I use Acoustisoft R+D
They haven't updated that software in years, and it is getting to be rather dated. I bought it too, years ago, but I have now abandoned it. I'm using REW now, which is free and much better, IMHO. You can download it from Home Theater Shack.
- Which frequency Range should I check? From the bottom of my speakers (around 30 hz) to where?
With REW, run the entire spectrum, from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Then we'll just focus on the parts of the spectrum that need more detail, as needed.
So I gues I should do Bode Response curve?
- what gate time should I use?
With REW, no need to worry about that. Just use the standard settings and you'll get valid readings, for the vast majority of situations.
- NO octave smoothing, right?
Correct. But that's a display function, not an analysis function, so it doesn't matter what you set it to: you can always change that later as needed, to see your data in different ways.
- should I check left and right speakers?
Yes. Do one compete analysis for the left speaker, and another for the right speaker, then a final one for both speakers. REW allows you to overlay the data from multiple tests, any way you want. That alone can be very revealing.
And I guess, checking symmetry between the speakers doesn´t make sense without the treatment,
its all about the lo freqency response of the room now, right?
You'll be focusing on the low frequency end, for sure, but you still need to run the entire spectrum. The first test you do is your baseline, against which you will be checking all future tests, as you add treatment. This first one is a very important test.
So it is important to have your speakers set up exactly in their final location, perfectly symmetrical, and to also have the measurement mic set up in the exact location of the listening position. In other words, set up up where your head will be when mixing. And take several very careful distance measurements from the tip of the mic to the walls, floor and ceiling: you MUST get the mic back to that exact location, very accurately, for all future tests. If not, you won't be able to compare your new readings against your baseline. The readings will still be valid, of course: just no longer comparable, so you will not know what effect the treatment is having.
I also marked exactly one position at the listening spot, to check my future treatment with repeatable measurements)
Great! Don't lose the paper where you noted down the location of the mic!
Rod suggests not to use waterfall plots.
I'm not sure why that would be. Maybe Rod was talking about the Acoustisoft software: I never did have much luck with waterfall plots in that. But with REW, the analysis tools for waterfalls are very useful, and can reveal where your modal issues are. If you don't use waterfall plots, then it's not so easy to visualize the time-domain issues in the room.
- Rod suggests in his book doing average measurements around the listening position, should I do that?
You can if you want! You can take measurements in as many locations as you feel like, and REW will keep track of them all. You can then view them in many different ways, as needed. But once again, you must keep track of the exact location of the mic in the room for each reading, so that you can compare future readings against your baseline.
- Stuart -
