bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Yep. Note that the wall may be producing boundary effect, a low frequency boost caused by the speaker being close to a reflective surface. The switch on the back labeled "Room Compensation" counteracts the effect.
Studio monitors response curves measured today with REW (input please)...
A
Ally-007
Member
I wondered if that might be a possibility, even though the wall was at 45 degrees to the speaker faces, and underneath the speaker. Maybe draping a load of blankets over the wall, under the speaker would be worthwhile. Thanks also for your earlier suggestion re isolation, and trying the measurement with mic pointing at the tweeter.
My measurement microphone is omnidirectional, which I can see would be appropriate for measuring room resonances. However, when measuring speakers, outdoors, I'm wondering if a unidirectional mic would be more appropriate, as it would presumably pick up less reflected sound.
Last edited:
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
The effect of blankets won't extend low enough to make much of a difference. It would take specific materials to absorb LF.
rob aylestone
Moderator
You now have three perfectly sensible traces. I do think you are over thinking the entire thing, losing perspective. If you turn down the blue speaker a tiny bit it tracks perfectly, the green trace suggests the HF unit has a difference in HF response. Its a gradual tapering off, then a sudden spike. Being blunt, you are seeing things you cannot hear. I’d bet that that big spike at the end you cannot hear. When you listen to music on them that you know well, what do they sound like? The bass end starts to tail off, like all small speaker designs at the bottom. Hear it is 100Hz where it starts. If you want to mix music with lots at the bottom, then you have to guess the level of bass in your mix. I must be careful in my video studio. I often mix there and when i go home, i hear too much bass. My car hears too much bass on the journey home. Depending on the type of bass, as in synth bass, piano bass, double bass bass orchestral bass, or electric bass, i can pretty well adjust my choice, and get it mostly right, but bass at my audio studio is more accurate somehow - probably just bigger drivers and older design I guess.
Nothing you have, bar that measurement mic has a flat frequency response. Flat is boring. As you have discovered, small differences in your test produced very different and alarming results. Ask yourself the question ‘did the speakers sound as bad as the results, or was it a shock?’ Those little peaks and troughs did not alarm you. You didn’t think my god I've lost 30dB of level, or i have a huge peak at X or a total lack of signal at Y. Your ears and brain told you a sort of compensated result. The flawed tests have surely proven that none of your worries are the speakers. You can compensate. Forget trying to EQ it out. If you remove a tiny peak at 4.23KHz by taking 2.6dB out, can you hear it? Of course not, but flat line chasing is pointless.
1. Do you like the sound?
2. Do your mixes sound good on as many systems as you have access to?
If it is yes to both, move on. If it is no, borrow a new set and repeat.
Forget what your eyes tell you. All it has done is produce predetermination. You see a fault, and are fixing something probably that is just ‘character’. I have listened to a tape of the Beatles at Abbey Rd, on the studio speakers and original amp they used in the early 70s. It sounded absolutely terrible. Tinny, weedy, lacking every quality word we now take for granted. They would fail your test spectacularly.
Nothing you have, bar that measurement mic has a flat frequency response. Flat is boring. As you have discovered, small differences in your test produced very different and alarming results. Ask yourself the question ‘did the speakers sound as bad as the results, or was it a shock?’ Those little peaks and troughs did not alarm you. You didn’t think my god I've lost 30dB of level, or i have a huge peak at X or a total lack of signal at Y. Your ears and brain told you a sort of compensated result. The flawed tests have surely proven that none of your worries are the speakers. You can compensate. Forget trying to EQ it out. If you remove a tiny peak at 4.23KHz by taking 2.6dB out, can you hear it? Of course not, but flat line chasing is pointless.
1. Do you like the sound?
2. Do your mixes sound good on as many systems as you have access to?
If it is yes to both, move on. If it is no, borrow a new set and repeat.
Forget what your eyes tell you. All it has done is produce predetermination. You see a fault, and are fixing something probably that is just ‘character’. I have listened to a tape of the Beatles at Abbey Rd, on the studio speakers and original amp they used in the early 70s. It sounded absolutely terrible. Tinny, weedy, lacking every quality word we now take for granted. They would fail your test spectacularly.
A
Ally-007
Member
Thanks, Rob. Two of the curves are acceptable to me. The green one isn't, but I think I can rectify that. I don't think I'm over-thinking anything. Okay, I may have geekish tendencies! My reason for wanting to do these speaker tests was to determine how accurate the speakers are, while still within the time window for returning them, if necessary.
When I first tried them out, I immediately noticed something that sounded amiss: The high frequencies seemed lacking. Now that I see the green curve on my latest test result, I think I see why. (It's roughly 6dB lower than it should be, through much of the upper frequency range.) I'm hoping to fix that by swapping two of the tweeters. If not, then the electronics may be at fault - in which case, I'll just use the two most accurate speakers out of the three.
Personally, I don't see flat as boring; I see it as exciting!
Flat may sound boring to the average hi-fi consumer, but for me, when mixing and mastering, I want as flat as I can comfortably afford, provided the bass extension and clarity is adequate for me (which, in the case of these speakers, it is).For me this experiment was very worthwhile, as it taught me a lot (not least, thanks to helpful input from yourself and others). Most importantly, it convinced me that the speakers are suitably accurate, apart from the issue with the green tweeter, which I can now address.
This project is not totally done and dusted yet, though. The next step will be to run tests when they are in situ, in my studio. Before that, I need to install wall brackets, to raise them up off my desk, so that the desk becomes a bit less of a reflector and resonator.
Last edited:
rob aylestone
Moderator
If you want to scare yourself, repeat the tests in different places in the room.
I think I learned that (from doing this in theatres) interpretation is key - on it's own testing frequency response means very little. Pretty much now at a new venue I just play a track I know and listen. Very rarely do I need to dig out he measurement mic - most times I just think, bottoms a bit weak, or top is a bit harsh - and just do some basic output EQ. Chasing dBs on a screen showing horror stories I can usually live without.
I think I learned that (from doing this in theatres) interpretation is key - on it's own testing frequency response means very little. Pretty much now at a new venue I just play a track I know and listen. Very rarely do I need to dig out he measurement mic - most times I just think, bottoms a bit weak, or top is a bit harsh - and just do some basic output EQ. Chasing dBs on a screen showing horror stories I can usually live without.
A
Ally-007
Member
I know what you mean. You surely have more experience than I do, so I respect your approach, if it works for you. I'm fully prepared for the horror show when I get the speakers in place and do more tests. It will be very revealing to compare the test curves from outdoors to the test curves done in the studio. It might even persuade me to move the studio to a better room. But probably, not, as they seemed fine when I tested them in the studio (apart from that treble deficiency I noticed). It remains to be seen how well my mixes translate, when I start mixing with them.
Last edited:
rob aylestone
Moderator
Actually, I find the venue sound far more tricky because often I am trying to create tracks that will get played there, so I've got a wider need to make sure the studio sound, works live, where the volume is up, the bass goes lower, but the acoustics wrecks the music more. Next time you record some acoustic guitar - try that measurement mic. you will find it totally soul-less, yet, it is flat?
Back in the analogue days we would have a 32 band EQ for left and a separate one for right, and you would squirt in the pink noise and produce a curve. The curve for left and right would be different, in a venue with symetry down the middle - but walls one side could be cavity and lightweight but the other side solid external ones. Many venues look symetrical, but are actually not, and some (like Plymouth in the UK) have a stalls and circle one side, but on the other, stalls flow into the balcony - very lop sided. Sound differences between left and right were often huge. Gradually, you realise that in a nice sounding room, weird curves can be quite nice sounding, yet in a different venue the weird curve is horrible. The acoustical clever folk do their analysis and frequency mangling and very often you listen and say surely not? Some venues like the Royal Albert Hall, where they do pop. rock, classics, choirs and speech is a very tricky acoustic to handle for some users. Some venues have acoustics so bad that an artist stands on stage and says at the soundcheck, can you put the PA on, when it is on. They take a pace 3 ft to their left or right, and they hear it, but that one place they put the mic stand is an acoustic black hole.
In studios, it's rare to find any truly awful ones. The commonist 'feature' is what people say is 'boxy' - from all those parallel surfaces. We get people who cover every surface with thin foam, that sucks the life out of the 10K and above make the sound very odd, but these often look OK on a response curve. My way of working now in the studio spaces I create is simply to play a track I really know well. I actually use Money for Nothing - the old Dire Straits CD - my first and favourite CD when CD was a new thing. The other is Tales of Mystery and Imagination. Those two do all I need. Instantly with the Dire Straits, you hear the fight with kick and snare, if your bass response is shaky - the spectrum is full of quite separate easy to identify stuff. If the track sounds right, no need to go any further. In my audio studio, the monitor levels are never adjusted, the output has no EQ whatsoever. I used to use the control room in Cubase, but it was too easy to change the level and not notice - and very rarely do I put any real effort into levels - I know what is loud and what is too quiet. rarely do I end up out of spec. It takes time to get used to new speakers and a new room. You get there eventually.
Back in the analogue days we would have a 32 band EQ for left and a separate one for right, and you would squirt in the pink noise and produce a curve. The curve for left and right would be different, in a venue with symetry down the middle - but walls one side could be cavity and lightweight but the other side solid external ones. Many venues look symetrical, but are actually not, and some (like Plymouth in the UK) have a stalls and circle one side, but on the other, stalls flow into the balcony - very lop sided. Sound differences between left and right were often huge. Gradually, you realise that in a nice sounding room, weird curves can be quite nice sounding, yet in a different venue the weird curve is horrible. The acoustical clever folk do their analysis and frequency mangling and very often you listen and say surely not? Some venues like the Royal Albert Hall, where they do pop. rock, classics, choirs and speech is a very tricky acoustic to handle for some users. Some venues have acoustics so bad that an artist stands on stage and says at the soundcheck, can you put the PA on, when it is on. They take a pace 3 ft to their left or right, and they hear it, but that one place they put the mic stand is an acoustic black hole.
In studios, it's rare to find any truly awful ones. The commonist 'feature' is what people say is 'boxy' - from all those parallel surfaces. We get people who cover every surface with thin foam, that sucks the life out of the 10K and above make the sound very odd, but these often look OK on a response curve. My way of working now in the studio spaces I create is simply to play a track I really know well. I actually use Money for Nothing - the old Dire Straits CD - my first and favourite CD when CD was a new thing. The other is Tales of Mystery and Imagination. Those two do all I need. Instantly with the Dire Straits, you hear the fight with kick and snare, if your bass response is shaky - the spectrum is full of quite separate easy to identify stuff. If the track sounds right, no need to go any further. In my audio studio, the monitor levels are never adjusted, the output has no EQ whatsoever. I used to use the control room in Cubase, but it was too easy to change the level and not notice - and very rarely do I put any real effort into levels - I know what is loud and what is too quiet. rarely do I end up out of spec. It takes time to get used to new speakers and a new room. You get there eventually.
Papanate
Well-known member
So you are saying that you judge a room your in and decide on the mix? Hoe Novel.....
rob aylestone
Moderator
No, the opposite = hear the room, make the adjustments - My two studios sound very different, but now I can swap between the two seamlessly as I have 'learned' their differences - so in one, bass is different. So I can put a double bass into the mix (as an example) and have it just a bit too prominent, and I can apply EQ, and get the mix level right and then at the other studio, it sounds 'right'. Gradually my ears have aligned. I still have a bit of a struggle with high sizzle from cymbals - my old ears mean that I have to be careful, but the video studio HF, from the Adams, is a bit cutting if I have over cooked it, so my adjustments seem to be a bit dull back at home? In a way, you're right - but I'm often mixing for a system with 12K's worth of amp power, so it has to be considered. Most times I get it nearly right. Thinking about this, it could also be why I am very sparing with compression, because I want the extended dynamics?
Papanate
Well-known member
That’s what I said even though it sounded Like I didn’t.
12K? What 12,000 watt of power? What are 12Ks?
rob aylestone
Moderator
Subs
Tops
Vrx is odd. It’s not a line array but a constant curvature system. The venue it’s in is very deep and wide but one big tiered space but with a low ish roof. Deafen the front row but it’s quiet at the back. No place for delays. I tried vrx and I like it. Hang one sub and three tops each side and select the max switch on the top one, mid on the middle and low on the bottom and the people at the back have more level and those close have more comfy levels. I use another pj air as front fills, sitting on another sub each side. This works well, better than the RCF stage edge fills previously. I feed the tops in pairs and the subs individually.
Tops
Vrx is odd. It’s not a line array but a constant curvature system. The venue it’s in is very deep and wide but one big tiered space but with a low ish roof. Deafen the front row but it’s quiet at the back. No place for delays. I tried vrx and I like it. Hang one sub and three tops each side and select the max switch on the top one, mid on the middle and low on the bottom and the people at the back have more level and those close have more comfy levels. I use another pj air as front fills, sitting on another sub each side. This works well, better than the RCF stage edge fills previously. I feed the tops in pairs and the subs individually.
Last edited: