[kenreau]

Curious if anyone has used the ASC MATT test, or would recommend something similar?

The objective of performing the MATT test in your listening room is to determine where you might move your speakers, listening position, and/or where to add acoustic treatment to your room to obtain the highest quality sound possible from the components in your listening environment. This is done by recording the playback of a carefully selected set of tones designed to evaluate the way in which a loudspeaker system operates relative to its surroundings.  http://www.asc-hifi.com/matt-test.htm

I recall reading of a couple of other room acoustic software products mentioned favorably such as   http://www.xtz.se/uk and Room EQ Wizard. 

Is there a consensus on what works best for a layman?  I also have the Rives CD and Stereophile test cds and access to a laptop with soundcard and microphone.

Thanks
Kenreau

[Nyal Mellor]

If you would like some help with your room acoustics, normal practice on these forums is to post measurements using something like room eq wizard (1/24th octave smoothed frequency response, cumulative spectral decay, etc).

ASC MATT test is meant to be a test tone that correlates more accurately with what we perceive as sound quality rather than say using pink noise. It is a test tone that rapidly switches on and off, so it measures both level and decay time, in ASC's words the 'articulation' of the room.

In any event, taking the measurements is only 20% of the pie, so to speak, interpreting them and understanding how to make changes to your system and room to improve the measurements is the other 80% of the pie...

[rogerdn]

Curious if anyone has used the ASC MATT test, or would recommend something similar?

The objective of performing the MATT test in your listening room is to determine where you might move your speakers, listening position, and/or where to add acoustic treatment to your room to obtain the highest quality sound possible from the components in your listening environment. This is done by recording the playback of a carefully selected set of tones designed to evaluate the way in which a loudspeaker system operates relative to its surroundings.  http://www.asc-hifi.com/matt-test.htm

I recall reading of a couple of other room acoustic software products mentioned favorably such as   http://www.xtz.se/uk and Room EQ Wizard. 

Is there a consensus on what works best for a layman?  I also have the Rives CD and Stereophile test cds and access to a laptop with soundcard and microphone.

Thanks
Kenreau

I have extensive ASC room treatment in my new dedicated music room and the sound is stunning. I ran the MATT and got it analyzed by ASC and was pleased with the detailed report they sent.  I also have the XTZ analyzer and found it easy to use in finding room modes, which I have been able to correct with my Classe PEQ on my SSP-800 processor.

I am not an acoustic designer by any means but by doing research have sucessfully designed and built a very, very nice listening enviorment, yes the room is half the battle in getting natural sound reproduction.

[Nyal Mellor]

ASC use the MATT as a diagnostic tool to help design their acoustical treatment schemes...

Rogerdn - maybe worth elaborating on how you implemented parametric EQ on the Class...

[rogerdn]

ASC use the MATT as a diagnostic tool to help design their acoustical treatment schemes...

Rogerdn - maybe worth elaborating on how you implemented parametric EQ on the Class...

I have a seven channel (no sub which simplifies the effort I understand) system and at this point have used XTZ with all channels running together.  I used my seating position for the mic however XTZ will also test three positions and average them. It calculates Hz, dB and time (Q), and in my set up found three modes. I then used these for setting all seven channels of the SSP-800 (ie, the same), after which a rerun confirmed I no longer had room modes. Pretty simple.  XTZ is easy to set up and use.

I am now installing a second phase of ASC Traps and this time plan on running each channel separately and setting the PEQ using the test results for each channel.  I have read this is a preferred method but have not compared results of the two myself.

BTW, in the July issue of Stereophile, Kalman Rubinson reviewed the SSP-800 (actually the CT-SSP version) and used XTZ to tune his room/system with excellent results.

[kenreau]

Great feedback, thanks guys. 

I just recently returned from vacation and spent a few days working on installing my acoustical wall panels and building super chuck corner traps (full ht to 10' ceiling) in the back corners.  I had a local HT installer come by and make some room acoustic measurements and to help dial in locations for panels, etc.  It made a substantial improvement.  Slap/flutter echo is nearly eliminated and bass/midrange articulation really tightened up.  I was thrilled with the improvements.

His acoustic measuring software tools appeared to be a little dated and only measured to 1/3 octaves.  I intend to post his measurements and data after he sends them to me.  I suspect I will still get a copy of the XTZ device and run the MATT test to confirm it's in the sweet spot. 

We treated the walls (1st & 2nd reflection points) and corners as noted above.  One remaining area I suspect could offer some benefit is the ceiling reflection points.  It is a typical orange peel textured drywall hard ceiling at 10' high. 

For this ceiling application, is there a consensus to always use absorbtion at the 1st reflection point?  I thought I recall reading with higher ceiling hts. that diffusion is prefered?  Or should I just wait for the XTZ/MATT tests to see what they look like?

Thanks
Kenreau