Room Correction Deception - www.AcousticFields.com

[@djentlover]

As a mixing engineer, I don't mind people messing with the eq. The room acts as a radical eq already, so compensating eq is a valid tool. I prefer using my ears instead of software though when calibrating. I listen to a sine wave of each individual frequency below 100Hz, and increasing increments after that (every 10 at 100-1000 and every 100 at 1000-14000). I adjust the curve of my monitoring eq so that every frequency are heard at about the same level. This results in a very pleasant and balanced overall sound. You still have to have acoustic treatment to widen the sweet spot. The better the treatment, the larger the sweet spot. (if not the whole room)

[@AcousticFields]

D, Yes, well said. Your comments indicate the need for room and electronics to work together. Everyone is looking for an easy fix without understanding all of the systems involved. There is no easy fix when you have multiple systems that must integrate together to produce a sonic product.

[@neve1064]

djentlover which eq hardware unit or software are you using to correct the response of your room?

[@djentlover]

@@neve1064 I have the RME Fireface UFX 2, the eq in TotalMix is very good and transparent.

[@rb032682]

@djent - Just an example scenario: How would you use EQ to fix a room with a major problem where 62Hz is 8dB too hot while 64Hz is -9dB too cold?

[@rb032682]

@Paul noneofyabusiness - You sure about that?

[@JesusChristSaves2024]

For audio recording, Acoustic treatment is the only way to properly fix problems. For playback however a DSP is a very useful tool, and is very cost effective. Not everyone can afford or have the possibility due to space limitations to install acoustic treatment, especially bass traps. So a DSP is a very good alternative. I understand the conflict of interest here, But why make such a disingenuous video?. I mean, Even if there were no room problems to deal with, There's still the problem of different speakers and amps producing and having different sound. The term "As the artist intended", a lot of the time is used to manipulate ignorant people. It's not uncommon for music producers to use multiple pairs of speakers and playback their music on all sorts of different sound systems. So there is no real reference. A smooth frequency response is a smooth frequency response no matter if you get it with acoustic treatment or DSP.

[@AcousticFields]

J, A smooth frequency response is not necessarily a smooth frequency response. You can marry the energy input into the room and balance that energy within the limitations of the room size and volume. What you can not control is presentation value. You can't control sound stage width and depth. What we have found with these processors is that distort the sound stage presentation. They may work for near field monitoring but not in any playback systems my clients use. Processing does have validity below 100 Hz. Any less input in that narrow frequency range is always welcome.

[@TheNewFallOfficial]

Acoustic Fields so what you stated in a nutshell is localization cannot be manipulated in a live performance setting where the L/R speaker arrays can sometimes be 75 ft apart?

[@justingillette8287]

John Smith I agree John Smith, you are spot on with your response, high five, could not have said it better. In response to the rest of this thread, acoustic fields is making another broad blanket statement trying to sell a product to potentially ignorant people. There are many times DSP will improve a sound stage for example say your listening location won’t allow for equidistant location of your speakers, with delay function you can digitally center the listening location and improve the sound stage. Proof that the blanket statement of DSP being bad is false, Acoustic fields is trying to sell a product not teach or actually get anyone good sound!!!

[@deejay7339]

@@justingillette8287 That's an absurd assessment. He does want to sell a product, but he's backed up everything in his videos with facts. The gain of your speakers will change the output you get in the room vs what was recorded for analysis on these programs. That's a big one. Just like changing your room wont make poor speakers sound great, don't expect modifying your speakers to make your room sound perfect either... Come on people!

[@justingillette8287]

changing your room will make your speakers sound better if the room you are changing to has better acoustics, just like adding DSP can improve your speaker if there is a major flow with them. If the speakers you are using combined with the environment they are playing in creates a huge peak somewhere, then attenuating that section down to match the rest via DSP/PEQ is a quick and easy process. its the easiest and cheapest way to improve/fix the situation. the bottom line is that this video is inaccurately trying to downgrade the value and utility of DSP. Now for all intents and purposes it is true the DSP does not solve all problems but it is a powerful tool if you know what you are doing with it. I am a career sound technician and I am here to tell you that there is a lot of BS built into the so called facts that you currently believe in. I am ok with these guys making money, but they are pulling the wool over your eyes.

[@korreyfoisy1857]

I think this information is the most correct for someone who sells room treatment vs correction software. Not wrong but only practical for a certain audience.

[@sebsoud]

I find it's a pity that it gives a pure black and white picture, without any gray between... Because I believe that the best results can be achieved with doing both: room treatment (with constraints which can be particular to each situation), and then tune with "controlled" active correction. I took some time to study and practise both of them, at rather DIY level, and I'm happy with the improvement. Regarding active correction, I did MMM measurements for the final correction. Of course, there are drawbacks regarding phase modifications (and thus soundstage), and it's a trade-off to find.

[@edjackson4389]

I used to install stereo systems years ago, when my family owned an electronics store, and I can say for a fact that major room treatment would not only be a waste for 98% of my customers ears, but would also be a 100% NO from the women who have to look at it. Hell most of them couldn't tolerate looking at the big floor speakers much less a bunch of ugly bass traps and diffusers. Listening to this guy you would think making music sound good in the average room would be almost impossible, but I have found the opposite to be true. Now, that said I HAVE treated my man cave a little bit, but it's the only room in the house where my wife has zero input.

[@AcousticFields]

What you have to understand about signal processing is that once the process signal leaves the speakers it is then "owned" by another speaker box called the room. Sound processed or not will take on the characteristics of the room in which it is released. Take a room with glass walls and a room with wood walls. Even though both response curves are similar, will they both sound the same because their response curves match? This is why it is critical to manage as many of your room issues as you with treatment in the analog domain and use processing as a polish for the issues the treatment could not get.

[@AmazonasBiotop]

If you have tried different positions of your speakers If you have treated your room for that specific 100hz If you have still 3dB to much at 100hz when you did the above Why is I messing with what the software developer developed Why is I messing with the artist intended. Yes I put one more component in the signal path. That is bad for purists. But plenty of people say that a unnecessary preamp in the signal path adds something to the experience. Maybe a signal processor that remove 3 dB at 100 Hz and also makes the 100 Hz not still bouncing around in the room for 1000 ms. Also adds that we are able to hear the music that this would smear over. By removing that issue it is then adding us to hear the music that were smeared over. Did the software developer and the artist intended that I SHOULD have a bump with 3dB of more energy at 100hz. Because I happen to get that in that room with that system. No do not plant doubt in our minds. Yes I understand that you and me also for that matter want the viewers to primary and foremost treat our listening environment. But this is the first time I understand what you are talking about and I don't like how you try to twist it. It would be better if you advised to first treat the room then if it is not enough or more treatment is not an option THEN go for signal correction for the last resort or fine tweaking.

[@Andy-qk4bl]

Couldn't agree more. I've like most videos so far, but this is getting a bit fraudulent.

[@cornerliston]

Try to understand the logic why a purist put a tube amp in the signal path : )

[@Andy-qk4bl]

corner liston because he likes that sweet distortion 👌 Pardon my French, it's called "warm" over there.

[@cornerliston]

@@Andy-qk4bl Exactly. The Purist actually don't like to listen to the music as it was recorded : ) And even better, the very same Purist probably spends tons on cables, power chords and decoupling systems. My guess is that the very same Purist wouldn't even understand how much saturation there is already in many of the recordings the Purist listens to.

[@lfazio9690]

Optimize i believe your technical explanation supporting the usage of signal processing has merit, however, your criticism of Mr. Foley is flawed and misleading. FYI - I do not know, nor have contracted Mr. Foley for any service, I’m simply a YT subscriber of his channel. This particular video endeavors to address methodology and approach to room acoustic compensation and how both acoustic treatment and signal correction should be used. Mr Foley is simply pointing out that signal correction should be a secondary measure when compared to room treatment (I believe your points address this as well). I see nothing flawed in his analysis nor any unfounded criticism of signal correction and it’s proper use. All he is saying is that you would try to compensate for a horribly performing preamp by purchasing an EQ - your approach should be the preamp replacement. This is simply an analogy of mine but I believe it captures his point. And I believe you are saying the same thing but I disagree with being harsh about his approach is unfounded. I have a friend and he and I together have worked diligently through the years to develop a very nice reference system. Unfortunately the room it’s in will NEVER be able to accept proper treatment, therefore, we are using room correction signal processing at the moment and the improvement is remarkable. However, he is about to retire and build a house, for which we will design an appropriate room, likely resulting in a significant investment. Upon evaluation, if more room correction is needed, we may ultimately have to resort to signal correction, but, we will certainly be minimizing the amount needed. And I believe this is what you’re saying as well, as well as I believe it’s what Mr. Foley is advocating.

[@FatalBlow113]

Although I agree with what you said, but you need to understand that 99% of people are on a tight budget, and regardless of how much knowledge you have, you'll never get a perfect room if you can't afford to buy the proper materials (although you'll make the best out of the money you have). For instance, if I gave you a $1,000 budget to convert a bedroom into a professional recording studio AND listening room all-in-one, you'd probably end up doing *slight* EQing in the end. The only problem with this video I have (besides the bad green screen) is that you are speaking on a subject that is obvious. Of course people would rather have a room so professional that they didn't need to EQ... but people just don't have the money to do it.

[@671shades]

Fucking boomers!

[@rb032682]

@@671shades - Really?

[@671shades]

@@rb032682 ya really is 2020 catch up old man stop living in the pass fr stop complaining and start facing the reality.

[@rb032682]

@@671shades - Why is your head so far up QAnus?

[@671shades]

@@rb032682 ok boomer. 👍

[@thereal_ineedHelp]

I feel like the argument made is fundamentally flawed. Room/speaker correction software isn’t EQ in the way you describe it as “messing with the mix and signal” of audio. If your room cancels out most of the bass (which is the most common issue with home studios), you’re not hearing the information that’s actually in the audio. To use the analogy used at 4:38, you’re not “adding more paint” to a painting (creative) you’re giving a color blind person the ability to see the colors that are there in the original painting (corrective). Correction software is attempting to *enable* you to hear what another engineer intended for you to hear, or in the case of your own productions, enable you to hear what is in the source material. They’re like hearing aids for your studio, corrective adjustments, not creative adjustments.

[@AcousticFields]

I understand all the principles behind room correction software. What I don't understand is why I hear it all the time in the mix. Isn't it supposed to not be heard. Sometimes all I hear is processing. Where did our music go?

[@ELPLAK]

Reference 4 is different and it worked awesomely well for me. Since I stared using it it just make my mixes improve a lot. Many can testify what I am saying. Room treatment is the best but when you can’t afford service like yours or big investments for isolation and acoustics treatments, then this is solution with software could help like in my case.

[@AcousticFields]

You can use processing as a "polish" to treat + 2 - + 3 dB issues. However, it will not work well with larger issues.

[@AcousticFields]

It can assist people but it has both an economical and an acoustical cost.

[@Methamill]

@@AcousticFields That was needed to be said in the video! Take care friend.

[@SimpleAndyRock]

I have a treated room, but its still not perfect. Added sonarworks software to it, and now it sounds perfect. So Sonarworks definitely works, but some of the physics of the room cannot be DSP fixed indeed.

[@disklamer]

I recommend to start with the simple and obvious things, like the size of the room, adjust that to remove as many standing waves as possible. Just slightly sloping the side walls and ceiling can already make a world of difference, at nominal cost. Any kind of "basstrap" in the back will definitely help clean up the sound, as will side absorption and end wall diffusion - together they can give your shoebox room a more natural sondflow. Once you have done everything to the room that is practical and within your budget, a good equalizer or DSP can help to finetune the result. Or not, more equipment may just introduce another variable and another source of unwanted artefacts. Just keep at it, measuring, analyzing, testing, calculating, experimenting, documenting any changes, recording, and comparing results until your ears are happy. It's a process of incremental improvements...

[@AcousticFields]

D, Yes, room size and volume are a great start. It sure makes the treatment journey easier. Be careful saying use, "any kind of bass trap". People have been doing that for years with no real impact on low-frequency issues. You must a low-frequency technology that has the proper rate and level of absorption to deal with the issues within the room locations. There must be a performance/solution balance.

[@disklamer]

@@AcousticFields Thanks for your reply! Absolutely "Bass traps" are no panacea, I just meant to emphasize your point that the room itself is the place to start, and to point out there are relatively simple things that can (should :) be done to improve the situation before reverting to changing the actual audio.

[@AcousticFields]

Well said but you must cover entire surfaces to manage low frequency energy which is all about square footage of coverage.

[@BrandonHortman]

Ive had a set of genelec 8330s with the GLM kit for a week now. Ive got to say im very impressed so far

[@AcousticFields]

B, What impresses one person will not satisfy another. It all depends on your reference standard. If it works for you, mission accomplished.

[@BrandonHortman]

Certainly not a replacement for acoustic treatment! Thanks for your videos

[@skumflum3768]

Well, my wife likes Dirac Live more than huge bass traps and diffusers 🤪 that being said I would love to have some room treatment behind my listening position. It is not ideal and up against the rear wall. Would that be diffuser or absorbers?

[@AcousticFields]

S, What is room usage?

[@skumflum3768]

@@AcousticFields Disclaimer…English is not my first language and it is surprisingly difficult to explain this. The room is basically a large open room where the kitchen is the one end and living room in the other end (about 13x50 feet). It is the central living space so to speak. The speakers are placed in the living room “section” facing out the narrow end ( that is, they NOT play lengthwise) and our sofa is placed right up the back wall. Not ideal acoustic wise since one of the speakers is near the corner and the other one has lots of space. This means the room is amplifying frequencies from one of the speakers and not so much the other one. In addition to this there is huge amplification of +25 DB in 40Hz and +10DB in 50-90Hz (measured with a calibrated microphone). I simply cannot make my house central room look like a recording studio, so I have used Dirac Live and it makes a huge difference (positive). I have already replaced the ceiling panels with acoustic damping materials (troldtekt - that is a kind of cement-bonded wood wool panels that is faconnable in new houses in my country). However I still feel that the reflection on the back wall is messing with the soundstage. When playing loud I can hear the reflections more clearly. I think that I could do more and have a combination of acoustic products and keep using Dirac Live (A compromise). And thanks for replying :)

[@AcousticFields]

It depends on your room usage. It depends on the room dimensions. It depends on the distance from walls to ears. It depends on the distance from the speakers to your ears. It depends on how far apart your speakers are. It depends.

[@cherrywhips603]

Great explanation, a lot of people are having a hard time digesting this. Simply put, treat the room first and everything else will fall in to line. You will get better imaging, you will make your speakers more efficient, music will be more dynamic, There are so many benefits to this, that if you still feel you need to add room correction software, you will be so far ahead than if you just went with with RC at the start. Thats it, not a bias video or a marketing gimmick. Give it a try, the sound is much more natural then adding room correction or tuning with a DSP.

[@justingillette8287]

I agree with your comment like 90-95% and for that I appreciate the value you add. I don’t want to take away from your input here, as I see it as correct. Having said that it is my experience that DSP is much of the time a very effective and useful tool. I wish to clarify a little which may separate our disagreement out. First almost always compromises are made when it comes to sound. If you can properly configure a room and or treat a room that is I think better then relying upon DSP. At the same time having well designed sound equipment is better than just trying to fix the equipment with DSP. All this makes sense in the rich mans perspective. This is an expensive operation, and what I am suggesting is that DSP can get you some really good results or get you really high up the scale of good sound for not a lot of money. It looks to me like our disconnect is in the level of acoustical resolution we are used to operating in. If you are a rich audio purists than sure it becomes easy to dismiss DSP and I would agree with money out the equation DSP only contaminates the sound. But for most and this is why I emphasize it in the bag of tricks available to any audio enthusiast DSP should be a viable option, especially if finances or a spouse or something restricts other acoustical options. In a perfect world you can correctly set up a room and afford perfect speakers. For the rest of us DSP is an option to get us a little closer.

[@cherrywhips603]

@@justingillette8287 You replied to my reply to your dialogue above. So I'll just keep it all in here. LONG READ BELOW Here is a quote from one of the better Room/Driver/Speaker correction companies. "I often get asked if digital room correction or room EQ is necessary for a given studio or listening room. My answer is that a professional tool, like Sonarworks Reference 4, will almost certainly improve your listening experience. The next questions that come up involve speaker choice, room treatment, and the fundamental fact that “you can’t fix acoustic problems with electronics.”........ "Every room and physical setup presents a unique sonic environment and we need to deal with certain acoustic problems to get even a reasonable sound out of our monitor system. For instance, the interaction of the speaker with the front wall of your studio will always create a dip in frequency response at some relatively low frequency. This particular problem will always exist to some extent in every room and with every set of monitors. It can only be improved by moving the speakers relative to the front wall and by proper application of bass trapping. No amount of EQ will fix this “bass suckout” problem because no matter how much energy you add at the problem frequency, the room dimensions will still provide the same amount of cancellation. " "Other acoustic issues, like first reflections, proper listening position, and speaker-listener geometry also need to be taken care of in the physical realm. Move your chair, angle the speakers properly, and place absorbers and diffusers in the necessary positions. Too little bass trapping can also allow low frequencies to ring, or last longer than they should, which will smear the clarity of the low-end of your mixes. Proper setup and acoustic treatment minimizes the effect that the room has on the sound of our monitors. " "Once the speakers and room are set up properly and optimized as much as is practical, there may still be some problems that we haven’t fixed. The remaining acoustic problems relate to our limited amount of space, money or simply the original construction of our building. These problems will be a fact of life no matter what speakers or corrections we can realistically apply, so we’ve done the best we can-returning to our analogy we have the best car we can afford. " www.sonarworks.com/blog/learn/is-room-correction-effective/ I think the reason why the video was so assertive in saying that Room Correction is "deceptive", is because of the implied benefits are unrealistic. In fact compared to treating a room correctly there is a stark difference in sound quality. The quote above addresses some of the statements made about finances and the statement about a "good room"(since all rooms need treatment). I've yet to be convinced that DSP is an actual remedy to the issues mentioned in this video. Room correction colors the music even more so than the drivers. I don't understand correcting for a flat freq response on a speaker that wasn't designed to play flat. That's like tuning an alto sax to play like tenor.

[@justingillette8287]

​@@cherrywhips603 This conversation has been very valuable to me. I again appreciate your contribution. In light of everything said, I agree with you, and to the potential learner/reader, I believe some good content has been provided. I feel like Cherry Whips has a better presentation of the Room Correction Deception concept than Acoustic Fields by a mile. I wish to add that not all DSP and room correction equipment are created equal and fair enough any marketing ploy saying that their magic black box can fix everything is complete BS so it goes both ways. I dont like how Acoustic Fields talks or presents. it is so easy to pick apart his content, in the beginning he talks about measuring a room and observing a mode in the room at 100hz and then talks about how you pull it out via DSP and then the very next thing he says is that what if the engineer wanted that peaky 100hz mode in there. come on people!!! he fails to clarify the difference between treating a room or EQing a room to flat or whatever as not being different than observing the unique dynamics of music on a spectrum analyser as the music is playing, it is miss leading as can be. on a truly more interesting and valuable note, the presenter would be much better discussing how deadened a room should or should not be, good luck getting DSP to deaden a room or liven up one, the purist should concern them self with how does the studio in which their particular music was mastered, was the studio room and sound rig tuned flat, was the room acoustically dead? with this information they can tailor their acoustic listening environment the same, and then change your music, oh no, now you got a track mastered in a whole different world, now what do we do? almost need a tuned room for every genre or something!!! DSP would help easily adjust for some of these subtle variations, good luck adjusting your acoustical wall panels and bass traps as easily!!!

[@cherrywhips603]

@@justingillette8287 You make very valid points, I can see how the content came across pedantic at times. I'm only an outsider looking in, but I can tell their was a some frustration based on personal experiences they are dealing with at Acoustic Fields. They don't sell DSPs and are probably bombarded with questions pertaining to their competency in solving issues in which sound treatment is best, and this probably happens to DSP companies where people ask them about sound treatment solutions in which they are better off using room correction. Now that you mention it, there are some issues with some of the basis for opposing room correction entirely. I still have to keep in mind the amount of years experience they have in their field, and unfortunately they have probably seen substantially more bad usage of DSP for "room correction" than the good.

[@justingillette8287]

Sounds good

[@gunnarschuettler]

If you have a good balanced room but it is just to small as a lot of bedrooms it is a quite good option to calibrate the room with a tool like arc3 orso. It is also interesting that you can adjust the target curve by ear and adjust the level of adjustment. I was really surprised how good it works and that there was also a choice between the filter models (natur or linear phase). If your ears are well trained and you calibrating by ear with references which fit your style of music, I'd say go for it 😊 But as you said, it should be done with care...

[@AcousticFields]

Signal processing is workable for lower frequencies. I have never heard one that I like for middle and high frequencies. I always hear the processing.

[@gunnarschuettler]

@@AcousticFields Yes, its absolutely true that you can hear a difference. It just doesnt sound natural anymore. But as I use it just sometimes to hear a better balanced signal (frequency response) it seems wright for that purpose 👍🏻

[@cornerliston]

I can only speak for myself but I'm having good results using Genelec monitors with GLM calibration software. First thing to know is that there is no way what so ever to really get the relationship right between the recorded and mixed sound compared to what you hear in your room. It can never happen unless you get the same monitors and room as the mixing engineer sat in when mixing the music you listen to. Conclusion: In 99,9 % you simply can't be true to the recorded intentions. Get a sound in your room that you like and forget about the “true” sound. Your hunting for something you can't get. Also worth having in mind: Every professional mixing engineers use some kind of room correction, either it be software or slightly tweaked EQ response in monitor settings or in the master signal chain. Quite a lot of mixing engineers (and recording engineers) listen in rooms that-even if they are treated-never sounds “perfect”.

[@AcousticFields]

C, The issues that pops up most with engineers is how about is room sound in your mixes. That is the question I now ask engineers. If as in your example, room sound can be managed enough for your usage and product electronically then room treatment can be used sparingly. You still must address reverberation times in any mixing environment. You can process low end but not Rt-60.

[@cornerliston]

​@@AcousticFields Indeed, professionals always has plenty of room treatment to begin with. But I dare to say more and more engineers complete this with room correction software. At the very end though I think most skilled engineers lean on years and years of experienced ears. But from a listener perspective I'm very happy with what Genelec does with its GLM. Having that said my room, or any room, would certainly sound even better with proper treatment for sure.

[@AcousticFields]

Perfection is hard to find but one can get close. Achieving quality sound is about doing a lot of little things in the correct order without skipping steps since each current step taken is assisted by a prior step realized.

[@matsudakodo]

There are some things that need to be said about room correction. 1) multiple microphone positions are used to give the software an understanding of the room, to differentiate between direct and reflected sound, and to adjust how wide you want your average (sweet spot) to be. 2) target curves aren't based on the opinion of the designer, but on research (look up the history of Audyssey and Dirac). 3) Room EQ makes by far the most dramatic difference in the bass region, including in the sub-bass, where bass traps don't work. Otherwise I think we're on the same page. The most current recommendations are to EQ up to the transition frequency of the room and tread carefully above that. That is generally around 300 Hz at most.

[@AcousticFields]

E, Agreed. How about trusting one's own opinion as to what emotionally connects each of us to our music instead of relying on the opinion of some software designer. One can develop this judgement by following some simple guidelines for room size and volume along with proper listening and speaker positions. Once set up is in place, treatment then can minimize room sound.

[@Loussiere]

what is your opinion about the active loudspeakers that have a DSP crossovers and Equalizers and some other compensations, and some people says those active loudspeakers sounds great, like de KEF LS50, the Elac's the Kii, etc?, I agree with you that is more important to treat the room physically, my point of view on this tema, is if you try to fix or compensate the room acoustics problems manipulating the signal, the problem still there physically.

[@AcousticFields]

G, They do not compensate for acoustical issues within your room. They can lessen the impact below 100 Hz. but what you have to realize is that energy that is processed will then enter your room and be impacted by the dimensions and materials within your room. You could signal process all day long in a glass room and it would still sound like a glass room. Our experience with these systems shows us that they also have a "cramping" effect on the sound stage presentation. Remember there is no free ride in acoustics. Everything and I mean everything depends upon your room.

[@Loussiere]

@@AcousticFields thank you for your response, I agree with you, in fact I void all this DSP, but just to clarify I even refer to some the DSP application for example to correct the time impulse from the loudspeaker and the crossover setup.

[@frankthetank727]

What is your opinion on Sonarworks Reference 4, if you are aware of it/have experience with it? I have owned it for over a year now and am currently trying to work within a new studio setup that has a fair amount of acoustic treatment. Though there are some "problem" areas with modes and resonances, I feel like Sonarworks adds some wonky sounds and that I can "hear" the correction too much, if that makes sense. I haven't been in the studio enough time to compare many mixes I have done, however, I can't really decide if it helps or hurts at the moment.

[@AcousticFields]

All electronics leave their "stink". You must treat the modal issues in the analog domain (treatment) and then use processing to polish up what the analog treatment did not achieve. Most use processing below 100 Hz. even with treatment types because 90 % of the treatments in the marketplace do not work as advertised.

[@hushpuppykl]

TQ for the video. It makes me start thinking. But I must admit. Using the Yamaha room correction does give me a better sound than without it. I gotta live with this as it’s my bedroom set and can’t do much room treatment at all. Do studios even use room correction software?

[@Oneness100]

bedrooms are typically too small to use for anything other than casual listening at relatively low SPL.

[@hushpuppykl]

Oneness100 ... unless the neighbours are away on vacation! 😂🤣

[@Oneness100]

@@hushpuppykl I guess. Then sound quality isn't your main objective, high SPL seems to be more important.

[@Oneness100]

Or, you can get one of those Buttkickers, attach it to your seat and have the illusion of low end, without the SPL. :-)

[@hushpuppykl]

Oneness100 ... I’m just kidding. Bedroom duties system is just for TV and casual music listening. Buttkicker would be most fun. 1 per corner of the bed. 😂

[@AllynVibes]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the reason for room correction is to take the room out of the equation as far as how things sound correct or not? If that's the case we're not talkin about what the engineers wanted yet trying to take the room out of the equation so that we can hear untainted quote on quote right? Someone may have already brought this up didn't have time to read the comments.

[@AcousticFields]

A, You can never take the room out of the equation. Even processed sound must enter the room through the speakers and strike the walls floor and ceiling. Processors reduce the amplitude or strength of some frequencies and exaggerate others. This is all down in the digital time domain to better balance the energy out put with the room dimensions.

[@AllynVibes]

@@AcousticFields Room treamtment first of course. This is what I had in mind - Active/live DSP Kii Three kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZDJZnttiJeNgNE kzbin.info/www/bejne/p5yXoWyNZZuNfpI

[@keistutmarger7437]

Please, tell us about acoustics and calculation of mods in tunnels. That is, long rooms without front and back walls.

[@AcousticFields]

Is it a pressure or reflection issue?

[@keistutmarger7437]

@@AcousticFields the problem with resonances and standing waves. At the ends of an open pipe, the pressure is zero, but there are standing waves. I don't know, can you explain? After all, the volume is not closed. When music is playing in the tunnel, a rumble at low frequencies impairs intelligibility. Would equalization help here? After all, I can not change the tunnel.

[@LifeLess1999]

took me about 10 minutes after setup to realize it was a no go. I am just going to have to get used to having a bad room which is fine I just want to feel the bass. I've lost it with the new arrangement even though im centered in the room now and not in the corner I feel I've lost a lot of the sub presence.

[@AcousticFields]

You are experiencing the power of a room to destroy everything.

[@gurratell7326]

What you are experiencing is that you don't like flat response. But doing measurements and getting a flat response is only half of the job done because this takes care of the ugly smaller ups and downs in the frequency response. What you need to to as well is to tune in your own broader response corrections, many people prefer having that smiley curve, ie more of that deep bass for that "heaviness" and more treble for that "air". Doing so will make an actual night and day difference from a totally uncorrected room :)

[@greenbeginner9221]

Good balanced view, in my opinion. Software tools like Dirac are powerful, no doubt. But a horribly bad sounding room is going to be a real challenge. If you improve the room as best you can physically the software has a much easier task and may only be needed for 200 Hz down. (Myself, if I will spend only one thousand on a system, I won't cry if I'm stuck with a bad room and software. But if I'm going to spend real money, my first bucks are going toward moving a wall or two and treating the room.)

[@AcousticFields]

Starting with the correct room foot print to match usage is the first place to start. After 40+ years of working within small rooms, that variable priority has never changed.

[@The_Absurdistt]

Dennis, you are a true engineer of the science. I don't pretend to fully understand to the depth of your mastery, that is why I have been saving for almost two years to pay for your solid expertise for a new build control room and live room. I hope you are doing well and healing from your recent setbacks. Cheers.

[@Lesterandsons]

You cannot replace room, size, treatments with eq... . On a laptop I use filters for bass correction, it is powerfull it helps a lot. I feel corrections above 300 Hz kills your speaker personality.

[@AcousticFields]

Agreed. Signal processing can kill everything including even below 300 Hz. The goal is to treat the room with the proper type, amount, and position for all frequency issues from 30 - 6,500 Hz. in the analog domain. Treatment needs to reduce issues down to + - 2 dB from 30 - 6.5K. Then you can use digital processing to polish up the + - 2 dB without audible digital artifacts.

[@djallious1188]

@@AcousticFields Why are you only liking the comments that agree with you boomer why haven't you answered these other people who have commented, why cherry pick see i know why because you are what these people say a dam fraud.

[@moonfly1]

Sorry, but this video seems to be presented by an old school hi-fi guy that has no idea of what room correction is intended to achieve. Some of the comments on room correction deviating from what the original mixer wanted, or the end result being derived from the software designers subjective tastes are just flat out wrong.

[@AcousticFields]

D, Most of the processors we have tested have suggested response curves people can use. They are preset with algorithms set by the designer. You can kick them in and out of the circuit but they exist.

[@moonfly1]

@@AcousticFields Room Perfect, Dirac, Anthem ARC and Audyssey are mainly focused attaining a flat frequency response, attempting to cancel out the changes in response caused only by the room. Most do now allow the end user to augment this to taste, but that was driven by what the market wanted more than anything, as well as variables like listening levels. Different people like to listen at different levels, and a flat frequency response is targeted at reference level playback. When you don't listen at that level you then don't get the correct flat response at the ear due to well documented variations in the human hearing, both at varying spl's and between individuals. Technologies like Dolby Volume and dynamic eq, as well as things like fletcher muson curves and house curves are all attempts to address this. Other offered DSP profiles are typically attempts to simulate different listening environment, and again this is driven by what a lot of consumers want. Sure such suggested augmentations are less accurate but those features do not perform the same function as room correction. I agree that minimising processing is a good thing, but it also has its place, and I don't condone the idea that it can entirely replace room treatment. It's a tool to aid in achieving an accurate in room response by countering inaccuracies introduced by the room, and it can be especially useful in rooms where treating the room physically is restricted.

[@AcousticFields]

If you develop your room sonic strategy to be as high as resolution as your source, you will be heading down the right road no matter what the usage.

[@moonfly1]

@@AcousticFields that's a marketing line if ever I heard one. That will mean nothing to the average person, which I assume is the intention. The idea you can add room treatments to target a specific room resolution is a new one. Room treatment basics are simple. You don't want an anechoic chamber and you don't want an echo chamber. A mix of soft materials with some harder materials mixed in is fine. Bass issues can largely be resolved by employing dual subwoofers and good quality room correction. If the room is soft enough the speakers won't need a lot of attention from an eq point of view, the choice of speaker is often much more important. Let's not get confused here. Good room treatment is essential, the room itself is a huge contributing factor to the sound achieved, but the purpose of room treatments and electronic eq is to reduce the rooms influence and the negative impact it has on the source sound.

[@Gearstudio18]

How about Trinnov ST-2?

[@AcousticFields]

All processing software we have listened to has its own eletronic "stink". When you treat the room correctly, you have none of that issue.

[@bigadventure3797]

I have tried different room correction devices and seem subtractive on highly resolving systems in decent rooms. In the end I always turn it off. On budget systems though they can enhance the sound.

[@AcousticFields]

Agreed. The ones I have heard collapse the center image and mess with the harmonics.

[@AcousticFields]

Thank you for sharing. I talk to people everyday who have processing but don't use it for many reasons. I find there are many who own processing and have tried it but few use it after a few months.

[@olijomusic2481]

I'm not completely sure, but I think that using room correction can probably correct the quantity of the different areas of spectrum i.e. flatten the frequency response, but it can't still correct the problems in sound quality. It cannot take away the characteristics of the resonating and reverbrating surfaces from the sound. Also, when the complexity of corrections increases, the filters will surely cause some nonlinear distortion to the sound (and phase errors if the EQ is not linear phase, and if it is linear phase it will use more CPU). It's probably not always audible, but still when you mix or master a Song, you probably want the sound to be as clean as possible. However, I don't know what kind of filters the room correction softwares use. Do you know, if the resonances, diffractions, reverbrations etc. that the room causes occur linearly in relation to the level of the sound? In other words, is one eq with one corrections enough for all sounds regardless of the level of the sound, or should the eq adapt all the time to the constantly changing sound levels?

[@TheNewFallOfficial]

This is an interesting, yet subjective matter. For example, why do us live engineers have to use multiple speaker system management processors, 1/3 octave equalization units, delay, and FIR filtering in live performance venues and now even in recording studios? What about matters concerning correct speaker placement? What about amplitude, frequency, dispersion angles, and different subwoofer configurations?

[@AcousticFields]

R, Large room and small room acoustic demands are drastically different. In small rooms is all about pressure. In large rooms its reverberation. The distances in both room sizes contribute to the issues they both present.

[@ELPLAK]

The software Reference 4 works really good. My mixes improve a lot. My clients just liked the mix in the first try now, when before I always have to review many more times, no just in the studio speakers but everywhere! Now the mixes translate very well on all systems I try. I understand what you say, but this R4 software help me a lot.

[@AcousticFields]

E, I understand the benefits of processing and I also hear the results of over processing which I hear too much of today.

[@ELPLAK]

@@AcousticFields Thank you to take the time to answer. I wish I could afford to build a room from the bottom up and hire you to do the acoustics and planing, but for now it is just a dream.

[@rb032682]

@ELPLAK - I use Ref.4 and/or ARC2.5. Either one improved the sound of my studio/home theater/living room/bedroom, but my room didn't really sound "good" until I put in a decent amount of acoustic treatment. The combination of acoustic treatment and electronic correction has worked out very well for me.

[@ELPLAK]

That’s what I did... I have panels, diffusers, and both combined with R4 gave me much better results.

[@CaptainCrunch823]

Thanks for the video. I have a Lyngdorf TDAI 3400 which I believe to have the best room correction solution vs Others that I’ve tried like Dirac and Audessey. It does a fantastic job of producing a seemingly flat frequency response in my room, but it also seems to remove some of the “life” and dynamics from my favorite tracks. This video helps to explain why.

[@AcousticFields]

This is the issue with processing. It has a audible impact that is not welcome for presentation value. Try using it only for frequencies below 100 Hz.

[@AcousticFields]

Yes, we have found the same thing in the middle ranges which is a frequency range that most of them never get right. They can be good for the low end but not middle and highs.

[@magoostus]

yes, fix the room so it's decent but some people have sub-par SPEAKERS that need correction. I would much rather listen to a calibrated pair of monitors in a sub-par room then listen to crap speakers in a reference room

[@ebarbie5016]

Have you tried Dirac Live or Room Perfect? They make a huge difference!

[@AcousticFields]

E, Everyone's definition of perfection is different. What would be acceptable to some is intolerable to others.

[@ebarbie5016]

@@AcousticFields ROOMPerfect Is the name of the RC used in Lindorf products. It is capable of compensating for nulls in the room by using symmetrical speaker configuration and applying proper phase shifting filter to more the room modes. Conventional EQ cannot correct nulls, it will only make them worse. Dirac Live are going to release their new bass management update, which should offer the same thing, treating room modes by EQ.

[@AcousticFields]

E, I don't know what a "huge difference" is. This is the issue. What may seem like a big improvement to some rooms and for those individuals for others it may appear inconsequential. These processors do have validity in the lower frequencies but I do not like what I hear for the middle and high frequencies. There is no electronic fix for a bad room other than treatment when you consider all the many variables you must deal with.

[@econautx]

@@ebarbie5016Do you mean that the new Dirac will be good or bad?

[@MykeHawke-r9r]

Thank you for making this video

[@AcousticFields]

Glad it was helpful!

[@bryanbarajasBB]

Hmmm, interesting. I 'am considering purchasing such a device to "treat" my room. Maybe I'll try what you stated first before purchasing a minidsp.

[@youowemeapony]

Mix and match. Do as much acoustic treatment as you can, and check out Dirac. Dirac is incredible.

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

DSP can assist but only that. It doesnt fix alot of things

[@rdennisdom]

Let's fly and look below, there is a room and speaker(s). A room can not correct speakers and speakers can not correct a room.

[@AcousticFields]

R, No truer words were ever spoken. Thank you from all of us.

[@navagiopoint]

OMG, I mean, dissing software correction without proof, coming from a person who works in room treatment(competitive solution to software treatment)

[@AcousticFields]

You are missing the point. All technologies have their limitations. You must first understand the limitations then you can apply what is required without crossing over into the technologies shortcomings. Remember the first rule in acoustics is do no harm.

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

@@AcousticFields I think you caould have explained it a bit better to the novices. For example maybe you could explain how DSP doesnt fix all reflection and reverberation time issues. It can adjust the source but not the secondary energy producer (the room)

[@rb032682]

@@Canadian_Eh_I - Yes. Agreed. A couple old audio /electronic/music wizzards I know claim that, someday, there will be enough DSP power to fix all the acoustic/spkr problems without physical devices. For reflections, primary, secondary, tertiary, that seems very intense, and impossible. We can only do so much to work around physics by electronic means. And, the physical treatment makes any audio, from any source, sweeter or less annoying in my room.

[@erod9088]

Here's a guy who let the industry pass him by. Some room treatment with proper low-end room correction EQ is a viable approach. Period

[@AcousticFields]

We have passed the industry by since group think is wrong when it comes to music and voice. Each week I receive calls from many individuals who have room processing software. I always ask them if they are still using it. Only 30% are still using it while 70% do not. I ask them why this is true. Their comments range from it does not sound right in the middle ranges to sound stage issues along with definition issues.

[@dyonight]

Isn't these EQ setting only good at the volume they were taken? I mean, if I play my speakers at low volume the room will have less effect so the correction need to be lesser than if I play them loud and the room start to interfere more radically. Then the EQ should become more aggressive, isn't it? If the EQ stay static at all playback level, the drastic eq made to fit the setup mesurements will be valid only at the volume at which they were taken. That mean that playback at lower volume will sound thin and off and playing louder will have the room problems come back. Is there any system that take volume into consideration? It have to be built into the speakers so it is aware of the actual power output, which make any software based correction quite limited... Am I over-thinking it? :D

[@AcousticFields]

O, Yes you are correct. Every increase in amplitude changes the response curve.

[@disklamer]

One way to go about a "dynamic frequency correction" is by using a parametric eq with sidechain/key input(s), set to adjust the frequency bands with the output level. Not very simple or cheap but definitely possible with the right equipment.

[@dyonight]

@@disklamer oh very interesting! Indeed that would involve so expert skills to have it work dependably but that may be cheaper than going the full custom room build...

[@JensBrewer]

@@AcousticFields That is factually incorrect. A room has a linear transfer function, irrespective of amplitude. Human hearing though, is not linear (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour). The positioning of your ears and / or measurement microphone in the room will affect how you hear / measure acoustic phenomena in the room. Acoustic treatment is not superior to DSP, and vice versa. They are tools in a toolkit; nothing more, nothing less.

[@zimouspero]

Só sonarworks and arc 2 are snake oil?

[@AcousticFields]

Z, No, we are not saying that. We are only portraying our experience with them. They have validity below 100 Hz. Above 100 Hz. we do not like what they do to the sound stage. There is simply no easy digital fix for a room that lacks the proper type, amount, and placement of treatment along with a ratio of dimensions that produce more issues than they solve.

[@zimouspero]

@@AcousticFields ok, i understand. But i can analyse my Room problems with them and after that do some corrections and treatments?

[@AcousticFields]

@@zimouspero Maybe. It will depend on what features are available for room analysis.

[@zimouspero]

@@AcousticFields i use sonarworks. But i hate to be mixing with that, adapting my here to the músic when he is on, and to readapte after i export the music. Sometimes i Start to get confused

[@Sams911]

I don't agree... I feel like the Engineer has no more right to how something should sound than I do as a consumer of music... I know that with the Accuphase DSP (DG-58/68) my system sounds WAY better to MY ear than it did before..

[@AcousticFields]

I do not understand your comment. Engineers produce the music. They are all about the end result that you listen to.

[@Sams911]

@@AcousticFields no.. musicians produce it, the engineers "engineer" it... they add bass, treble, this and that... they "mix" it.. but what if my Engineer on a particular recording doesn't like as much bass as I do? I'm essentially stuck hearing his interpretation of what about of Bass should be present in a particular recording, when instead I might prefer more (or less)..

[@AcousticFields]

@@Sams911 Yes, they all produce a product that is played back in a room for the listening end of the process. It is our obligation to have a room that minimizes room distortion so all that mixing time and effort can be heard correctly. I would estimate after 43 years of building and measuring rooms, most people only hear around 60 - 70% of what is actually in the mix. You may want more of this or that but that decision can not be made unless your room response curve is adequate. You may want more bass because your room is not letting you hear what is in the mix. I would be willing to bet there is enough bass in the mix.

[@Sams911]

@@AcousticFields you make some valid points ... but in the real world, and especially where I live in the SF Bay Area where a house costs 2-3 million and is hardly 2000 square feet.... I have a VERY small room, that also doubles as a guest room with a bed... I have large windows, I have a huge sliding glass mirror closet... I have no choice but to mess with the sound post production ... especially when listening to music at a lower volume... I don't have the luxury of hiring someone to fix my acoustics and build me a nice 16x20 foot wide audio room 😂

[@oscarhagelberg7895]

I like the text summary to the left.

[@671shades]

Ok BOOMER!

[@zazoomatt]

Dennis Foley Your the MAN. Thank you for responding to my initial Room & how to deal with what I have. I would be lost without your Logic.

[@AcousticFields]

Thank you.

[@worldsyoursent.1635]

A good room makes work so much easier 💪💪

[@aviozstudio4903]

I really don't like software for room correction.. I prefer using geometric equalizer hardware director from interface to speakers.. much better without any digital errors

[@AcousticFields]

A, Yes. I have been in studios which use this process. It is less noticeable.

[@muziekkamer]

Good video, But I think what about headphones, what about headphones?

[@walterstorm9221]

great advice as always! I'm in the middle of handling room modes and low frequency energy right now and DSP is the direction i'm taking for

[@AcousticFields]

Report back to us your findings.

[@walterstorm9221]

@@AcousticFields Ok... first finding: the on-board subwoofer controls suck and are nowhere near where they say they are on the dials -- which explains why i thought I had no idea what I was doing.... I set them both flat and used the DSP to just set the crossover and slope and balance the SPL levels. I haven't even applied room correction yet and its sounding amazing!! still a bit boomy at ~30-32Hz but nowhere the "boom" I heard earlier which was probably slighter higher frequencies resonating that I thought weren't even passing through!! Bottom line, im much better at this with measurements than I am with my ears. I can easily understand whats up when I can visualize it .. i appreciate the sound but its hard for me to translate what I hear to reality without data!! Still planning to try the DSP correction but wanted to update with pleasing results just by proper leveling and crossover.

[@walterstorm9221]

@@AcousticFields Ok, did the room correction, and here's the result. BLUF: only do this for < ~70Hz and for subs ONLY. Anything above that and anything with the full range speakers collapses the soundstage and is not worth the trade. Now,

[@chrisact9601]

Correction software is not changing the music to suit the room. It's changing the system to work with the room regardless of what music you play through it. I am a mix engineer. I would rather someone played my mixes through a system that had been EQ'd to sound better than to suffer listening to it in a crappy sounding room with no correction. Your comment about "changing the music" is deliberately emotive in order to get audiophile purist types to agree with your point of view. I agree that fixing the acoustic anomalies where possible, practical and affordable should be the first course. But no room is perfect so a few EQ tweaks here and there can help really dial it in. After all, it's the listening experience that matters most here.

[@AcousticFields]

Opinions vary. We have heard songs that we have listened to for 30 years that have been so processed that they never sound like the real source recording. You are changing the music that you hear with processing.

[@chrisact9601]

@@AcousticFields Yeah. That's what sound engineers do. It's also what microphones, preamps, tape, speakers and rooms do. And they're all different. Who is to say which one is "right"? EQ is a tool and merely another link in the chain. The trick is dialling it in for the most desirable result.

[@AcousticFields]

I understand the process that you use to create the music. Your music is then played back hopefully within a room. The next issue becomes making the music "fit" the room through processing or make the room "fit" the music. One is done in the digital domain and one in the analog. Processing becomes processing becomes processing. What happens to the music?

[@chrisact9601]

@@AcousticFields I don't disagree with your philosophy. By all means build the best rooms you can. If your customers can afford it and it makes them happy, fantastic. I take issue with your comment, "Is that what the engineer wanted when he recorded this? Did he really want us messing with his mix?" I couldn't care less how people listen to my product. It's none of my business. I'm just not that big of a control freak. 99.999% of the time, music is enjoyed on massively compromised systems. It's why we mix on multiple sets of monitors and then check it on headphones, laptop speakers, TV speakers, car stereos and ear buds. I've even been known to turn the mix right down and walk out of the room to see how it sounds in the hallway. If we have time, we might encode an mp3 and see how that sounds. Because that's our audience and it needs to work for them. Almost nobody mixes for $100,000 worth of audiophile system in a "perfect" room. So if the consumer wants to tweak it with an EQ to make it more pleasing to their ear, I say go for it.

[@AcousticFields]

Of course its your business. You created the source. You created a desired outcome between engineer and talent. I understand that comprise occurs during the playback of source but you have to do the best you can without thinking about playback compromise. I believe the whole music creation system has gotten so processed and compromised that we lose the music. I keep hearing the same old sounds, over processed in the same old ways, all the time. Where is the music?

[@glenncurry3041]

And yet another.... Being in the industry at the time, mid '70's. DBX had a press conference at a CES to introduce their new automatic room EQ system. The room was loaded with industry press. PCs did not exist yet. So this was basically manual. It produces a 20hz - 20khz sweep fed to the amp. A provided mic placed in listening spot. It would then auto adjust levels in it's 12 band EQ. So I asked, if a 30hz signal caused doubling, it would show extra energy at 60hz even though that was not the frequency that had the problem. It would not correct the 30hz problem and by reducing the 60hz level, cause a worse imbalance. Unable to provide an acceptable answer, with the press in the room waiting... I was asked to leave. You hit on yet another of the snake oil gimmicks.

[@AcousticFields]

Its the old fundamental and harmonic shell game. Can't get away with it today with the measurement software we have. Thanks for sharing real world examples.

[@janstevens6986]

Brilliant answer! Thanks 🎶

[@AcousticFields]

Thanks for listening

[@cgmsounds]

Great video

[@AcousticFields]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@Tomisheep]

Fortunately today mayor league studio monitors comes with calibrating hardware and/or software is built in to them. Not even mention headphones coming out these days and simulation software for them. The digital age eventually changes all fields... For the better? Maybe. But vinyls, cassettes, drum machines, keyboards, computers, software, CD, MP3, KZbin, djs and now 3d printers are replacing artists or creating new ones with much easier tools. The future is here. Acoustic treatments is now on that list too. 😉

[@AcousticFields]

120 M people still smoke cigarettes in the USA. Be careful if evereyone is doing it. Quantity is not quality.

[@Tomisheep]

@@AcousticFields Some people who never smoked died in lung cancer... Some, like my late grandma, smoked for 65 years non stop and never been sick until a serious flu virus came about 20 years ago. That's before covid-19(84) got rid of every other sicknesses. 😉 Anyways, some humans can have all the toys or tools in the world and not be able to use it or satisfied and some can make it from a dirty garage. The magic of life on a planet called Earth. Love is God. 🙏

[@mrjazzycharon2]

The message of this video is so completely wrong. It’s not the EQ, it’s the room which is messing with the recording engineers “blue print” in the first place. The EQ is just trying to compensate for that. Of course everyone wants the best possible room. But as a perfect room doesn’t exists, there will always be a residual error and minimizing that with a filter is just a very reasonable idea.

[@AcousticFields]

Unfortunately, these processors have artifacts such as center image focus and soundstage narrowing to name a few. There is simply no electronic substitute for a properly treated room.

[@hiresaudiocosta873]

Your perception of room correction is way wrong: First off, they are not done from one spot. Several frequency sweeps are done from multiple positions in various places around the listening position. Above, below, front, back and left, right. Left channel then right. Second, the desired overall frequency response curve can be adjusted to flat or Harmon, or whatever house curve one chooses. Third, your attitude that one is trying to change the sound from what the recording engineer wanted is not correct. The goal of the Room Correction is to just fill in the dips and cut the peaks caused by the phase issues of reflections and how they mess up the sound at the listening position. An overall smooth frequency response is what the goal of Room Correction Software. Granted, the overall response curve can be adjusted to suit the listener, but it is also possible to just leave it flat.

[@AcousticFields]

With all of this processing, what happened to the music?

[@hiresaudiocosta873]

@@AcousticFields I'm using Dirac Room correction in my small listening studio. I can toggle back in forth with and without Dirac engaged and it does sound better with Dirac on. The sound is more rich and full as the missing frequencies are filled in. I guess experimentation is the key. Still sounds musical.

[@StratsRUs]

It's not too expensive for giving it a go.

[@AcousticFields]

We have many times.

[@rb032682]

Good stuff.

[@AcousticFields]

Thanks!

[@MichaelLucaslucasMG]

You never suppose to analyze a room using the house PA speakers 🔊. You should use your own calibrated mic and external speaker.

[@Oneness100]

Huh? I know that Meyer has their SIM system which is for large concert venues and they have the ability to have many microphones that are placed in specific positions in a large concert venue, but that system is expensive and it has to be monitored by a highly trained individual before and during the concert performance because they are trying to fix bad room acoustics in large rooms with horrible room acoustics. I highly doubt anyone is going to put that thing in their small studio.

[@rb032682]

@Michael - IF you are going to perform live with a PA system, it is better to analyze the room/PA-speaker system together as one unit. If you are in a studio control room, then you can use a calibrated mic to analyze the room using your studio monitors.

[@raydioz]

Having so much static in your audio, isn't a good promotion for your company... just saying.

[@AcousticFields]

Focus on content. Good video vendors are hard to find where we are located. We have set up our own video studio and are doing videos in it. Check out our latest postings for improved audio content.

[@Hankblue]

To be quite frank, I don't think you made a single coherent argument against using room correction in this video. Your main point seems to be some kind of appeal to naturalism, "the engineer didn't want their sound coloured by EQs". Except plenty of engineers use room correction software, and most of them don't care what you do to compensate for your room's acoustic idiosyncrasies, or which speakers you use. It's like saying "don't listen to that song on your cellphone speakers, the engineer didn't want that!". Very disappointing take on this subject.

[@AcousticFields]

You are missing the point. The point is that all of this processing deviates from the source or the music. It has become so bad that all I hear everyday is processed music to a point that it has become its own form. We should have two categories of music. We should have processed to death music and then real music.

[@Hankblue]

@@AcousticFields But even 'real music' has plenty of EQ on it, nothing isn't processed anymore. There's a channel on KZbin called 'Making Records with Eric Valentine', he's predominantly a mix engineer for acoustically recorded music. And when he goes through his studio he shows that he had to make 3 corrective EQ boosts to achieve a flat curve. And that's all you hear really, you don't hear "processing" you just hear a flat curve. I do appreciate not to go overboard with corrective EQ, but to eschew it entirely is misguided in my opinion. People need flat curves to work accurately, there are diminishing returns on acoustic treatments as you approach a perfectly flat response.

[@AcousticFields]

@@Hankblue This is the very issue. No one takes the time to get it right from the beginning so you don't have so much processing in the recording chain. I am always asking, " Where's the music?

[@Hankblue]

@@AcousticFields Hm, i respect your philosophy but we'll have to agree to disagree. Whether you record background vocals singing behind a concrete wall, or whether you record them normally and add a lowpass filter and space on afterwards, the effect you'll get is almost indistinguishable in the hands of skilled engineers - especially in the context of a busy mix. Either the concrete wall does the lowpassing or the EQ does, but either way high frequencies get attenuated.

[@AcousticFields]

@@Hankblue When does the processing stop and the music begin? Here is some examples of very little processing and all music. Listen to both the musical and the emotional content. www.psaudio.com/product-category/music/octave-artist-masters/#:~:text=Octave%20Records-,Audiophile%20Masters,pressings%2C%20as%20well%20as%20PCM.

[@justingillette8287]

I wish my KZbin algorithm would stop suggesting this guys videos to me. He is so far from correct. If a room generates a hotspot somewhere in the frequency spectrum you can locate it and compensate for it. He says that any manipulation of the electrical signal distorts the artists original intent. Unless your listening to playback in the same room as the artist was when they mastered the track you are not hearing it in its purist form. The point of DSP is to digitally compensate for room problems. Delay, PEQ etc are just tools to help get good fidelity. They do not ensure it. He is right about cascade filtering and complicating the signal chain. The more equipment you have the more problems you are likely to introduce. The bottom line is having good sound and everyone’s taste is different, DSP is a pretty cheap way to help you get better sound.

[@AcousticFields]

J, DSP can reduce frequency and amplitude. That processed energy still has to enter a room that is filled with boundary surfaces. You may be able to reduce certain amplitudes of problematic frequencies especially fundamentals but you will never be able to achieve a balanced harmonic presentation of mids and highs without proper rates and levels of absorption/diffusion.

[@justingillette8287]

I don't disagree with you there, room treatment is important and not all problems are fixed with DSP, but your video does not support the potential value of DSP which even in your post above indicates your understanding of it being helpful. not all can afford perfect speakers and place them in a perfect room, DSP helps to compensate for those imperfections, good luck with your business, just wish you would approach your sales pitches in a less deceptive way...

[@AcousticFields]

J, No such thing as "perfect" in DSP, speakers, or anything else. Its all about balance.

[@justingillette8287]

And room correction can aid in bringing balance!!! room correction can aid in bringing balance its not deception!

[@rb032682]

@@justingillette8287 - Without physical acoustic treatment, most rooms will be the dominant deceiver. Using DSP alone will not correct the deception in the room acoustics. Electronics will not effectively correct all physical issues.

[@brown-eyedman4040]

IMHO, and limited to 2 channel listening for pleasure. Non-electronic room treatment is always better than trying to signal process the problems away. Select appropriate gear, especially speakers, for your listening environment. Don't overload your room with low frequency sources then try to DSP to correct the problem. Low frquency quality is preferable to quantity. Sign up for Acoustic Fields Academy and their forum. Watch Mr. Foley's videos.

[@rb032682]

@brown-eyed - Good advice.

[@garyconway439]

I believe DSP is the way of the future.

[@AcousticFields]

Maybe for lower frequency management. However, they have a ways to go for middle and high frequency realism.

[@garyconway439]

@@AcousticFields Apparently they may have come a way on mids and highs, for example miniDSP has product that is used by critical audiophiles. I am installing one this week and will not hesitate to add room treatment where I see excessive DSP corrections are needed.

[@robsinden100]

This video is spreading misinformation. Room correction systems vary tremendously in quality and approach and lumping them into the one category shows a lack of understanding of the technologies available. The majority of room correction systems measure around the seating area and then change the sound of your speakers to hit a pre set frequency response. This doesn’t give the best sound and will change the characteristics of your speakers. If you use a Lyngdorf TDA amplifier with RoomPerfect it adds nothing to the signal path. It measures across the whole of the room and creates a target response based on the characteristics of your speakers and your room. It is the only system that preserves the characteristics of your speakers while allowing you to hear them as they were intended rather than how you room makes them sound. It is impossible to achieve this with room treatment.

[@AcousticFields]

Not true at all. Anything that can be done in the digital domain can be done in the analog domain with treatment. Your comments indicate a lack of understanding on what well designed treatments can do for response. I suspect you are used to hearing boxes filled with building insulation. Stay tuned for our series on treatments at our new research facility . Pay particular attention to frequency response.

[@robsinden100]

It’s impossible for room treatment to have the resolution to make the wide variety of adjustments at very specific frequencies that are required. If you can show me any room with a full range speaker system where you can measure an even response, I’ll give you a £1000.@@AcousticFields

[@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748]

4:24 makes me laugh out loud. meet the butcher that tampers with film mixes original theatrical mix and turns it into a near field for those who are snobs in hollywood rich snob people with their garbage trash soundbars. dynamic range is tampered with. stereo width tampered with. frequency response tampered with. centre channel tampered with. LFE.1 tampered with surround channel tampered with. Please don't tell me meet that engineer half-way,

[@AcousticFields]

All signals are manupulated.. Your room needs to meet the presentation value of source at least half way. A room with only a 50% resolution is a good starting point. We start at 60% as our minimums and go to 70, 80, and even 90% for mastering rooms.

[@garfieldoliveira1458]

Excellent makes perfect sense, thanks great video

[@garfieldoliveira1458]

To me have a good acoustically treated room is the way to go, we all know its impossible to stop very low frequencies, but only control them unless we are blessed with the required space. I have purchased the blueprints from Acoustic fields and made my own Activated carbon membranes and I must say it has created a bloody tremendous difference in the room with the Rockwool panels, it`s not necessary, but now a DSP could help.

[@johnqpublic6228]

Here we go again, another individual on their soapbox preaching about "Artist Intent " . I have gone through this in the video realm and in the audio realm. First, no one (not even the artist's spouce), knows what the artist intent is. The artist is bound to a restriction of parameters, as in the audio world " the audio frequencies heard by humans". Any frequencies that references beyond the aforementioned scope is useless. Therefore, the auditory range is the artist's palette. If we were to be so concerned we artist intent then we would also be even more concerned of where the artist intended for it to be presented. Are you going to redecorate your room for each artist intent environment? Lets face one fact, we all have a multitude of different room environmental configurations. Secondly, we all do not have the same equipment and/or level of quality with regards to the equipment. There is a base line or standard that is considered to be what is an optimum standard. About 99% of us fall short, therefore a room correction strives to compensate for the deficiencies that exist in our equipment. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to these individuals and their mantras of "Artist Intent ".

[@AcousticFields]

It is or should be the intent of everyone in the production cycle to produce a quality product. The issue today is that so many "corners" are cut in the production cycle we are losing our music. With most songs I hear I hear more processing than I do music. I hunger everyday for good music sources and never find many. Yes, all playback environments are different but a good strong source is always a constant.

[@johnqpublic6228]

@@AcousticFields There are parameters that every artist has to function within and quality or trash can be created there. A good sound engineer can enhance a recording to be exceptional. In the 1990s I remember a Ford truck commercial where the audio production was at a level of being art. Not wanting to go off the subject of room correction, it does have its place. Almost every major piece of equipment should be calibrated to function at it's optimum ability. Unfortunately, there are those who can't be bothered or don't want to spend the money. You just can't throw components together and have them mesh perfectly. If the equipment is at it's best then artist intent is of very little value.

[@AcousticFields]

Agreed. However, there is so much processing today at the mixing position, it seems to me that they engineers who are using lots of processing are creating a new sound "music" product that has as its center core digital processing and not music. While this approach may have validity for certain genres, I find myself missing the real music and the emotion that lies within it. Let's examine Adele's voice. To me, it is a musical voice that is so processed, the essence of her voice is buried under the processing. I find myself asking, where is the music.

[@johnqpublic6228]

@@AcousticFields I agree with you. I once went into a high end hifi store. Much of the equipment was tube based with price tags between $10,000 ~ $30,000. Very much out of my league. The sales representative gave me a small demo and needless to say the music was exceptional and rich. The standard component store could never match the quality that I heard that day. My stance of dsp usage is that it is sometimes necessary.

[@gurratell7326]

Either you don't understand at all how audio actually works despite of the fact that you work with it, or you play stupid just to sell your products. Either way what you are saying is wrong. What the mixing and mastering engineer wanted will come out more accurate if you do room correction with a DSP, because if the frequency response have less modes and nulls then it's close to "what the artist intended", period. Of course this comes with a lot of caveats that for example that every room is unique, some stuff is better done with acoustic absorbers (while some people don't want their room filled with it), that it will always be better if you know exactly what you are doing and that everyone have a subjective taste of what the "perfect" frequency response is (which is why to many flat often sounds boring and that you should also dial in you're own broad subjectiv curve after that objective flat one).

[@AcousticFields]

We find that for the ultimate resolution of all fundamentals and the first four orders of harmonics, it is best to correct the room with pressure and reflection technologies in the analog domain rather than correcting the energy placed into the room in the digital domain.

[@gurratell7326]

@@AcousticFields Sure I'd go for a room filled acoustic treatment if I could, but taming mode with a DSP in especially the lower octaves IS a valid way of doing it.

[@MichelLinschoten]

It's take away so much dynamics in the music you're spot on. It becomes lifeless, I never understood guys that are so hell bend. On "linear" response, it's horrible. That being said dsp can have its benefits for sure. Not everybody has the money to re-stud walls and put cheap (expensive sold) foams all around their listening spot. Just to obtain so called "perfection.. Don't even try to do it to a line source /dipole such as the bigger magnepans/esl out there. It's horrible Or the infamous "smiley" face on the eq ..it's toe curling . Music isn't perfect, rooms are not perfect, speakers are NOT perfect .. More importantly?! Our ears are far from perfect. There has to be a golden mid way where you got to accept it as it comes. Want perfection? Go learn to play a instrument . Or get a pair of cans and eliminate the room all together.

[@AcousticFields]

The goal is to treat as many issues as you can with the budget and space you have available in the analog domain and use digital processing sparingly to polish up what treatment (analog) did not get.

[@magicman639]

Sorry my friend you are talking BS the recording engineer producers music 🎶,nothing to do with room response a given room response with testing software where 500hz is Showing a given response base on a reference eg at say 80 dBA ! with a reading 📖!Come back another day and the reading will the same if another in the room is changed!

[@magicman639]

Eg White Noise reference,Pink Noise reference come to the same room a week later and the results or software readings are the same!!!

[@AcousticFields]

All music has everything to do with room response.

[@kamilkashaf2766]

If you are having problems above 500 hz, you have shit speakers. plain and simple. It's your room bringing out the flaws in your speakers, not the other way around. Under 500 hz/mid-bass can be worth paying attention, if you can't be too flexible with placement. In general room correction is not a good idea. Even after calibration it sounds like something is still missing.

[@AcousticFields]

K, What is missing is the soul of the music. I have listened to many of these processors and they do something and I don't know exactly what but they can destroy a sound stage. They can compress the mid-range frequencies in a way that maybe they better fit measure into the room size but the presentation value suffers. It is almost impossible to adjust for room modal abnormalities with source positioning. Moving speakers and listening position to dodge issues is not justified. If you're dodging an issue at the one-room location you are causing an issue at another location within the room. There is simply no better solution to all of these issues than room acoustic treatment for sonic management.

[@Gamez4eveR]

literal cope

[@AcousticFields]

Yes and well applied.

[@Gamez4eveR]

@@AcousticFields well applied because 2 subs, a measuring mic and a minidsp 2x4HD will achieve better low frequency response at the listening position than any realistic amount of treatment?

[@MrOliverTube]

You´re so "spot on" !!!! All these room correction wizards are mere xxxxxx!

[@tecnogadgethd]

What a disgusting smoke seller. Yeahh bashing room correction since all he wants to do is sell you upfront his acoustics services. Anyone not seeing this is blindfolded.

[@AcousticFields]

Opinions vary.