Room Acoustics

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
Post Reply
User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

27 Jul 2018

Found this video, that showed just how bad my room acoustics are. The test sounds sweet and smooth from 20 Hz to 14 kHz (limit of my hearing it seems) in my phones, and it sounds all over the place from 40Hz to 14 kHz in my room. At different frequencies the sound is louder or quieter, or the location is different (sometimes sounds like it's behind me).

This is fascinating! I've heard you have to 'calibrate' your monitors for your listening room, but I don't know how to achieve that.

(BTW I have KRK VXT6 monitors and KRK8400 phones.)


User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Competition Winner
Posts: 357
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

27 Jul 2018

I think speaker calibration has more to do with SPL levels and crossover frequencies when using a subwoofer. You'd basically use a SPL meter at the listening position to measure pink noise playing thru each speaker to make sure the levels are consistent. The peaks and nulls you're noticing are more than likely room modes. Acoustic treatment is probably best but this video can help with speaker monitor placement:


User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1784
Joined: 19 May 2016
Contact:

27 Jul 2018

raymondh wrote:
27 Jul 2018
Found this video, that showed just how bad my room acoustics are. The test sounds sweet and smooth from 20 Hz to 14 kHz (limit of my hearing it seems) in my phones, and it sounds all over the place from 40Hz to 14 kHz in my room. At different frequencies the sound is louder or quieter, or the location is different (sometimes sounds like it's behind me).

This is fascinating! I've heard you have to 'calibrate' your monitors for your listening room, but I don't know how to achieve that.

(BTW I have KRK VXT6 monitors and KRK8400 phones.)

Hi Raymond, i despair at the whole 'neutral' listening and mixing goal. The first monitors i bought were expensive (even 2nd hand) mackie 8 inch woofer so i could hear down to nearly 40hz hahaha. In theory. My 1st room was about 14 x 16 feet. I couldn't even comprehend what the monitors were sending out. I tried my music. I tried my fave albums of all genres. It all sounded so bad. I was waiting to hear everything so clearly... i set them up in the correct way and that triangle... nupe. Garbage.

I actually moved to a larger house before i bought smaller monitors. Those 8 inch cones needed a loooong room. Now i only have headphones. Boohoo. All the best ray.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

28 Jul 2018

Zac wrote: Hi Raymond, i despair at the whole 'neutral' listening and mixing goal. The first monitors i bought were expensive (even 2nd hand) mackie 8 inch woofer so i could hear down to nearly 40hz hahaha. In theory. My 1st room was about 14 x 16 feet. I couldn't even comprehend what the monitors were sending out. I tried my music. I tried my fave albums of all genres. It all sounded so bad. I was waiting to hear everything so clearly... i set them up in the correct way and that triangle... nupe. Garbage.

I actually moved to a larger house before i bought smaller monitors. Those 8 inch cones needed a loooong room. Now i only have headphones. Boohoo. All the best ray.
A few comments in response to your post:
Mackie speakers are mid-level monitors at best, not a monitor that will save your mix (though I love them for editing because they are not fatiguing).

The monitors are a small part of how your room sounds, with the room itself being the larger part. Also, the length and width of the room are also only one component in the overall sound - there’s also the height and the doors/windows, the materials, and the other objects in the room.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that bigger cones need bigger rooms.Using a smaller cone can minimize the problem of a room mode but at the expense of not representing the entire frequency range. The way to solve the problem is NOT to get rid of the frequencies causing the problem but rather to address the cause of the problems (the room).

I have a roughly 9’x9’ room and a 12” sub, and it sounds fine (besides the obvious room modes that come from a cubic room). I’m working on a video showing how I treated the room, which I will finish and post when I return from my European trip. Among other things, it shows how the actual response plot (what we usually see) is as important as the decay/ringing of the room (a “waterfall” response, which is not what we usually see). That is to say, you could have a flat looking room response, but if it rings at one frequency, then that’s what you will hear (and what will contribute to a “loose” bass response as opposed to a “tight” bass response).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

drloop
Posts: 243
Joined: 27 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Jul 2018

selig wrote:
28 Jul 2018

I don’t subscribe to the theory that bigger cones need bigger rooms.Using a smaller cone can minimize the problem of a room mode but at the expense of not representing the entire frequency range. The way to solve the problem is NOT to get rid of the frequencies causing the problem but rather to address the cause of the problems (the room).

I have a roughly 9’x9’ room and a 12” sub, and it sounds fine (besides the obvious room modes that come from a cubic room). I’m working on a video showing how I treated the room, which I will finish and post when I return from my European trip. Among other things, it shows how the actual response plot (what we usually see) is as important as the decay/ringing of the room (a “waterfall” response, which is not what we usually see). That is to say, you could have a flat looking room response, but if it rings at one frequency, then that’s what you will hear (and what will contribute to a “loose” bass response as opposed to a “tight” bass response).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I also use sub in small room roughly the size of Seligs.
I found it easier to get good response since I can move the sub to get good response in my listening position without having to move my monitors around.

I can´t imaging working without a sub, but I am lucky to have a pretty decent room I might consider to get rid of problem frequencies if I could not do any acoustic treatmen to my room or mix in headphones.

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1784
Joined: 19 May 2016
Contact:

28 Jul 2018

selig wrote:
28 Jul 2018
Zac wrote: Hi Raymond, i despair at the whole 'neutral' listening and mixing goal. The first monitors i bought were expensive (even 2nd hand) mackie 8 inch woofer so i could hear down to nearly 40hz hahaha. In theory. My 1st room was about 14 x 16 feet. I couldn't even comprehend what the monitors were sending out. I tried my music. I tried my fave albums of all genres. It all sounded so bad. I was waiting to hear everything so clearly... i set them up in the correct way and that triangle... nupe. Garbage.

I actually moved to a larger house before i bought smaller monitors. Those 8 inch cones needed a loooong room. Now i only have headphones. Boohoo. All the best ray.
A few comments in response to your post:
Mackie speakers are mid-level monitors at best, not a monitor that will save your mix (though I love them for editing because they are not fatiguing).

The monitors are a small part of how your room sounds, with the room itself being the larger part. Also, the length and width of the room are also only one component in the overall sound - there’s also the height and the doors/windows, the materials, and the other objects in the room.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that bigger cones need bigger rooms.Using a smaller cone can minimize the problem of a room mode but at the expense of not representing the entire frequency range. The way to solve the problem is NOT to get rid of the frequencies causing the problem but rather to address the cause of the problems (the room).

I have a roughly 9’x9’ room and a 12” sub, and it sounds fine (besides the obvious room modes that come from a cubic room). I’m working on a video showing how I treated the room, which I will finish and post when I return from my European trip. Among other things, it shows how the actual response plot (what we usually see) is as important as the decay/ringing of the room (a “waterfall” response, which is not what we usually see). That is to say, you could have a flat looking room response, but if it rings at one frequency, then that’s what you will hear (and what will contribute to a “loose” bass response as opposed to a “tight” bass response).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I look forward to seeing that video. I just assumed it was a room size issue and had written off treatment as probably being too expensive and/or difficult... wrong again ;) :)

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests