[James Romeyn]

Wow, what a room!

How much is one room per night, off-season, Queen or King, non-smoking? 

[Housteau]

Wow, what a room!

How much is one room per night, off-season, Queen or King, non-smoking?

   Thank you.  It has been in the planing stages for a while.  I wish Brian was still here to see it.  How have you been?  I had been wanting to get back in touch with you.  It has been some time.

[Stimpy]

All of the art in the room is either based on Fantasy, SiFi, or Magic.

WOW!  A man after my own heart!  A Geek and a Nerd!!!  Not only a beautiful room, with a state-of-the-art system, but SiFi and Fantasy art.  Even some Michael Whelan prints!  Too nice!  Now, you need to add some Frank Frazetta artwork.  Between Frazetta and Whelan, two of my favorite Fantasy artists.

I was also rereading the thread, hoping to read some updates on the speaker positioning process, but I guess it must be close enough!  Too busy listening to move anything!?!  Regardless, awesome, awesome room and system.  I hope that I can achieve something similar one day!

Take care...

[Housteau]

I suppose I am at that, as well as many other things .  One of my favorite prints is from Dean Morrissey, The Sandman, is over the equipment rack.  To balance that side of me off a bit I am also an avid swordsman, having been trained in edged weapons for many years (and not the fantasy kind).

I haven't posted much new about my room, because it is pretty much as you wrote, I have mostly been just listening to and enjoying my music.  It all sounds brand new to me and it has all been very exciting.  I certainly hope it continues to be so.  Simply put I have lost any frame of reference to my old room and set-up.  A lot of things were all changed at the same time, and it will take some time for me to feel comfortable enough with understanding what all those changes have done before making any more and then writing about my impressions. 

[Rob Babcock]

Very nice!  I'd be listening instead of posting, too.

[Housteau]

I was also rereading the thread, hoping to read some updates on the speaker positioning process, but I guess it must be close enough! 

I went ahead and did some more testing the other day to verify where everything stands right now.  The first thing I  checked was my listening position to see if it should, or could move back just a bit.  My testing showed freedom of travel of a few inches, but basically that it is already in the best position in the room.  With that position verified the speaker positions are somewhat preordained to the positions I have them in for the best soundstage presentation.  The main speakers are fortunately able to be close to that 1/5 rule in positioning in both directions.  The bass towers are located in positions that are at least away from those nasty 1/4 room dimensions, but smack into a boundary effect with them being very close to equidistant from the front and side walls.  The bass towers are there because at this time and with all of my testing this offers the best blend to the mains in both frequency and time.  The system speaks with a single voice.

The acoustic issues with the new room are different from my older and smaller one, but still there in general and had to be dealt with.  My more extensive treatments have helped, but I can see that it would be best if I increase them, especially in the front corners of the room.  Peaks and the natural roll off of speakers are easy to correct for and I have done that, but dips are another issue all together.  The new room and set up is better than my earlier one in requiring such correction, but it has a dip centered at 80Hz that I would like to control better.  I think in doing that some of the peaks will be naturally brought down as well and I prefer that over EQ.

My testing shows the largest build up of bass at my troubled frequencies appears to be in the front corners of my room.  Right now all the corners are filled with triangular sections of 703 floor to ceiling and covered with decorative frames.  So, right now I am putting together a plan to increase those in volume and thickness by adding to what I already have.  I can see that cubes would be much more efficient than triangles for corners, but they do take up a lot of space, even in a larger room like mine.  So, I think I will look at continuing to straddle the corners building them out further.  How far and how much?  I am not sure right now, but If I am going to go ahead and do this I might as well make it worth my while.  It will certainly be at least another 4 inches.  That would make the solid triangle dimensions a bit larger than 24" x 24" x 36". 

Any thoughts?

[Hipper]

How do you locate the physical position of your troublesome frequencies? Do you just play the frequency and walk around the room or do you have a more sophisticated method?

I know GIK sell tuned bass traps that can target specific frequencies but I've no experience of them - yet!

http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-scopus-tuned-bass-trap-t40/

In my reasonably well treated room most music plays well but I've noticed three or four tracks that have a boomy bass in places. I couldn't see this problem on my REW measurements because traffic noise interferes with measurements below 50Hz (I can't hear this traffic noise but the microphone can). In order to get flattish levels in that area I had used standard third octave test tones and my ears. However they apparently missed the problem frequencies because I think I've identified them by using Real Traps downloadable test tones, which run from 10-300Hz at 1Hz intervals. My difficulties seem to be at 42-43Hz.

http://realtraps.com/test-cd.htm

[Housteau]

The Real Traps test tones are a great tool and I do use them to more closely map my room and verify against my software measurements using True RTA.  It's resolution only goes to 1/64.

Generally what I do is play the tones my measurements told me I have issues with.  For example:  My previous room had a deep suck-out around 47Hz.  True RTA can play any constant tone needed and so I put on 47Hz and walked around the room with my RadioShack db meter (be sure to use the off set calibrations) to find out where a build-up at 47Hz was located.  My thought being that if I can reduce where that frequency is peaking it will also allow the dip to naturally fill in.  The build-up was located in the center of my front wall from floor to ceiling and so I constructed a large bass trap in that area of simple OC 703 with a decorative cover made of cheap oriental screens:



It worked pretty well.  That dip did fill in a good bit and since is was a broadband type of trap, it also helped to smooth out other frequencies as well.  That is why I am a fan of the broadband approach to bass treatments. 

This time around I am getting a strong build-up of 80Hz in my front two corners, as well as the fifth corner created in the original part of my room from the expansion.  I ordered up the material today from GIK and plan to do build up one corner at a time and see what happens.  It may not do everything that I want this time, but I am sure it will be of benefit one way or the other.  The room is large enough where I don't think this will harm my higher frequencies, but if I feel it does I can make these traps reflective of those.

[Hipper]

Thanks for that info.

I'll try that with my SPL meter but I fear it may also be affected by traffic noise (early in the morning is better but still not quiet according to the microphone).

Maybe my ears will be good enough.

[Housteau]

I'll try that with my SPL meter but I fear it may also be affected by traffic noise (early in the morning is better but still not quiet according to the microphone).
Maybe my ears will be good enough.

I think when you play a solid tone in the 40's you should be able to pretty easily locate your hot spots.  That is a powerful frequency.  A room treatment is always the best first way to go.  But, if your only real issue is that boomy frequency and the treatment doesn't work that well, it will be very easy to cut it back using something like a DSPeaker.  That unit is reported to work very well and is completely self-contained and will automatically take care of your issues.

[Hipper]

For the 42/43Hz boom I've adjusted my Behringer DEQ2496, Parametric EQ. The nearest I can get is 44.3Hz but using a narrow band (1/6) and -6dB seems to have had an effect in reducing the boominess. I agree though that it would be better to deal with this by room treatment.

According to REW I have nulls at 40, 50, 73 and 200 ranging from -7 to -12dB. However playing the Real Trap test tones with SPL meter doesn't show any problems in these areas. For nulls above 300, the biggest being -26dB at 450 and -35dB at 928Hz, I have no way of testing for them as they are not the standard 1/3 octave frequencies. I don't notice any obvious problems with these when playing music. Perhaps they are so narrow as to be irrelevant or, as these nulls are only in one speaker or the other and not both for the same frequency, perhaps there's enough energy to be not noticeable.

One thing I noticed was that if I dip my ears down - i.e. point my head down as if looking at the carpet say - I get a more open, detailed sound. It's rather like putting your hands behind your ears or pushing your ears forward, but better. This is not the same as moving my head forward, or my chair forward, neither of which make such a difference.

[John Casler]

One thing I noticed was that if I dip my ears down - i.e. point my head down as if looking at the carpet say - I get a more open, detailed sound. It's rather like putting your hands behind your ears or pushing your ears forward, but better. This is not the same as moving my head forward, or my chair forward, neither of which make such a difference.

I addressed this several years ago in listening observations.

Not sure if it is the same with everyone, or with a limited population.

It seems that the pinna shape and collective ability is such that you hear with slightly more acuity with your head down.

That said, if you are listening to RM40s, part of that may be due to getting down closer to the dispersion plane of the Tweeter.

[Housteau]

For the 42/43Hz boom I've adjusted my Behringer DEQ2496, Parametric EQ. The nearest I can get is 44.3Hz but using a narrow band (1/6) and -6dB seems to have had an effect in reducing the boominess.

I prefer to manually take care of such issues as well.  My modded DCX does a fine job of it, but I have been looking into those DEQX units, especially their top line preamp.

My new treatments have been built and installed.  The measured response is better across the entire lower frequency bands allowing me reduce my EQ corrections and the dip at 80 Hz has filled in a bit, but not as much as I had hoped for.  However, my listening impressions have been very favorable with these new improvements, more so than the new measurements might suggest.

[Hipper]

I addressed this several years ago in listening observations.

Not sure if it is the same with everyone, or with a limited population.

It seems that the pinna shape and collective ability is such that you hear with slightly more acuity with your head down.

That said, if you are listening to RM40s, part of that may be due to getting down closer to the dispersion plane of the Tweeter.

I have RM30Ms. It's not comfortable listening with head downwards but it's also frustrating to know there's a bit better sound just there if you do it. Perhaps it might also be why your 'Tallboy' tweak works. I'm not using it at the moment but perhaps I should give it another go.

I prefer to manually take care of such issues as well.  My modded DCX does a fine job of it, but I have been looking into those DEQX units, especially their top line preamp.

Here in the UK, actually in the town I live in, there was a few years ago a company that would loan out a DEQX for trials. I never took the opportunity and now the company has gone. Apart from costing ten times my Behringer the last time I looked it didn't have the connectivity I was looking for - all digital outputs are Toslink only.

My new treatments have been built and installed.  The measured response is better across the entire lower frequency bands allowing me reduce my EQ corrections and the dip at 80 Hz has filled in a bit, but not as much as I had hoped for.  However, my listening impressions have been very favorable with these new improvements, more so than the new measurements might suggest.

I'm pleased for you. It must be very satisfying after all your efforts. I'd love to be able to ditch my equaliser mainly out of principle, but also so I could connect my DAC and Transport in a better way. However EQ is still essential for me and makes clear improvements.

Yet again it is shown that listening is the ultimate test and measurements are there to guide us. It's too easy to get carried away with measurements alone.

[Housteau]

I'm pleased for you. It must be very satisfying after all your efforts. I'd love to be able to ditch my equaliser mainly out of principle, but also so I could connect my DAC and Transport in a better way. However EQ is still essential for me and makes clear improvements.

Yet again it is shown that listening is the ultimate test and measurements are there to guide us. It's too easy to get carried away with measurements alone.

For a long time there was a stigma attached to the use of equalizers and possibly well deserved considering the real harm many could do to the signal purity.  But, I see things turning around on that front with all the higher quality digital systems out there now.  Even the less expensive ones that you and I use are quite good.  In fact they are good enough that highly regarded speaker manufacturers such as Brian Chaney of VMPS and Roger Sanders of Sanders Sound have supplied them with their systems.  As far as I know Sanders Sound still does, but I am not certain.

Brian found the DCX transparent when using the analog in and wrote that if there were any negatives they were far outweighed by all the positives. I was talking to Roger Sanders at Rocky Mountain a few years ago and he was telling me that he does not modify the Behringer DCX at all.  He saw no need for it and found that unit transparent on his highly transparent speakers, the same system Harry Pearson raved about.  So, for those that continue to say the Behringer units are not at all worthy on a sounding basis need to think about that.  However, I will agree that the quality of parts and their longevity can leave a lot to be desired. 

I agree that we can get too carried away by the measurements.  They are useful, but they do not tell the whole story.  They do help to point me in the right directions when setting up my room treatments.



This photo shows the original size of my front two corner bass traps






The following two photos show two of the new and substantially larger ones.






I don't think I will be doing much more bass trapping for the room.  Although I do have one extra box of OC 703 that I didn't use and so I may consider a few more.  One place may be to increase the depth of that panel in the middle of my front wall.  Right now it is at 4 inches.

[brooklyn]

Congrats on the new audio room, it's beautiful, it makes my dedicated audio room look like a toilet… LOL

I hope you have many years of musical enjoyment with it, I don’t think that will be to hard to do.

[Hipper]

As long as it doesn't sound like a toilet you should be OK.

[Housteau]

Congrats on the new audio room, it's beautiful, it makes my dedicated audio room look like a toilet… LOL

I hope you have many years of musical enjoyment with it, I don’t think that will be to hard to do.

It looks to me like you have a nice proportioned space with a perfect speaker system for it.  I have always been impressed with them over the years and they just get better over time.

[brooklyn]

Thanks guys, thats the fist time in all the years that I've been with this hobby
that I have a room all to myself. I love it.

[a.wayne]

The Real Traps test tones are a great tool and I do use them to more closely map my room and verify against my software measurements using True RTA.  It's resolution only goes to 1/64.

Generally what I do is play the tones my measurements told me I have issues with.  For example:  My previous room had a deep suck-out around 47Hz.  True RTA can play any constant tone needed and so I put on 47Hz and walked around the room with my RadioShack db meter (be sure to use the off set calibrations) to find out where a build-up at 47Hz was located.  My thought being that if I can reduce where that frequency is peaking it will also allow the dip to naturally fill in.  The build-up was located in the center of my front wall from floor to ceiling and so I constructed a large bass trap in that area of simple OC 703 with a decorative cover made of cheap oriental screens:



It worked pretty well.  That dip did fill in a good bit and since is was a broadband type of trap, it also helped to smooth out other frequencies as well.  That is why I am a fan of the broadband approach to bass treatments. 

This time around I am getting a strong build-up of 80Hz in my front two corners, as well as the fifth corner created in the original part of my room from the expansion.  I ordered up the material today from GIK and plan to do build up one corner at a time and see what happens.  It may not do everything that I want this time, but I am sure it will be of benefit one way or the other.  The room is large enough where I don't think this will harm my higher frequencies, but if I feel it does I can make these traps reflective of those.

Hello,

Are you currently running a Behringer unit in your system , if so , any issues ..?