REW gives this, how to improve?

[Paul McNeil]

I just measured my system, via REW. The results are attached. How to improve? I'm running Dirac plus Bass Control on a Marantz AV10 (well see other

my gear, called "Frankenstein' before on this site).

 

[dolynick]

I'm going to take a guess here that you generally like the sound of your system and are just suprised by the sawtooth nature in the display of the measurements?

I assume it was taken at the listening position as well?

 

[Paul McNeil]

I'm going to take a guess here that you generally like the sound of your system and are just suprised by the sawtooth display of the measurements?

Yep, I like the sound! Just looking for expert opinion. Simple request.

 

[Paul McNeil]

I'm going to take a guess here that you generally like the sound of your system and are just suprised by the sawtooth nature in the display of the measurements?

I assume it was taken at the listening position as well?

Yes, listening position.

 

[dolynick]

Yep, I like the sound! Just looking for expert opinion. Simple request.

I don't really see a major problem there myself. In fact, the general trend of that plot is more or less what most objectivist/measurement based enthusiasts might tell you to shoot for. A nice firm bottom end (maybe more than some would like but it varies) and a gently sloping down higher-end.

You will never get a nice smooth plot from an MLP in-room measurement. At least not without serious room design and treatment. You're measuring the room just as much as the speakers there and all spaces are going to have a plethora of nodes and suck-outs from reflections, etc at play. So a lot of what's going on in there I wouldn't fret about much.

You might be mildly concerned with the dip at 2k, but it's pretty tame in my opinion. The one between 240-275 Hz is a bit more serious and is probably room related. Moving speakers or the position a bit might help, but may just bring other dips, etc into play. We generally do not hear dips anywhere near as much as we hear peaks so, in my opinion, if you're not noticing a problem in that range then maybe it's not worth chasing after.

Others will probably chime in with differing opinions here, but I wouldn't go to crazy over that measurement. I get the temptation to chase that mythical flat response curve but I was pretty sure from just a look at it that you weren't unhappy with what you heard because of lot of that looks worse than it really is to most ears.

 

[Paul McNeil]

I don't really see a major problem there myself. In fact, the general trend of that plot is more or less what most objectivist/measurement based enthusiasts might tell you to shoot for. A nice firm bottom end (maybe more than some would like but it varies) and a gently sloping down higher-end.

You will never get a nice smooth plot from an MLP in-room measurement. At least not without serious room design and treatment. You're measuring the room just as much as the speakers there and all spaces are going to have a plethora of nodes and suck-outs from reflections, etc at play. So a lot of what's going on in there I wouldn't fret about much.

You might be mildly concerned with the dip at 2k, but it's pretty tame in my opinion. The one between 240-275 Hz is a bit more serious and is probably room related. Moving speakers or the position a bit might help, but may just bring other dips, etc into play. We generally do not hear dips anywhere near as much as we hear peaks so, in my opinion, if you're not noticing a problem in that range then maybe it's not worth chasing after.

Others will probably chime in with differing opinions here, but I wouldn't go to crazy over that measurement. I get the temptation to chase that mythical flat response curve but I was pretty sure from just a look at it that you weren't unhappy with what you heard because of lot of that looks worse than it really is to most ears.

Yeah, I like the sound, for sure. But haven't seen similar curves posted. So I had no way to compare.

And I am concerned by the the 240 htz area problem, for sure. Dirac would allow me to 'fix' that. But does Dirac fix that, I''ll try.

One problem is, here on this site, there is no data, no REW measurements that take us beyond the 'snake oil' that this site avoids.

 

[nicoleise]

Was thinking the exact same as dolynick, and would only add that REW offers settings for smoothing the measurements.

I'd suggest applying those, maybe 1/12 or so as a minimum, but even smoother is also fine. And for reference, while I don't recommend working with it per day, check out psychoacoustics too for a representation of something similar to what you actually hear.

If doing so, I would suspect the 240 "problem area" isn't really worth trying to correct. As in, obviously try, you can always go back, but I'd imagine the actual correction might be worse than the problem.

 

[dolynick]

And I am concerned by the the 240 htz area problem, for sure. Dirac would allow me to 'fix' that. But does Dirac fix that, I''ll try.

Dirac may help a little but but room correction is generally MUCH more helpful in dealing with peaks/resonances than it is trying to compensate for a dip due to the room. I assumed you already had Dirac in play from your first post but you could try fiddling with settings a bit if it offers options.

 

[dolynick]

One problem is, here on this site, there is no data, no REW measurements that take us beyond the 'snake oil' that this site avoids.

If you're looking for another set of REW measurements, this is the fronts (w/ sub) from my livingroom after the last ARC tuning:

The red trace is the raw measurement, the blue trace is post ARC processing. The "cross" marker is 20Hz at the 75db base the measurement was taken at.

The issue in the 70-150Hz zone are definitely room and placement related. Note that ARC actually made the 80Hz dip worse as it tamed the peak lower and tried to normalize the region just above. If I moved things around a bit, I could probably get some smoother results in that area but it's a living space and I'm content with them where they are.

Now. Overall I am generally quite happy with the way this room/system sounds right now. I am sure that if I turned on a tone generator and ran through the frequencies live, I would note the dips, etc. But in live content with dynamic shifts and overlayed harmonies, etc during music and what not? Not so much. I honestly do not notice an issue in daily usage.

That's my experience with reconciling measurements and actual listening/use though. Others may be more critical than I.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Just quickly, it looks pretty good to me. The 24hz area sits horribly deep, or wide and in listening, I doubt you’d notice. The other thing might be to change the upper and lower limits to show 45-105. That leaves a 60db window and will more accurately show what you hear, and is kinda the standard. It will look uglier, but can be helpful to more highlight problem areas.

 

[Paul McNeil]

If you're looking for another set of REW measurements, this is the fronts (w/ sub) from my livingroom after the last ARC tuning:
View attachment 71744
The red trace is the raw measurement, the blue trace is post ARC processing. The "cross" marker is 20Hz at the 75db base the measurement was taken at.

The issue in the 70-150Hz zone are definitely room and placement related. Note that ARC actually made the 80Hz dip worse as it tamed the peak lower and tried to normalize the region just above. If I moved things around a bit, I could probably get some smoother results in that area but it's a living space and I'm content with them where they are.

Now. Overall I am generally quite happy with the way this room/system sounds right now. I am sure that if I turned on a tone generator and ran through the frequencies live, I would note the dips, etc. But in live content with dynamic shifts and overlayed harmonies, etc during music and what not? Not so much. I honestly do not notice an issue in daily usage.

That's my experience with reconciling measurements and actual listening/use though. Others may be more critical that I.

Thanks, for that data, I don't see the axis numbers or the distortion levels. But I would be concerned about the big bass peak at the lower end, could be boomy. Especially coupled with the big dip proceeding. Hard to decipher, without defined axises.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Just quickly, it looks pretty good to me. The 24hz area sits horribly deep, or wide and in listening, I doubt you’d notice. The other thing might be to change the upper and lower limits to show 45-105. That leaves a 60db window and will more accurately show what you hear, and is kinda the standard. It will look uglier, but can be helpful to more highlight problem areas.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Hi William Lemmerhirt, You are the guy who corrected my English, in an hilariously ironic way recently. 'I doubt you’d notice', well I did. And now you say " The 24hz area sits horribly deep, or wide". Wow, I'll work on that. And my display of the results. Thanks!

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Hi William Lemmerhirt, You are the guy who corrected my English, in an hilariously ironic way recently. 'I doubt you’d notice', well I did. And now you say " The 24hz area sits horribly deep, or wide". Wow, I'll work on that. And my display of the results. Thanks!

Oh man. I need to proofread. Lol.
It should say isn’t deep or wide lol!!!

 

[Paul McNeil]

Oh man. I need to proofread. Lol.
It should say isn’t deep or wide lol!!!

Lots of laughs!

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Lots of laughs!

Most definitely.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Most definitely.

Do I get a positive reply that increases my status?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Do I get a positive reply that increases my status?

Of course!

 

[dolynick]

Thanks, for that data, I don't see the axis numbers or the distortion levels. But I would be concerned about the big bass peak at the lower end, could be boomy. Especially coupled with the big dip proceeding. Hard to decipher, without defined axises.

I requested a 6db boost below 150 Hz for room gain. It's not being toned down more by design. It's a preference thing. The room issues happen to land within the upper range of that though, so it doesn't curve as broadly as the ideal would be. Again though, I have no issues with it in actual use/listening.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Amen!