Hi folks, first time post here. I'm in the process of trying to improve a room that I remodeled recently for my home studio. I've been searching around for quite some time for tips and I stumbled upon this site a few days ago. Great resource!
I saw a few things on REW here and figured I'd give it a shot before I go nuts with hanging acoustic panels or anything. I actually began building some panels today that I was inspired to do after reading through this site.
Anyway, I was wondering if you guys could take a look at my reading and give me some feedback. I tried a few different things, but for this reading I used a Peavey M1 large diaphragm condenser mic into a mac based pro-tools interface system. I realize that the mic is only going to pick up certain frequencies based on design characteristics, but I feel like the reading is inaccurate, but you guys know way more about this than I do!
I'll include a photo of the readout as well as photo I have of the room from one angle at least. I definitely appreciate any insight going through this process!
REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Last edited by clyde67 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
RJHollins
- Senior Member
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:13 pm
- Location: Orchard Park, NY
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Hi clyde67,
Welcome to the forum!
Couple of questions first.
Is the REW display measurements taken with both monitors at the same time ?
The measurements need to be a single monitor at a time [left then right].
Also, the freq response is only a single aspect to consider. They really need to see the RT60 waterfalls [per speaker].
No 'smoothing'.
Last ... not familiar with that mic. Ideally should use an 'OMNI' mic, or better, a cal mic like the EMC8000 from Berringer.
Welcome to the forum!
Couple of questions first.
Is the REW display measurements taken with both monitors at the same time ?
The measurements need to be a single monitor at a time [left then right].
Also, the freq response is only a single aspect to consider. They really need to see the RT60 waterfalls [per speaker].
No 'smoothing'.
Last ... not familiar with that mic. Ideally should use an 'OMNI' mic, or better, a cal mic like the EMC8000 from Berringer.
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
RJHollins,
Thanks so much for the timely response!
I did have both speakers on for this sample and have read conflicting things on this so I'll do another with each individually and post the waterfall. The Mic I used was one of many I have, but it's cardioid pattern. I do have a single omni mic, but I'm afraid that the freq response is probably nowhere near flat. I'm going to work on getting a recommended mic in the next few days.
Are there other readings that would be helpful for you guys? I'm just learning the run the program.
Thanks again. Really looking forward to learning!
Thanks so much for the timely response!
I did have both speakers on for this sample and have read conflicting things on this so I'll do another with each individually and post the waterfall. The Mic I used was one of many I have, but it's cardioid pattern. I do have a single omni mic, but I'm afraid that the freq response is probably nowhere near flat. I'm going to work on getting a recommended mic in the next few days.
Are there other readings that would be helpful for you guys? I'm just learning the run the program.
Thanks again. Really looking forward to learning!
-
Soundman2020
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Hi there "clyde67", and let me add my welcome to RJ's.
A couple of things: First, one of the forum rules is that all images should be uploaded to the forum itself, not cross-linked to other locations. We did this because way too often we found interesting threads becoming useless when the linked images disappeared, and there was no way to revive them. So please upload your directly.
OK, about your analysis:
As RJ said, you really need an omni mic for good measurements, and you really do need to take repeat the test individually for each speaker, plus a third one using both if you feel like it. The reason for this is simple: the peaks and nulls in the room response for one speaker can be totally hidden in the peaks and nulls of room response produced by the other speaker. Each speaker can, potentially, excite a different set of modes, or excite them at different levels, or one speaker might have a reflection associated with it that distorts the readings, or it might by in a null caused by SBIR relative only to that speaker, or any number of other possibilities. Frequently the two graphs are different in a few specific areas, but pretty much the same in the rest.
In your case, it is hard to say what the issue is, but there is something major wrong with your measuring setup: I seriously doubt that your mic has such poor response as to roll off 40 dB above 10 kHz! And unless you are using pretty lousy speakers, it's unlikely to be that either. (What speakers did you use?) Lastly, its hard to imagine that you managed to so severely over-treat your room as to kill the highs to that extreme, especially based on the photo! My guess would be that it is your audio interface that simply cannot sample above 10 kHz. What interface are you using? Are you sure you had it set to a suitable sampling rate, such as 44.1 k, at least? Or maybe there is something else in the signal path, such as a poor quality equalizer, or amp, or something else that is grossly rolling off the highs?
I would suggest that you should look into that issue first, then repeat the measurements with a better mic, individually for the L and R speakers. And instead of posting the graph, post the entire .mdat file created by REW, so we can analyze it from a bunch of different aspects.
It would also help if yo were to post the dimensions of your room, and list the treatment you already have in there. Better yet, model it in SketchUp and post the model.
OK, on to a few things that could seriously improve the way you have your gear set up: First, get those speakers off the desk and onto suitable stands. If they are on the desk, they are undoubtedly causing vibrations in the desk itself that is totally messing up your perception, as well as early reflections that are screwing with your stereo imaging and frequency response (comb filtering, for example). They should be mounted on massive (heavy) stands just behind the desk, and even then should be decoupled from the stands with a pad made of Sorbothane, EPDM or neoprene. They should be set up so that the acoustic axis of each speaker is 1.2 m above the floor, and they should be toed-in (angled) such that the acoustic axes meet at a point about 25 - 45 cm behind your head, at an angle of about 60°. That puts your ears in the perfect relationship to the speakers, to get the optimum stereo image and sound field.
Next, get your speakers standing up vertically, not horizontally. The reason is quite simple: Your ears are on the sides of your head, not on your forehead and chin!
Even a slight movement of your head to the left or right will place your head asymmetrically in the sound field, with one ear being closer to the tweeter on that side and further away from the woofer, while the other ear is further away from its tweeter and closer. to its woofer. That means not only level difference, but also timing differences, all of which distort the way you are hearing the sound.
So your perception of frequency response will change subtly, as you move your head left and right, even a bit, or as you turn your head slightly. If the speakers are set up vertically, as they should be, then you simply do not have this problem: the relationship of each ear to the woofer and tweeter on that side remains the same, no matter where you put your head, and since the human sense of hearing is far less sensitive to direction in the vertical plane than in the horizontal plane, you'd need to actually stand up or crouch down with your head on your knees to perceive a difference. And by the time you move that far off axis, you'd be suffering a whole bunch of other artifacts way before this became an issue.
Yeah, I know that several speaker manufacturers do show their speakers being used horizontally in their manuals, and you even occasionally set such a setup in pictures of supposedly "pro" studios, but that doesn't make it right, and you can't fool the sound waves or your ears by showing them pictures! If you don't believe that this makes a noticeable difference, try it yourself: Once you get your speakers properly mounted on stands, try them both vertically and horizontally while moving your head side to side, and turning it, while listening carefully. You will hear the difference, I'm sure.
Finally, you are too close to those speakers. For each model of speaker, there's a distance where the individual sound fields from the various drivers start to merge and act together, as one single sound field. If your ears are closer than that distance, then you are not hearing the full range of sound produced by the speaker, and instead you are hearing the individual drivers differently and independently. I have no idea what that distance is for your speakers, but to me it looks like you are way too close to them. You will automatically solve that problem when you mount them on stands behind the desk, but it is something you should be aware of.
And one more point: You will need one of your absorption panels directly between each speaker and the wall (window?) in front of you, plus you will need to roll off the bass response of your speakers but about 6 dB, to compensate for the fact that they are radiating into half space, not full space.
There are probably more things that can be done to improve your layout, but the photo and your description don't provide enough info to go on! If you provide more info, and repeat the measurements once you solve the problem with your measuring setup, then we might be able to provide more insight.
- Stuart -
A couple of things: First, one of the forum rules is that all images should be uploaded to the forum itself, not cross-linked to other locations. We did this because way too often we found interesting threads becoming useless when the linked images disappeared, and there was no way to revive them. So please upload your directly.
OK, about your analysis:
As RJ said, you really need an omni mic for good measurements, and you really do need to take repeat the test individually for each speaker, plus a third one using both if you feel like it. The reason for this is simple: the peaks and nulls in the room response for one speaker can be totally hidden in the peaks and nulls of room response produced by the other speaker. Each speaker can, potentially, excite a different set of modes, or excite them at different levels, or one speaker might have a reflection associated with it that distorts the readings, or it might by in a null caused by SBIR relative only to that speaker, or any number of other possibilities. Frequently the two graphs are different in a few specific areas, but pretty much the same in the rest.
In your case, it is hard to say what the issue is, but there is something major wrong with your measuring setup: I seriously doubt that your mic has such poor response as to roll off 40 dB above 10 kHz! And unless you are using pretty lousy speakers, it's unlikely to be that either. (What speakers did you use?) Lastly, its hard to imagine that you managed to so severely over-treat your room as to kill the highs to that extreme, especially based on the photo! My guess would be that it is your audio interface that simply cannot sample above 10 kHz. What interface are you using? Are you sure you had it set to a suitable sampling rate, such as 44.1 k, at least? Or maybe there is something else in the signal path, such as a poor quality equalizer, or amp, or something else that is grossly rolling off the highs?
I would suggest that you should look into that issue first, then repeat the measurements with a better mic, individually for the L and R speakers. And instead of posting the graph, post the entire .mdat file created by REW, so we can analyze it from a bunch of different aspects.
It would also help if yo were to post the dimensions of your room, and list the treatment you already have in there. Better yet, model it in SketchUp and post the model.
OK, on to a few things that could seriously improve the way you have your gear set up: First, get those speakers off the desk and onto suitable stands. If they are on the desk, they are undoubtedly causing vibrations in the desk itself that is totally messing up your perception, as well as early reflections that are screwing with your stereo imaging and frequency response (comb filtering, for example). They should be mounted on massive (heavy) stands just behind the desk, and even then should be decoupled from the stands with a pad made of Sorbothane, EPDM or neoprene. They should be set up so that the acoustic axis of each speaker is 1.2 m above the floor, and they should be toed-in (angled) such that the acoustic axes meet at a point about 25 - 45 cm behind your head, at an angle of about 60°. That puts your ears in the perfect relationship to the speakers, to get the optimum stereo image and sound field.
Next, get your speakers standing up vertically, not horizontally. The reason is quite simple: Your ears are on the sides of your head, not on your forehead and chin!
Even a slight movement of your head to the left or right will place your head asymmetrically in the sound field, with one ear being closer to the tweeter on that side and further away from the woofer, while the other ear is further away from its tweeter and closer. to its woofer. That means not only level difference, but also timing differences, all of which distort the way you are hearing the sound.So your perception of frequency response will change subtly, as you move your head left and right, even a bit, or as you turn your head slightly. If the speakers are set up vertically, as they should be, then you simply do not have this problem: the relationship of each ear to the woofer and tweeter on that side remains the same, no matter where you put your head, and since the human sense of hearing is far less sensitive to direction in the vertical plane than in the horizontal plane, you'd need to actually stand up or crouch down with your head on your knees to perceive a difference. And by the time you move that far off axis, you'd be suffering a whole bunch of other artifacts way before this became an issue.
Yeah, I know that several speaker manufacturers do show their speakers being used horizontally in their manuals, and you even occasionally set such a setup in pictures of supposedly "pro" studios, but that doesn't make it right, and you can't fool the sound waves or your ears by showing them pictures! If you don't believe that this makes a noticeable difference, try it yourself: Once you get your speakers properly mounted on stands, try them both vertically and horizontally while moving your head side to side, and turning it, while listening carefully. You will hear the difference, I'm sure.
Finally, you are too close to those speakers. For each model of speaker, there's a distance where the individual sound fields from the various drivers start to merge and act together, as one single sound field. If your ears are closer than that distance, then you are not hearing the full range of sound produced by the speaker, and instead you are hearing the individual drivers differently and independently. I have no idea what that distance is for your speakers, but to me it looks like you are way too close to them. You will automatically solve that problem when you mount them on stands behind the desk, but it is something you should be aware of.
And one more point: You will need one of your absorption panels directly between each speaker and the wall (window?) in front of you, plus you will need to roll off the bass response of your speakers but about 6 dB, to compensate for the fact that they are radiating into half space, not full space.
There are probably more things that can be done to improve your layout, but the photo and your description don't provide enough info to go on!
If you provide more info, and repeat the measurements once you solve the problem with your measuring setup, then we might be able to provide more insight.- Stuart -
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Soundman2020, thanks to you too for the response! I've got my eye on a few omni mics to pick up so I can get a better reading for this purpose. So hopefully I'll have a more accurate reading very soon once I get one.
Regarding my setup, I do feel something is wrong (with regard to the pic I posted). I tried several different sweeps to get it to work (had trouble with my firewire interface). But I believe the last was 60Hz to 20kHz. All of the equipment I use is high quality pro audio equipment. It is all in good working order as well. I'm actively using it all and it sounds great.
Here was the setup:
The Interface - Digidesign MBox 2 (44.1 or 48k, and up to 24bits.) (This program wouldn't support my Digi 003+ Firewire)
Speakers - Tannoy Reveals (65 - 20k http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7 ... -2000.html)
Mic - Peavey M1 Large Diaphram Condenser (http://www.peavey.com/products/index.cf ... 26reg%3BM1) Actually a really great mic. I have quite a few, but this is a go to.
Amp is a Carvin power amp
No EQ
I can assure you that the sound is being reproduced in the room. I've worked as an engineer for many years (in commercial & small studios) and I know that it is reproducing the signal, but I can also hear that the room is not where it should be even for a home studio.
In regard to the speakers, both pairs you see are nearfield monitors and are intended for use that close to your head. The Tannoys are on ISO pads(http://www.auralex.com/sound_isolation_ ... _mopad.asp), which helps a little as you can imagine, but no doubt would benefit from stands. I think I could also get a bit of a better image with them back there as well. I'm actually working on that now but I'm actually more concerned with how close they are to the wall behind them. Do you think I'm right about that?
I was thinking about creating a sort of a removable packing blanket/rod configuration to hang over the window during tracking/mixing so that the window reflections were a bit less of an issue.
Thanks again for your great responses. I know I have some homework here. So far I have to get that omni mic, and take measurements of the room and create a layout using the software you mentioned. Hopefully not too difficult!
Regarding my setup, I do feel something is wrong (with regard to the pic I posted). I tried several different sweeps to get it to work (had trouble with my firewire interface). But I believe the last was 60Hz to 20kHz. All of the equipment I use is high quality pro audio equipment. It is all in good working order as well. I'm actively using it all and it sounds great.
Here was the setup:
The Interface - Digidesign MBox 2 (44.1 or 48k, and up to 24bits.) (This program wouldn't support my Digi 003+ Firewire)
Speakers - Tannoy Reveals (65 - 20k http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7 ... -2000.html)
Mic - Peavey M1 Large Diaphram Condenser (http://www.peavey.com/products/index.cf ... 26reg%3BM1) Actually a really great mic. I have quite a few, but this is a go to.
Amp is a Carvin power amp
No EQ
I can assure you that the sound is being reproduced in the room. I've worked as an engineer for many years (in commercial & small studios) and I know that it is reproducing the signal, but I can also hear that the room is not where it should be even for a home studio.
In regard to the speakers, both pairs you see are nearfield monitors and are intended for use that close to your head. The Tannoys are on ISO pads(http://www.auralex.com/sound_isolation_ ... _mopad.asp), which helps a little as you can imagine, but no doubt would benefit from stands. I think I could also get a bit of a better image with them back there as well. I'm actually working on that now but I'm actually more concerned with how close they are to the wall behind them. Do you think I'm right about that?
I was thinking about creating a sort of a removable packing blanket/rod configuration to hang over the window during tracking/mixing so that the window reflections were a bit less of an issue.
Thanks again for your great responses. I know I have some homework here. So far I have to get that omni mic, and take measurements of the room and create a layout using the software you mentioned. Hopefully not too difficult!
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Anybody have any manufacturer specs on the older Tannoy Reveals as far as listening distance? For me thinking a bit more now and I'd love to know what their reccomendation is for these "near fields".
-
Soundman2020
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Not just any omni mic: Get one that is specifically designed for acoustic measurement, such as the Behringer ECM8000 or the Driverack RTA-M, or other similar things. Earthworks has some nice ones too.I've got my eye on a few omni mics
Did you do the sound card calibration process in REW? That's important for revealing possible issues in your signal path. It rules out everything internal, up to the physical signal output and physical signal input. Basically, it just leaves your amp, speakers, mic and pre-amp.Regarding my setup, I do feel something is wrong (with regard to the pic I posted). I tried several different sweeps to get it to work (had trouble with my firewire interface). But I believe the last was 60Hz to 20kHz.
That's what I figured: You'd most certainly notice a 40 dB rolloff above 10 k!!!I can assure you that the sound is being reproduced in the room. I've worked as an engineer for many years (in commercial & small studios) and I know that it is reproducing the signal, but I can also hear that the room is not where it should be even for a home studio.
That would be hard to miss...since you've been in the industry for years, I guess you are aware that there is no such things as technical definition for "nearfield"? It is whatever you want it to be. Any manufacturer can slap that name on his speaker, and nobody can say that it is right or wrong to do so. It is more of a marketing hype thing than an actual measurable parameter. In reality, "nearfield" is much more of a room-related acoustic term than a speaker-related term. In acoustics, you are in the "near field" or "direct field" as long as you are at a distance less than the critical distance for that room, and the critical distance is a well defined technical parameter related to the room reverberance. The speaker used has very little relevance to that: But anyway, excuse my rant about the non-existence of "near field"! My point is that there has to be enough space between the speaker baffle surface and your head for the individual fields to merge, and unless your speaker drivers all have exceptionally broad Q, it isn't going to happen in the distance that seems to between your head and the speakers on that photo. Recommended listening distance (according to published spec from the ITU, EBU, BBC, Dolby, Genelec, etc.) is 2 to 3 m between head to speaker (roughly 6 1/2 feet to 10 feet)...both pairs you see are nearfield monitors and are intended for use that close to your head.
Well, they might help to decouple fro the surface a bit, but they do nothing at all to correct the geometry, nor do they prevent the surface reflections from the console and desk. The further you move the speakers behind the desk, the better the reflection angles become. If you ray-trace the desk and speakers edge-on, you'll see just how big of a problem this is. That's probably not what is causing your measurement issue, but it might well be a big part of your room "just not sounding right". It's amazing how much first reflections can do to muddy up the direct sound.The Tannoys are on ISO pads
Exactly. That's why I recommended two things in my earlier response: First, roll off the bass response on the speakers by 6 dB, or maybe a bit less: since the speakers are up against the front wall, you no longer need the built-in baffle step compensation circuitry. The wall acts as an infinite baffle, to a certain extent, thus correcting the power imbalance in the low end. Since the manufacturer already corrected that internally, assuming that the speakers would not normally be that close to a wall, you are correcting twice (once with the wall, and once with the circuitry), so you need to "undo" the internal correction, and just allow the wall to do its job. Most good quality studio speakers have corrections for this built into the rear panel, usually called some thing like "bass rolloff", or "bass tilt" or "bass room correction", or something similar. That is meant for doing a proper soffit mount (when you would need -6dB), but since you are not in a perfect soffit mount situation, you'll probably need something like -4 dB or -5 dB.I'm actually working on that now but I'm actually more concerned with how close they are to the wall behind them. Do you think I'm right about that?
The other recommendation was to put a thick panel of absorption between the speaker and the front wall. I would suggest a 4" panel of OC-703. The normal ize is 4' x 8', so hang one of those centered horizontally across the front wall, starting about 1 foot below the bottom of the speaker and extending up from there for 4'. That will help to deal with all of the artifacts that are being caused by that wall, such as SBIR, comb filtering, other forms of phasing and timing issues, first reflections (at least in the mids and highs), etc.
With those two in place, and the correct geometry as I mentioned in my first response, I think you'll see a noticeable improvement in accuracy, response and imaging.
That probably won't be enough. And unless you know the acoustic properties of the packing blanket, there's no telling what it might do to your frequency response. A panel of 703 mounted on removable stands or on wheels would do the trick.I was thinking about creating a sort of a removable packing blanket/rod configuration to hang over the window during tracking/mixing so that the window reflections were a bit less of an issue.
... plus teh accurate dimensions / photos of your room! We can't help to suggest improvement unless we can see what you have, and run the numbers to predict what is happening, and what you will need to do to fix it! For example, I don't seen any bass trapping in that photo, and you will need a LOT of that, since it seems to be a small room. Without good bass trapping, the room will never sound right. So please post more info on the room itself, and photos taken in other directions around the room. That would help a lot.I know I have some homework here. So far I have to get that omni mic, and take measurements of the room and create a layout using the software you mentioned. Hopefully not too difficult!
- Stuart -
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Ok, so it's been a while, but I finally got a mic that is proper for this application. I was waiting for a deal on an ECM8000.
In the meantime I also built speaker stands and put up some panels on the walls that I made of Rolux, 1x4's and fabric. I'll get some more photos up later on. I'm also working on a drawing of the room in sketchup.
I wanted to post some updated room measurements to get your thoughts. Here are the screenshots as well as the files for your analysis. I think I have a little better handle on how to run the program now and the results are definitely different.
LEFT
LEFT
LEFT
RIGHT
RIGHT
RIGHT
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
Could not upload the file for you guys to check out... any ideas?
In the meantime I also built speaker stands and put up some panels on the walls that I made of Rolux, 1x4's and fabric. I'll get some more photos up later on. I'm also working on a drawing of the room in sketchup.
I wanted to post some updated room measurements to get your thoughts. Here are the screenshots as well as the files for your analysis. I think I have a little better handle on how to run the program now and the results are definitely different.
LEFT
LEFT
LEFT
RIGHT
RIGHT
RIGHT
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
Could not upload the file for you guys to check out... any ideas?
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Here are a few mock-ups of the room to scale. I measured everything and did my best to get it to conform as well as I could being that it was my first time using this program.
Note the Acoustic Panels I made on the wall.
Note the Acoustic Panels I made on the wall.
-
clyde67
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Just some additional shots with 1/3 Octave Smoothing. I know someone had asked for no smoothing, but I've seen a lot of requests out there in general for 1/3 smoothing. Not sure if posting this will help or hurt my chances of getting a response, but at this point I figured it couldn't hurt!
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to hear your responses as I did go out and purchase the mic that's recommended and have worked on the setup here quite a bit with hopes of getting more accurate readings for you guys.
Thanks!
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to hear your responses as I did go out and purchase the mic that's recommended and have worked on the setup here quite a bit with hopes of getting more accurate readings for you guys.
Thanks!
-
Soundman2020
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: REW reading accuracy and beginning of room design
Great!I wanted to post some updated room measurements to get your thoughts. Here are the screenshots as well as the files for your analysis
You clearly have some modal stuff going on in the low end, which is normal for a small room, so you need more bass-trapping for that. Big, major, deep floor-to-ceiling traps in your room corners, faced with 6 mil plastic, then the cloth.
The trouble with smoothing is that it can hide the details, and that's exactly what is happening on your graphs. A perfect example! Take a look at around 70 Hz on the un-smoothed vs. the smoothed- Notice that your 70 Hz modal peak "disappeared" in the smoothed version? You'd never know it was there if you just looked at the smoothed version, but in the other one it is crystal clear.Just some additional shots with 1/3 Octave Smoothing. I know someone had asked for no smoothing, but I've seen a lot of requests out there in general for 1/3 smoothing.
Do you have a sound level meter? It would be great if you could calibrate your system properly, as it is grossly mis-calibrated right now. I can guarantee with absolute certainly that you were not producing SPL levels of 160 dB in that room! I know this for certain, since you are still alive! If you had managed 160 dBC in that room, you'd be a blob of quivering mush on the floor....I think I have a little better handle on how to run the program now and the results are definitely different.
The only speaker on this planet that can produce levels approaching that, is this one:So use a sound level meter to calibrate it properly, and make sure you run all your tests at a level of about 85 dB.
The graphs you show are valid, from the point of view of relative levels, but not valid from the point of view of absolute levels.
- Stuart -