|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 20, 2017 21:24:24 GMT
Bass Spectrogram
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:07:28 GMT
Ok, super chunks have been moved around.
In their original position (gapped approx 2'), they provided better control of decay in the lower ranges.
However, sliding them nearer to the corners, they improve decay of higher frequencies and help with the mid 100Hz null.
I guess this would be expected.
Pics and analysis follows:
"Control" means original 2' gap.
"Reconfig" means slid into corners (no gap) and one 47" super chunk moved mid corner front wall.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:09:11 GMT
Bass SPL
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:11:19 GMT
Bass waterfall, 150ms time frame, 70Hz emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:12:05 GMT
Bass Decay
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:13:19 GMT
CTRL: 41.79Hz -10.3dB@140ms -10.7dB@160ms
66Hz -6.8dB@140ms -8.6dB@160ms
68.8Hz -9.6dB@140ms -11.5dB@160ms
P75.4Hz -9.1dB@140ms -12dB@160ms 92Hz -15.9dB@140ms -18.9dB@160ms
194.6Hz -16.2dB@140ms -23.8dB@160ms
RCFG: 41.79Hz -8.2dB@140ms -8.5dB@160ms
66Hz -7.5dB@140ms -8.4dB@160ms
68.8Hz -9.4dB@140ms -10.7dB@160ms
P75.4Hz -9.8dB@140ms -13.1dB@160ms
92Hz -17dB@140ms -22.2dB@160ms
194.6Hz -23.7dB@140ms -31.7dB@160ms
P=Previously Noted As Problematic
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 1:16:24 GMT
There is a strong flummoxed feeling that the decay now appears to be worse than when the panels were distributed differently.
Closer comparative analysis will have to be made between the "20 panels leaning on the wall" and current configurations.
That's all for now. Tomorrow will bring a fresh look.
If there's any response, let there be discussion about whether a null, though well-complimented by another speaker system, is preferable to marginally improved decay time in low frequency ranges.
Thanks.
PS - The "20 Panels" data was found and it brings great surprise to see how the current configuration of panels significantly worsens the room's response.
Looks like this room isn't nearly as finished as previously thought.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:48:27 GMT
After having found the (legendary) "20 sprd" file it was compared to every measurement taken hence.
None could meet its standard.
On the flip side this room now has more functionality than before: a well-treated RFZ and a decent recording zone.
Those features weren't previously available so it's a trade off at the LP's expense.
People like pictures so those first and then the text.
To be clear - the better measurements are the "20 sprd" and that's NOT what the room currently represents.
The most recent is "Pi2R1 C"
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:49:28 GMT
Bass SPL
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:50:14 GMT
Full SPL 1/3 Octave Smoothing
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:50:52 GMT
Bass Waterfall EDIT: Apologies - The blue waterfall for Pi2R1 C only shows 150ms whereas 20 sprd shows 300. Here is a corrected version:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:51:27 GMT
Bass Decay
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 21, 2017 20:55:13 GMT
Now for the texty bits:
Pi2R1 C (current):
41.79Hz -10.1dB@140ms -9.1dB@160ms
66Hz -16.5dB@140ms -16.7dB@160ms
68.8Hz -15.9dB@140ms -17dB@160ms
75.4Hz -18.2dB@140ms -21.4dB@160ms
92Hz -15.5dB@140ms -19dB@160ms
194.6Hz -24.6dB@140ms -32.4dB@160ms
20 sprd rear sc clsr 1 (legendary):
41.79Hz -8.5dB@140ms -9.1dB@160ms
66Hz -21.7dB@140ms -23.4dB@160ms
68.8Hz -20.2dB@140ms -23.2dB@160ms
75.4Hz -15.3dB@140ms -18.1dB@160ms
92Hz -18.6dB@140ms -23.5dB@160ms
194.6Hz -22.6dB@140ms -26.4dB@160ms
A full comparison hasn't yet been made among the four provided data lists. Some time away from the computer will create the desire for that to take place.
Regarding decay, a cursory examination shows about an 8.5dB overall improvement from Ctrl and RCFG to Pi2R1 C and about a 6dB sacrifice in the 67Hz and 92Hz ranges when compared to 20 sprd. Surprisingly, when comparing current and "legendary" results, there was slight improvement at 42Hz, a 3dB improvement at 75Hz and significant improvement at 195Hz.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 23, 2017 2:11:05 GMT
As mentioned in the EQ'ing Low Frequencies thread, a -6dB, relatively narrow Q, notch was applied to around 66Hz via the MOTU CueMix FX software console on the main out.
Measurements were taken in an approx. 1' radius before and after additional equipment was added to the relatively empty room. The measured result was consistent so the effect remains. The subwoofer's level was adjusted up about 2dB, consequently.
Initially two notches were made: the former and another around 100Hz. The second one was found to be detrimental once more stuff was added to the space. There is another persistent peak around 130Hz but it was only confirmed today via Ethan's post that it's acceptable to notch that high. Perhaps an attempt at attenuation will be made in future.
Pics will be posted soon. This room's primary treatment is finally nearing completion.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jun 23, 2017 23:38:11 GMT
Just a few more details before the final pictures:
Leaving the hallway doors open improves decay; not surprising.
Putting blankets in the corner improves decay; not surprising.
Imaging is a little weird even after doing pink noise balancing. Maybe the broken nose deflects sounds funny cause this is always a problem. Then again, the rear of the room is asymmetrical.
Overall, the sound is deep and clear with more articulation and sense of envelopment with the bass. Perhaps a little bright in spots as the SPL would suggest. Just barely getting into it so a few days will be good.
Here we go with the images comparing before and after:
|
|