I don't know for sure, because I have not read through the entire thread; I only subscribed recently.
We have had a few moments of deep dive into theory so far but at every instance, it was thought that we should finish the front-end of this process, i.e. measurement, the guide, etc. before digging in. And hence my question of when this thread will turn into what I thought it was going to be at the start: i.e. "How To Interpret Graphs" as the title says. Vast amount of consensus on the Internet forums runs counter to research into acoustic science. I was hoping this thread was the place where we would inject that knowledge. That knowledge actually changes what is measured even and certainly what to do about the measurements.
Quote:
When it comes to reflections, it would seem one needs to examine them as Nyal's article suggested; in bandpass filtered in one-octave segments (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz). I think that can be done with one full-range measurement and then just making several ETC's as noted. I have only set up REW (A special shout out to AustinJerry's Guide), but have not yet measured my speakers. However, based on my research (REW Help on HT Shack), I think my assumption is correct.
This is one of those cases where insight into what the measurements mean, actually heavily simplifies what one needs to do. Specifically that school of thought says to disregard ETC measurements altogether! Yes, Nyal has a novel but in my opinion limited use of it to determine symmetry with use of ETC. I think for people getting into this field, they are better off not focusing at all on ETC. I can give the reasons but for now, let's focus on the meta point which is the fact that lack of rigor and dive into the science has actually gotten us into performing measurements and creating data that may not be necessary or harmful in how we apply it.

To speak more broadly, understanding the underlying signal processing and science of sound is critical in knowing whether a measurement is right or wrong or whether it is being applied correctly. We have skipped over that step in this thread and in creating the guide. What should we do now? Or rather, what the few of us should do that see those issues? Not provide the reasons why? Go do it elsewhere? The latter is where I am leaning (i.e. have it in WBF forum). It is up to people reading this thread to decide.
Quote:
I think in order to continue the discussion here, we should probably get confirmation from Jerry that he is thinking to modify his guide based on this discussion. If that is not the case, perhaps the relevant posts (starting from when Jerry first brought up Nyal's article) should be moved to the Acoustic Treatments Master Thread.
Agree that with OP gone, Jerry is our de-facto thread owner so I too would look to his direction on what to do. Ironically, we got into this topic because of his comment on ETC and interpretation of the same in his room! smile.gif I don't agree that we should go to Master thread though. I have not looked at that thread lately but it is not a place we would want to send people too. It is way too long, and way too olde in early parts. At least I know I won't be motivated go o and post there smile.gif.
Quote:
What I would not prefer to happen is that many posts go back and forth trying to convince Keith of what he should do with his room; it is his room, his ears, and his preference. For reflections, it has been stated to first measure, and then try different treatment / non-treatment methodologies to determine what the user's PREFERENCE is for reflections, and then proceed accordingly. As also pointed out, this is not easy to do, so might be at odds with the "Simplified" word in the title of this thread.
I didn't think we were discussing his room. I thought he was disagreeing with the science of acoustics and to back his points, he would talk about his experience with his room. The topic is generic: what do you do about reflections in your room? What do you do about measuring the same? What is in the measurement? When is it correct and when is it not? What leads to better sound? These actually have simple answers per above but currently we are knee deep into the complicated version of them.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful and measured response smile.gif.
post #2743 of 9622
Mark and Amir, thanks for your thoughts. As for my intentions, I have no plans to extend the Guide to include interpreting measurements and recommending corrective actions. It is fairly straight-forward to publish a cookbook on how to set up REW and take basic measurements. It's an order of magnitude more difficult to try and sort out all the differing philosophies on how to use the measurements. I am not remotely qualified for such an undertaking.

HST, I think is is perfectly acceptable to have theoretical discussions in this thread, as long as we don't lose sight that one of our primary purposes is to get the novice REW user up to speed.
post #2744 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Jerry, here are the results. I did not have time to run a test with the sub on the floor.

The red line is with no room correction. The blue line shows Audyssey and Anti-Mode enabled. The difference with the stand is amazing, but what really worked was using the crossover settings established by Audyssey. Actually, the ones that worked for me are the fronts and center at 50 Hz and the surrounds set to 80. Will this ruin my amps???

I will post more tonight. Must leave for work.

Left speaker, 1/6 smoothing

The response with Audyssey and AntiMode enabled actually looks quite good. Subject to the amount of time you want to spend on measurements, here are some things that would be interesting to see:

1. A comparison showing the difference with sub on the stand vs. sub on the floor. A meaningful comparison would hold all other variables constant, I.e. crossover settings, use of both Audyssey and AntiMode, sub location, etc. This comparison would take some effort, but ultimately it is a comparison you should be making. All my tests with an elevated sub concluded that elevation produced worse results, so it will be interesting to see if your case is different.

2. A waterfall graph showing bass frequency decay. Measure L+R+Subs, show 40Hz-300Hz, 50dB-100dB, with time parameter at 300ms, or 450ms if 300ms looks bad.

3. Re-publish the measurement you posted earlier, but show the bass frequencies only, 15-300Hz, with no smoothing. It will be interesting to see how smooth the bass response really is with the subs elevated.
post #2745 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Mark and Amir, thanks for your thoughts. As for my intentions, I have no plans to extend the Guide to include interpreting measurements and recommending corrective actions. It is fairly straight-forward to publish a cookbook on how to set up REW and take basic measurements. It's an order of magnitude more difficult to try and sort out all the differing philosophies on how to use the measurements. I am not remotely qualified for such an undertaking.

HST, I think is is perfectly acceptable to have theoretical discussions in this thread, as long as we don't lose sight that one of our primary purposes is to get the novice REW user up to speed.

Jerry,

I was not thinking to extend it, but to simply change the measurements section. However, you did say the goal was to take "basic" measurements, which you have covered.

In my process (yet to be vetted), I have 48 individual measurements (insane, I know), but 21 of those are for near-field on and off-axis response, and the remainder are for far-field response including the room. That is not what I would expect most to consider basic.

Mark
post #2746 of 9622
Still, I would enjoy the opportunity of reviewing your work when it is ready for feedback, Mark.
post #2747 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I think for people getting into this field, they are better off not focusing at all on ETC. I can give the reasons but for now, let's focus on the meta point which is the fact that lack of rigor and dive into the science has actually gotten us into performing measurements and creating data that may not be necessary or harmful in how we apply it.
I agree. A straight ETC is too easy to take it out of context, especially for people just getting started with room acoustic analysis. User error as Localhost calls it, especially if this guide is not going to get into interpretation.

Maybe examination of ETC could fit into an advanced section? Lately I have also been playing around with the relatively new smoothed waterfall capability in REW to look and mid and high frequency sound decay patterns.

For most people I think REW's use is to sort out their bass issues. From doing acoustic analysis, design and calibration work that's the common problem nearly every single listening room and home theater has and where REW is really powerful in terms of the tools it gives you to optimize things. Dare I say it but I don't think there is much disagreement on the targets for things like frequency response, modal decay, etc as well.
post #2748 of 9622
W
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Jerry, here are the results. I did not have time to run a test with the sub on the floor.

The red line is with no room correction. The blue line shows Audyssey and Anti-Mode enabled. The difference with the stand is amazing, but what really worked was using the crossover settings established by Audyssey. Actually, the ones that worked for me are the fronts and center at 50 Hz and the surrounds set to 80. Will this ruin my amps???

I will post more tonight. Must leave for work.

Left speaker, 1/6 smoothing

Wow. Your audyssey and antimode made ridiculous improvement. I did not get all that big improvement from my audyssey multieq. What version of audyssey are you using?

I am nearly complete with my 4 inch 15 sound panels. 5 of which will be used as bass traps in the corners. I will report when I get it set up and remeasure.

Here is 4 inch mineral wool absorption. It's the 8 pcf


PRODUCT THICKNESS DENSITY 125HZ 250HZ 500HZ 1000HZ 2000HZ 4000HZ NRC
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 1.5" (38mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.13 0.48 1.02 1.08 1.02 1.01 0.90
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 2" (51mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.20 0.61 1.07 1.06 1.04 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 4" (102mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.88 1.14 1.17 1.08 1.06 1.10 1.10
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 6" (152mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.32 1.14 1.11 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.10
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 1.5" (38mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.18 0.62 1.08 1.08 1.03 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 2" (51mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.25 0.85 1.15 1.10 1.04 1.06 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 3" (76mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.80 1.07 1.11 0.99 0.98 0.96 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 4" (102mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.99 1.01 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 1.5" (38mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 0.13 0.64 1.08 1.08 1.04 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 2" (51mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 0.32 0.90 1.11 1.07 1.01 1.05 1.00
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 4" (102mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 1.11 0.91 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.00
post #2749 of 9622
I am just getting started with REW and had a very basic question.

Is there a downside to running REW through the Airplay feature found on some receivers? I have a Denon 4311 and the airplay upgrade and I can change my speakers from my macbook output to the Denon 4311 and run test tones this way. Is there a certain mode I should have the receiver set to?
post #2750 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The response with Audyssey and AntiMode enabled actually looks quite good. Subject to the amount of time you want to spend on measurements, here are some things that would be interesting to see:

1. A comparison showing the difference with sub on the stand vs. sub on the floor. A meaningful comparison would hold all other variables constant, I.e. crossover settings, use of both Audyssey and AntiMode, sub location, etc. This comparison would take some effort, but ultimately it is a comparison you should be making. All my tests with an elevated sub concluded that elevation produced worse results, so it will be interesting to see if your case is different.

2. A waterfall graph showing bass frequency decay. Measure L+R+Subs, show 40Hz-300Hz, 50dB-100dB, with time parameter at 300ms, or 450ms if 300ms looks bad.

3. Re-publish the measurement you posted earlier, but show the bass frequencies only, 15-300Hz, with no smoothing. It will be interesting to see how smooth the bass response really is with the subs elevated.

Thanks, Jerry. I'll post the results as soon as I can. I want to know, too, if the difference is real or imagined.

BTW, I returned one of the two ULS-15 subs I ordered last month. There was only one spot for it in the room which placed it in the center of the apartment, where bass output is nil. I have the other ULS paired with a Hsu VTF-2, instead. It's smaller, but quite powerful and fits nicely on a side wall.

Also, the ULS sits on the stand that I made; the VTF is purched on a table. I guess I'll have to move them both when I run REW.

Since I will be moving the subs, will it be necessary to recalibrate with Audyssey?
post #2751 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp5475 View Post

W
Wow. Your audyssey and antimode made ridiculous improvement. I did not get all that big improvement from my audyssey multieq. What version of audyssey are you using?

I am nearly complete with my 4 inch 15 sound panels. 5 of which will be used as bass traps in the corners. I will report when I get it set up and remeasure.

Here is 4 inch mineral wool absorption. It's the 8 pcf


PRODUCT THICKNESS DENSITY 125HZ 250HZ 500HZ 1000HZ 2000HZ 4000HZ NRC
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 1.5" (38mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.13 0.48 1.02 1.08 1.02 1.01 0.90
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 2" (51mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.20 0.61 1.07 1.06 1.04 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 4" (102mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.88 1.14 1.17 1.08 1.06 1.10 1.10
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1240 6" (152mm) 4 pcf (64 kg/m^3) 0.32 1.14 1.11 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.10
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 1.5" (38mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.18 0.62 1.08 1.08 1.03 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 2" (51mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.25 0.85 1.15 1.10 1.04 1.06 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 3" (76mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.80 1.07 1.11 0.99 0.98 0.96 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1260 4" (102mm) 6 pcf (96 kg/m^3) 0.99 1.01 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.05
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 1.5" (38mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 0.13 0.64 1.08 1.08 1.04 1.07 0.95
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 2" (51mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 0.32 0.90 1.11 1.07 1.01 1.05 1.00
MinWool-1200 Industrial Board 1280 4" (102mm) 8 pcf (128 kg/m^3) 1.11 0.91 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.00

Thanks, the Onkyo 818 has XT32.

I have OC 703/705 panels. Please post you results.
post #2752 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post



Since I will be moving the subs, will it be necessary to recalibrate with Audyssey?

Unfortunately, yes. As I said, the comparison would involve a bit of work, but ultimately, you should want to know which option is better. If you plan on keeping the sub elevated no matter what, then maybe it isn't worth the effort.

I don't recall which AVR you have. Some Denon models allow you to do a network configuration save, so you can save the current calibration, re-position the sub, run a new calibration, and then restore the previous calibration when you elevate the sub again.
post #2753 of 9622
Thread Starter 
Hi everybody,

A few comments and questions...

First, Please don't take my lack of posts recently as evidence that I'm "gone" as I am far from gone and read every single post in this (and many other) threads every single day, 7 days a week.

I have not participated in this thread for awhile for a few reasons.

First, Jerry (and a few others) has done a remarkable job getting folks set up and measuring and understanding the basics. This was the first step.

Second, I believe the majority of folks that are interested in this topic have now had time to stumble upon this thread and get involved. I always hope there will be more people than learn how important acoustics design and implementation in their rooms is and that more individuals will realize that the most drastic improvements they'll be able to make in their system is acoustically treating their rooms and not spending $1000's on new gear.

I don't have the time to help each person individually and I'm not trying to sell any products or services to people. I have no vested interest whatsoever and any information I present or have presented is with the sole intention to give back to the folks that helped me get interested in acoustics on the many forums I've read for many years. AVS, unlike Gearslutz and HTShack doesn't have many threads (and hardly any "active") dedicated to acoustical science and my goal was to change that.

I believe we are to the point now that folks are comfortable taking measurements and for the most part have any/all issues worked out with the hardware and setup.

While waiting for this to occur and things to calm down, I have let the thread get a bit derailed and I apologize for that.

Here's the thing, though. I have absolutely no issues with people who are genuinely interested in assisting people learn about acoustics because it is their passion, like mine, discussing and disagreeing with the methods I have intended to teach, but I've felt many times that the participants in this thread have been purposely confused and derailed by a certain poster who has even made remarks about me and my competency in the field of acoustics in at least one other thread.

There will always be disagreements on the best way to implement a certain design and I'm all for an adult conversation with points to argue from reasonable and respectful individuals that are passionate about their field, but when folks who have an ulterior motive chime in only to disagree, start arguments, and confuse people that are just starting to learn, it's a real turn off for me and them.

The first step was introducing folks to a new and easier way to take measurements and getting everyone on the same page with how to display and interpret the measurements themselves.

I believe we've accomplished that.

The second part has always been Choosing an acoustical model. Folks need to start doing this. Although Keith, for instance, hasn't specified this, through his last several comments he has made it clear he prefers an NE (Non-Environment) model for his room. That's great! I can help him achieve that.

I personally prefer a LEDE/RFZ (RFZ is nothing more than a method to achieve LEDE and is "NOT" a separate model as a lot of people think)

There are a few posters here, in my absence, I tend to agree with on most points and I'm going to single them out.

Localhost and I seem to be on the same page. I don't know where his education came from, nor does it matter, because I haven't found even one single error he's made in any of his posts on this (and a few other) thread.

Nyal and I agree with most targets and Nyal's comments are probably easier to understand and appreciate as he has a gentle way of speaking and trying to disseminate the information. While Nyal and I disagree on the use and importance of the ETC (If I were sent to a desert island and could only take ONE tool, it would be the ETC because if you know how to properly use and interpret it, you don't even need the FR or Waterfall!) and the targets he suggests for reflections, we tend to agree with most other things. While I haven't had the opportunity to meet Nyal or even speak with him one-on-one, I do know his partner on his latest white paper, Jeff Hedback, and have the utmost respect for him.

For those of you who don't want to wait and don't want to have to figure out who is right or wrong and who to listen to or not on this and many other threads, I highly recommend the following publications:

These are likely available at your local library and are all available in digital format for the Kindle through Amazon. Most of my education comes from reading, interpreting, and applying the knowledge gained in real world situations from these publications.

Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers: Trevor Cox and Peter D'Antonio - This book is THE Bible on creating and implementing each and every type of absorber and diffuser and is written by the folks from RPG which are the original creators of several products such as the BAD panel and 1D QRD diffuser. There is a lot more to acoustics than just throwing up fuzzy stuff/glass on walls and getting rid of all the reflections and this is the book that will teach you how to design and build the proper acoustical treatments, once you understand exactly what your goals are.

Master Handbook Of Acoustics: I believe most in this thread who are interested in this topic have probably heard of this book. This is where I'd start and in fact where I did start many years ago. This is a great text with introductory information on all the topics I'd like to discuss here eventually.

Sound System Engineering: Don Davis - EVERYTHING you need to know is in this book. It is rather advanced and has yucky math, however, I cannot recommend this text enough. I just bought another copy (older print, but still very useful) on eBay for less than $5.00 for the sole purpose of sharing it/loaning it to whoever may be interested - contact me if you are interested in reading this book and cannot find it at your local library and/or cannot afford the almost $200 asking price.

If you are reading this post, read (and possibly participate in) this thread, have REW set up, are taking measurements, and have a basic understanding of them - and most importantly - if this applies to "most" people in this thread, then we are ready to move on.

The problem right now, as I see it, and what is holding me up from personally participating more is that there isn't agreement and the folks that are disseminating most of the information don't even agree.

So... Like most things in life you have to decide who to listen to and who to ignore.

If you read and understand, or at a minimum at least "TRUST" the authors above and the information contained in their texts, then rest assured that I too, agree with what they have written and what I offer is teachings from their books based on my understanding of them.

If everyone will kindly refer to the first few posts I made in this thread, you'll find a link that describes the different acoustical models and I bet you'll agree with one of them at this point.

It is okay for people to argue for their preferred model. Nyal has even made his own which doesn't exactly conform to any long standing and widely accepted acoustical model and that is fine, too.

However, once you CHOOSE a model, there are strict guidelines for implementation and you'll be able (with help from myself and the other members of this thread who are "in the know" and as everyone gets on board and learns more, folks like Keith and Jerry et al will also be giving back and helping folks understand how to interpret, select, and implement these models for their own rooms - I'm sure of it!) to successfully implement said model - or at least that's the goal.

We must start somewhere. I think it's time for the arguing, especially by folks that claim to be professionals, to stop, for folks to CHOOSE a model, based on whatever their preferences are, and this is where PREFERENCES ARE ALLOWED - then.... We must stick to the guidelines of chosen model as closely as we can, understanding there are always budget constraints, aesthetic restraints, etc, and focus more on how to achieve our own preferred goals instead of trying to convince folks what is right or wrong.

For those of you that understand what I'm trying to say and especially those of you who I've called out, you'll probably realize I'm not the best at explaining things in 100 words or less so feel free to interpret this post and re-write it to explain exactly what I'm trying to get at.

To sum up, PICK A MODEL - List your model - I'll take the most popular request to start explaining the guidelines and we'll start working towards achieving it in your room right here on this thread.

For those of you who are NOT interested in moving forward in this fashion and are here to promote your name, company, products, or simply those of you who wish to be contrarian, I humbly suggest you bow out now. In fact, one person stated he'd do just that near the beginning of this thread and has not been a man of his word and has even gone on to badmouth me in other threads!!

I wish to continue in this thread and wish to help people. I just don't have the time or energy to fight along the way, though.

I have the information and am willing to share it if you are interested though.

For those of you who want to know my credentials and wonder who I am and where I'm coming from:

I have been in business for myself since 1995. I was 15 when I started my business. The company started as a computer store offering on-site service to consumers and business/government in OH/KY/WV. I opened my first retail location in 1997. In 1998 I started selling Cell Phones as our market had just gone digital and I found the profits to be more than (or at least on par with) selling computers, however, selling cell phones had none of the after sale headaches such as warranty repairs, tech support, etc, so I started focusing more on that.

Over the years I grew to 14 retail locations (only selling cell phones), a limousine company, and a Mexican restaurant, all while keeping that first (and only) computer store.

When I was 14, I got into Hi-Fi and my first large component purchase, after an "Optimus" (Rat Shack) receiver and 12 band EQ was a Sony CDP-CX270 200 disc CD Player that had Video Out!! It was eerily similar to the current BDP-CX7000es in form and function and I was hooked.

I soon upgraded to Alesis Studio Reference monitors, as even at the age of 17 I was all about accuracy and started studying acoustics in my spare time.

Acoustics, engineering, and social networking (and no, I don't mean facebook/twitter - of which I do not have an account at EITHER) have always been passions of mine and my passion for 2-channel accuracy soon turned into a passion for Home Theater and learning/implementing everything I could.

I subscribe to/am a member of all the well known audio societies/journal's and have read most texts on acoustics through the years. I have quite the collection, all in PDF format, of acoustical documents/texts/research and a few years ago became fascinated at the shear volume of information available for those who know where to look, such as all the BBC research on absorbers.

Although I'm very busy and spend ALL (I'm single) of my free time reading about acoustics and upgrading/building my dedicated room (it's a never ending process) I have never turned it into a full time business or made much of a profit as an attempt to have at least a bit of balance in my life and to try to still have a "hobby" and "fun" although I have to admit there have been several times, even recently, I've thought about getting into this business as I don't feel there are many truly passionate, educated, and well-meaning folks in this business - plus I have several innovative ideas about how to both build and market cost effective (read: inexpensive) absorbers and diffusers and for those of you who've looked at the price of TRUE (based on real science and design) QRD diffusors, they are extremely expensive.

So while I cannot promise I'll never enter this field as a business, rest assured I bring this information to you and share with you what I've learned and been involved with for more than half of my life with no ulterior motive and for no other reason than it is my passion and I'd love to see more people take an interest.

My parents are both retired teachers who became principal's and most of my family are either educators or doctor's. I am probably the WORST teacher in the world, but I do at least have a passion for the topic at hand and with the help of other forum members, I hope you'll be able to understand my writings, interpret, and condense them as Jerry already did on the wonderfully written guide.

I'm an open book and willing to share, willing to teach, and willing to assist in all aspects of acoustics, but again, I don't have time to argue and it's really off putting when certain members either have not read the first few posts of this thread or simply ignore the requests within them. I have no interest in speaking with or doing business with these shady characters and hope most folks have learned (just as I had to do) who to listen to and who to ignore but the ultimate goal is to not have to do that at all and get everyone on the same page.

Again, it's okay to have preferences and even okay to tout the benefits of your chosen model, but at least CHOOSE ONE so we can start discussing how to PROPERLY implement it.

If certain members keep trying to get people to stay away from the ETC for instance (and this is but one recent example - not at all the whole problem) then I'm afraid it would be an uphill battle and unwinnable war that I cannot participate in to try and overcome.

Also, please don't fall into the trap of listening to the folks that are the loudest, IE: The folks with the most post counts and post in this thread the most often. If someone is here trying to dissuade you from the original goals and intent of this thread and move you to another form of thinking, their intentions probably aren't the best and that is not someone I'd want to associate with, but you must decide on your own what you believe and what your goals are.

I only hope through further posts of mine and the folks on the same page as me you'll be able to take away some great information, improve your listening experience, and may one day finally get to Audio Nirvana.

Thanks again to Jerry, Keith, Nyal, Stuart, Roger, Localhost, and a few others for participating in this thread and having everyone's best interests at heart.

Now PLEASE go check out the link in the first (or maybe second??) post of this thread, read up on the different acoustical models, CHOOSE ONE, and let's start discussing what MOST folks want to actually ACHIEVE in their own listening rooms so we can steer the thread in the proper direction and start learning how to implement them.

I'm also all for folks discussing the merits of each model and talking about WHY you chose the model you did (or at least believe in the one you'd most like to implement) as this will help other people decide.

I think most folks will probably choose LEDE or NE (and the goal isn't to have certified rooms based on information only obtained in this thread - but at least to work towards them and get as close as possible within reason) as their model, but I honestly don't know which one will win out as most popular and I think it would be confusing to actually try to teach/help people achieve both at the same time.

So I now need your help in figuring out exactly where to go from here and as long as we can all stay on the same page and discuss the topic at hand without arguing the merits of a certain tool or trying to dissuade others from implementing the model they've chosen (trying to convert people to "your way") then I'm happy to participate here as often as time allows and look forward to speaking with you all much more often.

Thanks again to all the regulars and I hope this helps us get back on track and move forward!

--J
post #2754 of 9622
So, I gave REW my first try last night.

I simply could not get my PC to put out a 7.1 connection over HDMI. It seems that windows sees my AVR as a display. I even tried an EDID override.

My AVR has a PEQ that is adjustable on all 7 channels, so I'd like to EQ and level match all 7 speakers in my theater.

I k now this thread is focused on USB mics (which I have) and HDMI connections but I see no point in fighting this anymore and am going to just go analog to the AVR. Since my AVR has 7.1 analog inputs, can I not just pipe the single analog cable into each of the 7.1 inputs one at a time as I measure each speaker, similar to what I'd do in REW by choosing one of the 8 HDMI channels?

I won't distract the thread with analog connections beyond this.
post #2755 of 9622
Finally made my way through the whole thread. Many thanks to all for the very helpful information and guides that have been provided. Below are my first set of measurements would really appreciate some opinions on the results. I have tried to follow the guidelines as in the brilliant guide and have spent the last couple of nights playing. I plan on investing in some acoustical treatments possibly GIK products could I please ask which measurements would be best suited to show what treatments I may need

Keep up the good work guys



post #2756 of 9622
@Scubasteve

REW outputs a mono signal, so if you were to route this signal to the 7.1 analog inputs on your AVR, you should be able to accomplish what you are trying to do.
post #2757 of 9622
@Jsyboy,

The graphs actually look pretty good. What is it that you see, or hear, that you think needs improving? Also, providing a little information about your listening room, equipment, and objectives would be useful.
post #2758 of 9622
Thanks for the reply AustinJerry

I'm relatively new to all this having not heard a properly treated room before I guess I am wanting to ensure I'm getting the best I can out of my equipment. With that in mind I thought room treatment would be worth while investigating.

I run 2x dual stacks of DXD12012 subs and MK S150’s LCR, MK SS150 as side surrounds and 550THX's as rears. The amp is a marantz AV8801 with AB Systems power amps. My room is 11x18x8 ft (wlh) and sort of multipurpose but the main focus is movie watching on the projector.
post #2759 of 9622
Hi jevansoh!

Thanks again for starting this thread and want to also thank many others(Jerry, Keith and others). Its been amazing experience and hope to learn much as I can.

Since we now want to choose a model, I think I am in the same camp as Keith, NE model. I hope to learn from you and others about this model.

Thanks again.

DL
post #2760 of 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevansoh View Post

Hi everybody,

A few comments and questions...

First, Please don't take my lack of posts recently as evidence that I'm "gone" as I am far from gone and read every single post in this (and many other) threads every single day, 7 days a week.

I have not participated in this thread for awhile for a few reasons.

First, Jerry (and a few others) has done a remarkable job getting folks set up and measuring and understanding the basics. This was the first step.

Second, I believe the majority of folks that are interested in this topic have now had time to stumble upon this thread and get involved. I always hope there will be more people than learn how important acoustics design and implementation in their rooms is and that more individuals will realize that the most drastic improvements they'll be able to make in their system is acoustically treating their rooms and not spending $1000's on new gear.

I don't have the time to help each person individually and I'm not trying to sell any products or services to people. I have no vested interest whatsoever and any information I present or have presented is with the sole intention to give back to the folks that helped me get interested in acoustics on the many forums I've read for many years. AVS, unlike Gearslutz and HTShack doesn't have many threads (and hardly any "active") dedicated to acoustical science and my goal was to change that.

I believe we are to the point now that folks are comfortable taking measurements and for the most part have any/all issues worked out with the hardware and setup.

While waiting for this to occur and things to calm down, I have let the thread get a bit derailed and I apologize for that.

Here's the thing, though. I have absolutely no issues with people who are genuinely interested in assisting people learn about acoustics because it is their passion, like mine, discussing and disagreeing with the methods I have intended to teach, but I've felt many times that the participants in this thread have been purposely confused and derailed by a certain poster who has even made remarks about me and my competency in the field of acoustics in at least one other thread.

There will always be disagreements on the best way to implement a certain design and I'm all for an adult conversation with points to argue from reasonable and respectful individuals that are passionate about their field, but when folks who have an ulterior motive chime in only to disagree, start arguments, and confuse people that are just starting to learn, it's a real turn off for me and them.

The first step was introducing folks to a new and easier way to take measurements and getting everyone on the same page with how to display and interpret the measurements themselves.

I believe we've accomplished that.

The second part has always been Choosing an acoustical model. Folks need to start doing this. Although Keith, for instance, hasn't specified this, through his last several comments he has made it clear he prefers an NE (Non-Environment) model for his room. That's great! I can help him achieve that.

I personally prefer a LEDE/RFZ (RFZ is nothing more than a method to achieve LEDE and is "NOT" a separate model as a lot of people think)

There are a few posters here, in my absence, I tend to agree with on most points and I'm going to single them out.

Localhost and I seem to be on the same page. I don't know where his education came from, nor does it matter, because I haven't found even one single error he's made in any of his posts on this (and a few other) thread.

Nyal and I agree with most targets and Nyal's comments are probably easier to understand and appreciate as he has a gentle way of speaking and trying to disseminate the information. While Nyal and I disagree on the use and importance of the ETC (If I were sent to a desert island and could only take ONE tool, it would be the ETC because if you know how to properly use and interpret it, you don't even need the FR or Waterfall!) and the targets he suggests for reflections, we tend to agree with most other things. While I haven't had the opportunity to meet Nyal or even speak with him one-on-one, I do know his partner on his latest white paper, Jeff Hedback, and have the utmost respect for him.

For those of you who don't want to wait and don't want to have to figure out who is right or wrong and who to listen to or not on this and many other threads, I highly recommend the following publications:

These are likely available at your local library and are all available in digital format for the Kindle through Amazon. Most of my education comes from reading, interpreting, and applying the knowledge gained in real world situations from these publications.

Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers: Trevor Cox and Peter D'Antonio - This book is THE Bible on creating and implementing each and every type of absorber and diffuser and is written by the folks from RPG which are the original creators of several products such as the BAD panel and 1D QRD diffuser. There is a lot more to acoustics than just throwing up fuzzy stuff/glass on walls and getting rid of all the reflections and this is the book that will teach you how to design and build the proper acoustical treatments, once you understand exactly what your goals are.

Master Handbook Of Acoustics: I believe most in this thread who are interested in this topic have probably heard of this book. This is where I'd start and in fact where I did start many years ago. This is a great text with introductory information on all the topics I'd like to discuss here eventually.

Sound System Engineering: Don Davis - EVERYTHING you need to know is in this book. It is rather advanced and has yucky math, however, I cannot recommend this text enough. I just bought another copy (older print, but still very useful) on eBay for less than $5.00 for the sole purpose of sharing it/loaning it to whoever may be interested - contact me if you are interested in reading this book and cannot find it at your local library and/or cannot afford the almost $200 asking price.

If you are reading this post, read (and possibly participate in) this thread, have REW set up, are taking measurements, and have a basic understanding of them - and most importantly - if this applies to "most" people in this thread, then we are ready to move on.

The problem right now, as I see it, and what is holding me up from personally participating more is that there isn't agreement and the folks that are disseminating most of the information don't even agree.

So... Like most things in life you have to decide who to listen to and who to ignore.

If you read and understand, or at a minimum at least "TRUST" the authors above and the information contained in their texts, then rest assured that I too, agree with what they have written and what I offer is teachings from their books based on my understanding of them.

If everyone will kindly refer to the first few posts I made in this thread, you'll find a link that describes the different acoustical models and I bet you'll agree with one of them at this point.

It is okay for people to argue for their preferred model. Nyal has even made his own which doesn't exactly conform to any long standing and widely accepted acoustical model and that is fine, too.

However, once you CHOOSE a model, there are strict guidelines for implementation and you'll be able (with help from myself and the other members of this thread who are "in the know" and as everyone gets on board and learns more, folks like Keith and Jerry et al will also be giving back and helping folks understand how to interpret, select, and implement these models for their own rooms - I'm sure of it!) to successfully implement said model - or at least that's the goal.

We must start somewhere. I think it's time for the arguing, especially by folks that claim to be professionals, to stop, for folks to CHOOSE a model, based on whatever their preferences are, and this is where PREFERENCES ARE ALLOWED - then.... We must stick to the guidelines of chosen model as closely as we can, understanding there are always budget constraints, aesthetic restraints, etc, and focus more on how to achieve our own preferred goals instead of trying to convince folks what is right or wrong.

For those of you that understand what I'm trying to say and especially those of you who I've called out, you'll probably realize I'm not the best at explaining things in 100 words or less so feel free to interpret this post and re-write it to explain exactly what I'm trying to get at.

To sum up, PICK A MODEL - List your model - I'll take the most popular request to start explaining the guidelines and we'll start working towards achieving it in your room right here on this thread.

For those of you who are NOT interested in moving forward in this fashion and are here to promote your name, company, products, or simply those of you who wish to be contrarian, I humbly suggest you bow out now. In fact, one person stated he'd do just that near the beginning of this thread and has not been a man of his word and has even gone on to badmouth me in other threads!!

I wish to continue in this thread and wish to help people. I just don't have the time or energy to fight along the way, though.

I have the information and am willing to share it if you are interested though.

For those of you who want to know my credentials and wonder who I am and where I'm coming from:

I have been in business for myself since 1995. I was 15 when I started my business. The company started as a computer store offering on-site service to consumers and business/government in OH/KY/WV. I opened my first retail location in 1997. In 1998 I started selling Cell Phones as our market had just gone digital and I found the profits to be more than (or at least on par with) selling computers, however, selling cell phones had none of the after sale headaches such as warranty repairs, tech support, etc, so I started focusing more on that.

Over the years I grew to 14 retail locations (only selling cell phones), a limousine company, and a Mexican restaurant, all while keeping that first (and only) computer store.

When I was 14, I got into Hi-Fi and my first large component purchase, after an "Optimus" (Rat Shack) receiver and 12 band EQ was a Sony CDP-CX270 200 disc CD Player that had Video Out!! It was eerily similar to the current BDP-CX7000es in form and function and I was hooked.

I soon upgraded to Alesis Studio Reference monitors, as even at the age of 17 I was all about accuracy and started studying acoustics in my spare time.

Acoustics, engineering, and social networking (and no, I don't mean facebook/twitter - of which I do not have an account at EITHER) have always been passions of mine and my passion for 2-channel accuracy soon turned into a passion for Home Theater and learning/implementing everything I could.

I subscribe to/am a member of all the well known audio societies/journal's and have read most texts on acoustics through the years. I have quite the collection, all in PDF format, of acoustical documents/texts/research and a few years ago became fascinated at the shear volume of information available for those who know where to look, such as all the BBC research on absorbers.

Although I'm very busy and spend ALL (I'm single) of my free time reading about acoustics and upgrading/building my dedicated room (it's a never ending process) I have never turned it into a full time business or made much of a profit as an attempt to have at least a bit of balance in my life and to try to still have a "hobby" and "fun" although I have to admit there have been several times, even recently, I've thought about getting into this business as I don't feel there are many truly passionate, educated, and well-meaning folks in this business - plus I have several innovative ideas about how to both build and market cost effective (read: inexpensive) absorbers and diffusers and for those of you who've looked at the price of TRUE (based on real science and design) QRD diffusors, they are extremely expensive.

So while I cannot promise I'll never enter this field as a business, rest assured I bring this information to you and share with you what I've learned and been involved with for more than half of my life with no ulterior motive and for no other reason than it is my passion and I'd love to see more people take an interest.

My parents are both retired teachers who became principal's and most of my family are either educators or doctor's. I am probably the WORST teacher in the world, but I do at least have a passion for the topic at hand and with the help of other forum members, I hope you'll be able to understand my writings, interpret, and condense them as Jerry already did on the wonderfully written guide.

I'm an open book and willing to share, willing to teach, and willing to assist in all aspects of acoustics, but again, I don't have time to argue and it's really off putting when certain members either have not read the first few posts of this thread or simply ignore the requests within them. I have no interest in speaking with or doing business with these shady characters and hope most folks have learned (just as I had to do) who to listen to and who to ignore but the ultimate goal is to not have to do that at all and get everyone on the same page.

Again, it's okay to have preferences and even okay to tout the benefits of your chosen model, but at least CHOOSE ONE so we can start discussing how to PROPERLY implement it.

If certain members keep trying to get people to stay away from the ETC for instance (and this is but one recent example - not at all the whole problem) then I'm afraid it would be an uphill battle and unwinnable war that I cannot participate in to try and overcome.

Also, please don't fall into the trap of listening to the folks that are the loudest, IE: The folks with the most post counts and post in this thread the most often. If someone is here trying to dissuade you from the original goals and intent of this thread and move you to another form of thinking, their intentions probably aren't the best and that is not someone I'd want to associate with, but you must decide on your own what you believe and what your goals are.

I only hope through further posts of mine and the folks on the same page as me you'll be able to take away some great information, improve your listening experience, and may one day finally get to Audio Nirvana.

Thanks again to Jerry, Keith, Nyal, Stuart, Roger, Localhost, and a few others for participating in this thread and having everyone's best interests at heart.

Now PLEASE go check out the link in the first (or maybe second??) post of this thread, read up on the different acoustical models, CHOOSE ONE, and let's start discussing what MOST folks want to actually ACHIEVE in their own listening rooms so we can steer the thread in the proper direction and start learning how to implement them.

I'm also all for folks discussing the merits of each model and talking about WHY you chose the model you did (or at least believe in the one you'd most like to implement) as this will help other people decide.

I think most folks will probably choose LEDE or NE (and the goal isn't to have certified rooms based on information only obtained in this thread - but at least to work towards them and get as close as possible within reason) as their model, but I honestly don't know which one will win out as most popular and I think it would be confusing to actually try to teach/help people achieve both at the same time.

So I now need your help in figuring out exactly where to go from here and as long as we can all stay on the same page and discuss the topic at hand without arguing the merits of a certain tool or trying to dissuade others from implementing the model they've chosen (trying to convert people to "your way") then I'm happy to participate here as often as time allows and look forward to speaking with you all much more often.

Thanks again to all the regulars and I hope this helps us get back on track and move forward!

--J

Jason,

I looked quickly at the first couple of posts and could not easily or quickly find your models. I did not perform a thorough search, because I think that is what will happen most of the time. Call me cynical, but that is the reality of AVS, and why most threads are very long. Edit: Now I see that you mentioned it was a link.

I did notice one thing in your post where you state to measure full range all the time, but then in Keith’s FAQ, it breaks it down between low and high frequencies. So which is it? The fact that there is a major disconnect between the first few posts in the thread is problematic, in my opinion. Personally, I am always going to measure full-range, because when I create the graphs, I can “window” the response based on what I am trying to capture.

I think that the thread title (and therefore its scope, perhaps) should be shortened; it is too long, and the entire title does not fit on my 22” widescreen monitor. eek.gif

Current Title: Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs

Proposed Title: Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection)

Personally, I think the thread title should be shortened as proposed above, and its mission considered successfully completed. Consider it sort of a step 1 of a multi-step process, with the advanced portion covered in another thread to which members can be directed.

By starting another thread, members can choose whether or not to wade further into the water. In the other thread, we can discuss the remaining graph interpretation portion and a discussion of reflection models, measurement options, and theories. We can develop a document that will address all the pertinent information discussed.

What do you think of this proposed approach?

Thanks.

Mark
Edited by giomania - 5/2/13 at 11:16am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs