# Using Room Correction to improve your mixes



## Blakus (Mar 24, 2018)

Hi midi manipulators! 

Thought I'd attempt to share this little tip that has made a huge difference to my production quality.



What's your experience with using room eq?


----------



## Nmargiotta (Mar 24, 2018)

Blakus said:


> Hi midi manipulators!
> 
> Thought I'd attempt to share this little tip that has made a huge difference to my production quality.
> 
> ...





Room correction is key to my setup. I rely on a Trinnov St2 pro. I couldn’t imagine mixing without it. It’s nice to be completely confident in whichever room your working in, and with the trinnov i can take it with me when I’m working in other facilities. Knowing where your low end truly sits is a must.


----------



## muk (Mar 25, 2018)

Spending some time with digital room correction is definitely worth it. Sonarworks seems to be the only software that is discussed on this forum, but there are alternatives that are worth checking out. If you have the cash Trinnov is one (as @Nmargiotta mentioned). Then there is Dirac:

https://www.dirac.com/online-store/

It worked better for me than Sonarworks. There is a free trial, so you can compare for yourselves.

If you are tech savvy and don't need a shiny gui you can get results that are on par with all of the above for the price of a calibrated measurement mic. Look around, it is usually quite affordable. One I could find is this:

http://www.cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_dayton.html

The one I am using costed around 20$ calibrated. The site I bought from doesn't sell the mic model I am using anymore, but if you search maybe you can find a calibrated mic around that price.

Use Room EQ Wizard (free) for the measurements:

https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

Use Python Open Room Correction (free) to generate the filter files:

https://github.com/bstegmaier75/porc

If on Windows you can use Equalizer APO (free) for a systemwide correction:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/

This solution is less comfortable than the abovementioned. It needs a bit of work and trial and error on your part. But the end results were astonishing for me (absolutely on par with DIRAC Live and Sonarworks), at a fraction of the cost (20$ total).


----------



## Wibben (Mar 25, 2018)

Great video as always, Blakus! 
I use reference 4 with my headphones which I really love but I'm pretty sceptical using the speaker calibration in my room. I have some pretty bad bass cancelation going on. 60 Hz just doesn't exist in my room. Would eq compensation really help in that situation?


----------



## muk (Mar 25, 2018)

Blakus' video really shows the difference drc can make quite nicely. @Wibben no, drc can't fix that. No software can. No matter how much energy you pump into that frequency range, it'll always cancel out. You can only correct peaks, and dips to a certain degree. But you can not correct cancelations.


----------



## jon wayne (Mar 25, 2018)

Anybody using ARC 2?


----------



## Blakus (Mar 25, 2018)

jon wayne said:


> Anybody using ARC 2?


I originally used ARC 2, and it helped. But when I switched to Sonarworks I noticed a huge difference. ARC 2 sounded phasey and unclear in comparison.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 25, 2018)

muk said:


> Spending some time with digital room correction is definitely worth it. Sonarworks seems to be the only software that is discussed on this forum, but there are alternatives that are worth checking out. If you have the cash Trinnov is one (as @Nmargiotta mentioned). Then there is Dirac:
> 
> https://www.dirac.com/online-store/
> 
> ...


thanks muk for those links, very helpful!


----------



## elpedro (Mar 26, 2018)

Blakus said:


> I originally used ARC 2, and it helped. But when I switched to Sonarworks I noticed a huge difference. ARC 2 sounded phasey and unclear in comparison.


Can you use the ARC mic with the sonarworks software?For me ARC2 seems to work well, as my little room is linear above 120Hz, but that typical small room bass standing wave bump needs correction and ARC2 seems to do the job.


----------



## muk (Mar 26, 2018)

leon chevalier said:


> thanks muk for those links, very helpful!



If you have any questions about Room EQ Wizard or Python Open Room Correction let me know. I'm by no means an expert, but I dug in enough to make it work.

By the way, personally I prefered Dirac and PORC over Sonarworks. Sonarworks seemed to only correct the frequency spectrum for me, while Dirac and PORC do correct the time domain as well. This leads not only to less coloration (frequency correction), but to a more precise stereo image as well (timing). In any case it is a good idea to check both demos and see which you like best.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 26, 2018)

muk said:


> If you have any questions about Room EQ Wizard or Python Open Room Correction let me know. I'm by no means an expert, but I dug in enough to make it work.
> 
> By the way, personally I prefered Dirac and PORC over Sonarworks. Sonarworks seemed to only correct the frequency spectrum for me, while Dirac and PORC do correct the time domain as well. This leads not only to less coloration (frequency correction), but to a more precise stereo image as well (timing). In any case it is a good idea to check both demos and see which you like best.


Thanks ! Sure I'll ask you if needed. But I have first to get a calibration mic !


----------



## Tod (Mar 26, 2018)

Blakus said:


> What's your experience with using room eq?



Thanks Blakus, finally somebody agrees with me. 

I've used room EQ in all of my control rooms for the last nearly 50 years. Before 1980 I tuned the EQs by my ears according to the records I thought sounded good. Even back in the 70s I had acoustically treated control rooms but I had no means of making measurements, and all I had at that time was a stereo 1/2 octave graphic EQ.

I built my last control room in 1980. It's a LEDE design which was popular at the time, no parallel surfaces, the front end is dead and the back end is live. Also the monitors are bi-amped and built into the walls, although they are completely floating. By then I had a couple of 27 band 3rd octave EQs. I still didn't have a spectrum analyser, they were too expensive for me in those days. However, what I did end up with was a RANE RE27 which was basically a very simplified realtime analyser. 

I got along with that until the later 80s, by then I had become quite familiar with the computer and I'd learned Quick Basic, which was a DOS type computer language. So I created a program where I could input the voltages using narrow band sine waves of each of the 27 bands, all based on my room measurements that were created with pink noise. 

Of course I did the usual, by creating averages and coming up with the best average for left and right. But I also added a feature where I could add a percentage of the fletcher munson curve. Like you Blakus, I wasn't satisfied with a flat response. It took some experimenting but I came up with a setting that I liked, and I used for many years.

Back a few years ago I did recalibrate it with a good spectrum analyser, but it didn't change much. I'm definitely going to try Sonar Works, I've heard nothing but good things about it.


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 27, 2018)

I will probably add room EQ on top of all of the treatment I have done to adjust some things and the video did a great job at explaining why this can be useful! However, there are some important considerations I would like to add:
1) Problems of the room sound do not only exist in the frequency curve, but also in the time domain. For example, at 60 Hz the sound might ring out for 2.5 seconds, while the average time on all frequencies is only about 1 second. These problems can only be addressed with treatment. An EQ cannot help with that.
2) Any frequency curve is completely dependent on the place it is measured at. So, on a certain frequency you might have a less then average volume, but only a few centimeters to the left, there is more ... good room EQs do consider that fact by using multiple spots of measurement. But that does not mean, they can really fix everything! They just sort out, which corrections can be done without harm, which boils down to almost nothing, if you have huge problems.
3) A totally flat sound is not desirable! There are different theories on what is the best and the exact thing is probably subjective in the end. After all, even our ears have an individual frequency curve!  But professional acoustic designers definitively never treat a room to a flat freqency curve. That is why a good room EQ has to have the option to assign a target curve.
4) To set up a good mixing room, perfect symmetry of the room and the relative speaker placement is key! A Room EQ cannot correct that either.

Finally, I can only advise anybody to not spend money on room EQs before having done the utmost possible to do real treatment. This is much more difficult than EQ correction and much more expensive and time consuming. To add to the pain, most people do it wrong and still spend a whole lot of money, which is why I would recommend to get professional help here. But there is no way around it. Correction software on its own will not do the job. It is rather the icing on a cake.
A small room will never be perfectly balanced for bass frequencies. The correction software will help
In the end to get closer to ideal, but you need at least 30 square meter and high ceilings to really judge the bottom end of a mix. I am in the same situation here, as I only have a small mixing room myself. But it is important to know what can be achieved and what not. Somebody really into mixing and mastering should not get a small room.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Mar 27, 2018)

It's important to know that EQ and treatment are 2 different things and they're both necessary in a good sounding room. There's some overlap but one doesn't to the job of the other. As FriFlo mentioned, an EQ basically deals with the frequency response while treatment deals with time.


----------



## karelpsota (Mar 27, 2018)

elpedro said:


> Can you use the ARC mic with the sonarworks software?For me ARC2 seems to work well, as my little room is linear above 120Hz, but that typical small room bass standing wave bump needs correction and ARC2 seems to do the job.



Yes. It's basically the same reference mic. I bought both brands just to check.

Note that, as Blakus mentionned. ARC Has some phasing and imaging issues. It's not as open or pleasing to ears as SonarWorks. I believe it's due to the *imprecision of measurement*.

ARC is manually measured.
Sonarworks uses audio clicks to triangulate the position of the mic.


----------



## elpedro (Mar 27, 2018)

karelpsota said:


> Yes. It's basically the same reference mic. I bought both brands just to check.
> 
> Note that, as Blakus mentionned. ARC Has some phasing and imaging issues. It's not as open or pleasing to ears as SonarWorks. I believe it's due to the *imprecision of measurement*.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that info, I might switch to sonarworks, as I like the system wide application as well.


----------



## Greg (Mar 27, 2018)

Thanks so much for sharing your experience with it! I was hesitant about it but your video cleared up a lot of my concerns and I'm pumped to set it up. We have a really similar room and I too tried WAY too much treatment with no success.


----------



## Softmo06004 (Mar 28, 2018)

The best solution, according to my ears, is miniDSP DDRC-22D with Dirac. The DSP is dedicated to the Dirac software and it makes a huge difference from the native version.
https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 28, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> It's important to know that EQ and treatment are 2 different things and they're both necessary in a good sounding room. There's some overlap but one doesn't to the job of the other. As FriFlo mentioned, an EQ basically deals with the frequency response while treatment deals with time.


Dirac, for instance, is more than an EQ. the time alignment is a part of the (software) treatment it provides and you can hear the difference once you switch that part off.


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 28, 2018)

Softmo06004 said:


> The best solution, according to my ears, is miniDSP DDRC-22D with Dirac. The DSP is dedicated to the Dirac software and it makes a huge difference from the native version.


in which way does it make a difference to the native Dirac Live software?


----------



## Divico (Mar 28, 2018)

I´m using Sonarworks and really like the result. For those of you who use it aswell, check if you have listening spot activated, as far as I know Reference likes to turn it of by default. This option matches both channels level and phase wise. References Systemwide is really handy if you like to listen to music on your studio speakers and headphones and train your ears towards their sound.
My room is quite bad and unfortunately I don´t have any treatment yet :(


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Mar 28, 2018)

babylonwaves said:


> Dirac, for instance, is more than an EQ. the time alignment is a part of the (software) treatment it provides and you can hear the difference once you switch that part off.


Like I said, there is some overlap but Dirac and other processing can't correct the decay in your room. My DEQX corrects group delay and the only other thing on the market which does so is Acourate except that it usually has around 2 seconds of latency. I'm about to order 3 of the miniDSP OpenDRC units as a backup in case something ever happens to my DEQX but the processing will be nowhere near as good. Just a temporary solution until I can get it repaired or have to buy another one.


----------



## Pablocrespo (Mar 28, 2018)

I would like to try sonarworks, but getting the mic here south is difficult, do you know any alternatives to their mic?


----------



## Divico (Mar 28, 2018)

Pablocrespo said:


> I would like to try sonarworks, but getting the mic here south is difficult, do you know any alternatives to their mic?


https://sonarworks.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203334912-Can-I-use-other-microphones-


----------



## Henu (Mar 30, 2018)

I have been fiddling around with Sonarworks since yesterday evening, using a Genelec 8200A measurement mic.

My speakers are Yamaha HS8 with highs on -2 and bass at -2.They are aligned using the mirror- technique, me sitting quite near the tip of the triangle when working. In other words, the placement should be more than fine.

What I find really weird is that the software cannot calculate my distance from the speakers right, always insisting being 60 cm instead of over 100. And thus also not calculating correctly the width of my both sides. It also seems to find my low end complete unbalanced within the stereo field.
I have done 9 (same and some different) measures, always getting the same sort of results .

The right channel has a peak at 70-80 hz area while the left channel has a a peak at 50 hz. And while the right channel dips at 100 hz, the left one does even harder and wider dip at 80-90 area. Everything up from 300 or so is pretty much solidly synced within the stereo field.









Granted, my room isn't ideal- its measures are W 4,30m D 2,6m H 2,45m and I'm sitting in the middle facing the "depth" angle. It's treated with absorbers and some diffusers but unfortunately no bass traps with some furniture, biggest being a sofa behind me and CD shelves at the left wall.

No matter my measurement tests, when using the "listening spot"- option, it doesn't a very small dip (0.2 dB or so) to the left channel at 30 hz but no curving to the right channel. Instead, it reduces the right channel volume by 2.3 db, thus making the listening spot unbalanced and unusable.

My after- curve looks also a bit crooked from the bass side, but I guess it's completely impossible to do a decent flat curve with a room like this, so a compromise is a compromise.





I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about my measurements- have you experienced the same imbalance in the low end of the stereo field? If so, how did you fight it?


----------



## Tod (Mar 30, 2018)

Hi Henu, yeah, you are definitely working in a less then ideal situation. It sounds like you're sitting so that you're parallel to the widest wall in the room. Have you tried doing it the other way, setting up in the middle of one of the narrow ends so that your speakers have a longer throw? It might be better for the low frequencies.


----------



## Henu (Mar 30, 2018)

Yeah, it would be better but the narrow end is too narrow for my desk. :(

I was so puzzled about the results with Sonarworks (especially because it sounded _WAY_ better that what I used to hear...like completely a new set of speakers, basically) that I tried also REW and Dirac to see if others measure the same way, and it was, for my surprise, true with the low end. After the corrections I just wanted to be sure, because the sound was basically too good for me to believe there isn't some sort of FM curve/ hifi smile just to impress me. 
And that weird gap in 600-1khz area was also present everywhere, which I found very hard to believe unless I _had_ to. I mean, look at the curve. How is that technically even possible?

About the software:Dirac only wasn't a complete pain in the ass to download and activate, it also didn't do almost anything to the sound despite of seeing the same flaws that SW did. Granted, the lows straightened up a bit but all the mids were basically untouched (while the software told me that it was corrected). And there were no many of those very handy features at all like what SW has. So for me, SW was a clear winner. As said, it sounds too good to be plausible, so I need to make a mix with it within the trial period to make sure it isn't just snake oil. And I'm still a bit puzzled about the latency in recording...but I guess that would be with any software. I'll try it out a bit more and if it really is as genious and useful for me as it tries to impress me, I'm going to get the package with their own mic.

EDIT: A couple of days and millions of A/B's later, I also realize how much the software did to my stereo imaging. I prepared a test master for an album and played it first in my car and then at work with a calibrated pair of Genelec DSP's. The sounds was pretty much exactly what I heard at home and definitely one of the most "healthiest" masters I've done recently there.

I ordered the package with the mic this morning. 

(Oh, and before anyone goes like "_SURELY YOU DON'T DO MASTERS IN THAT ROOM?!?!!111_", I never send anything without checking and tweaking it at my treated work studio room with those calibrated Genelecs at work.  And the same goes for mixes, naturally.)


----------



## brainditch (Apr 6, 2018)

@Henu, I've got a theory about something going on in your room. Could you do the pings with exactly the same set-up, but position your mic about 2" (5 cm) from the floor? Then post the results please. I think this might change the shape of the dip at 600, but please verify this on your end.


----------



## Henu (Apr 6, 2018)

Sure thing! But the thing is that I don't have the mic anymore as I returned it to work already. :(
I actually got the package with the SW mic yesterday, so I'll probably run the tests tomorrow when I (may) have some free time from the kids shouting and yelling all the time. :D

I'm actually really interested about this theory, gotta admit! Here's a quick picture of my (shamefully messy, taken at the end of a workday where I still haven't cleaned it up, haha) room in case you can depict anything out from that. Behind me is a sofa and there are absorbers on top of it the same way in the wall that I face. (On my left which you can't see is a door opening inwards, some more absorbers and seven towers full of CD's.)


----------



## brainditch (Apr 6, 2018)

Well, there are several theories that may be developed (and need to be tested) about your space, some of which may be fixable easily, others which might not be.
First, I assume that the measurements you posted before were with the measurement mic in the listening position, approximately where your ears would be- correct? If so, just based on the "before" frequency response curves here's what I see (and theorize):
1. The approx. 1 octave dip starting at 600 Hz _may_ be a product of _your_ placement, or the placement of other objects in the room. If in fact you measured (with tape measure) to find the optimum Listening Position as centered in the 4.6m wall, then set your speakers for symmetry using the "mirror trick" (actually there are several- which did you use?), then slight re-positioning either of your Listening Position or your speakers may change things, possibly improve them. This was the reason for the measurement at 5 cm off the floor, to give us a test for just that frequency range that would absolutely change the mic's possibly being in a modal null.

2. The asymmetry in the low end (Left vs. Right speaker response) is rather strange, as you've commented on, but might be explainable by the Physical Centerline of the space not matching the Acoustic Centerline for those lower frequencies. In other words, even if the room is a measured rectangle physically, the Sound Transmission capability (the inverse of Sound Reflection and Absorption) of such items as windows and doors is different from typical walls, and at different frequencies, particularly in the lower end of the spectrum, and might be creating the difference we're seeing _as if those frequencies (the transmitted ones) were in a different sized room_. Also, moveable items in the room that are large enough, and either solid (such as that armoire/closet thing to the right of your desk, or your desk itself) or absorbent enough (that couch behind you, or even your guitar amps and other inactive larger speakers in the room) may be aiding the asymmetry. 

A quick and easy test that should have a dramatic effect on the low end/asymmetry, would be to test the space both with the door open, and closed (if you can manage to test when the kids are quiet for a few minutes during the test). This will temporarily extend the Acoustic Boundaries, and thus the Acoustic Centerline will change, at least for the lower frequencies.

Keep in mind that your own body can have a dramatic impact on the measurements for certain ranges- we "walking bags of water" are known to have one of the best absorption coefficients around, so try to be in the same relative position in the room for each test. It may be a useful experiment to try to get the test to start while you're not in the room (if your software can be remotely started somehow, or have a timed delay start) as a way of seeing this effect.

The bottom line for best results: try changing only one variable at a time for each test, just as if it's a real scientific experiment. The more carefully you adhere to this principle, the more repeatable (and therefore valid) the results become.

You may find that you can dramatically improve your results, even before application of the final "Acoustic Surgery" (using Room Correction Software). Most in the know would agree that RCS should be used as the final step, following this order of efforts:
1. Acoustic Placement of Listening Position, Audio Monitors for best, smoothest, most symmetrical response- tested and documented.
2. Placement of large "living necessities", such as larger furniture, other moveables- tested and documented, without messing up most ideal results in above, or at least finding the best positional compromise.
3. Placement of Acoustic Treatments depending on how the space is to be used- tested and documented; if for mixing and mastering (and in the following order for practical reasons of ascending cost):
A. Taming First Reflection points (using the other "mirror trick"), _including ceiling_
B. Dealing with "flutter echo" (remember, not always necessary to use full coverage of a surface for this, just reducing the amount of Parallel Reflection Paths, using a "Checkerboard" coverage or similar can work wonders at less cost)
C. Modal and Room Resonance taming- corners, and mid-wall treatments using deeper or more "exotic" absorbers (such as Pressure, as opposed to Velocity Absorbers), in an effort to tame the lower end of the spectrum. This step is the most expensive, and most obtrusive to the space. I recommend removable treatments here if the space is to be multi-use (such as tracking and mixing/mastering). If not possible due to budget/aesthetic/space reasons- so be it, "it is what it is", with all caveats and compromises well understood (and documented, of course).
D. Electronic Room Correction using whatever means available. If affordable, the seemingly best way to improve Room Response overall is to separate the lowest frequency drivers from the mains by adding up to four Sub-Woofers, with time delay and crossover frequencies separately adjustable, position the subs for best Modal and Phase Response (often trimming the lowest end- lower than 120 Hz out of the mains), then using filters for final response shaping (usually not more than 6 dB, with "cuts" preferred over "boosts". If subs are not affordable, so be it (as above): proceed with Room Correction Software.

Also of note: the very large latency Sonarworks was reporting (47 mS? Wow!) may be due to the fact that the software is employing Finite Impulse Response filters, which although capable of fantastic otherwise unattainable results for certain things (better in-band Phase Response, steeper Slopes, decreased Ripple, etc.) do need more time/processing power to calculate/develop the filters than Infinite Impulse Response filters (which represent the most common filters available, including analog ones).

Maybe you've heard all this before- if not, there's a bunch to "chew on".


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 11, 2018)

And today is the day I finally try this bad boy out! Feeling hopeful!


----------



## Pablocrespo (Apr 11, 2018)

let us know what you think...I am toying with the idea of having yhe mic delivered to me


----------



## KEM (Apr 11, 2018)

Woah... Blakus posted a video?! We need more of that!!


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 11, 2018)

Ok, here's a couple of screen shots of what my room looks like before...





And after...






This is quite drastic so I'm hoping to hear some results. At the very least, something extremely different. Fingers crossed!


----------



## Blakus (Apr 11, 2018)

jononotbono said:


> Ok, here's a couple of screen shots of what my room looks like before...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spend a bit of time becoming familiar with what the "flat" response sounds like. Listen to other works, not your own. Then don't be afraid to adjust tilt or add some smooth subtle bass if you want it to sound more pleasing. Our brains do adjust after a while and can find the same satisfaction from the unhyped flat sound, but I prefer slightly boosted bass personally. You should definitely notice a difference, judging from your measurement. You have some fairly big differences between the left and right channel. You should notice some imaging improvements as well.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 11, 2018)

Blakus said:


> Spend a bit of time becoming familiar with what the "flat" response sounds like. Listen to other works, not your own. Then don't be afraid to adjust tilt or add some smooth subtle bass if you want it to sound more pleasing. Our brains do adjust after a while and can find the same satisfaction from the unhyped flat sound, but I prefer slightly boosted bass personally. You should definitely notice a difference, judging from your measurement. You have some fairly big differences epbetween the left and right channel. You should notice some imaging improvements as well.



Man, the difference is staggering. So much so a mix of something I have been working on (and really pleased with) now sounds pretty shit. And low and behold (no pun intended although it's a pretty fantastic one haha), the mix is lacking in Bottom end. This is definitely going to take some getting used to but I have a feeling it's going to be worth it. 

Some people have said they use it with Audio HiJack (for systemwide). Someone has also said they don't even bother with the plugin and just use Systemwide. I think due to latency. But I haven't noticed any latency yet just running it as it is installed. Perhaps I am doing something wrong regarding systemwide but the difference in Cubase using the VST Plugin is quite amazing. And thank you Steiny for the Cubase Control Room because disabling that plug when deadlines are due after half a second of sleep in 3 days is 100% guaranteed to not happen haha!


----------



## robgb (Apr 11, 2018)

So, do they have some software that can fix my old man, tinnitus, high-frequency failing ears?


----------



## wst3 (Apr 11, 2018)

robgb said:


> So, do they have some software that can fix my old man, tinnitus, high-frequency failing ears?


Waiting anxiously for that myself!


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 11, 2018)

Yeah. It’s called a VU Meter.


----------



## aaronventure (Apr 12, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> It's important to know that EQ and treatment are 2 different things and they're both necessary in a good sounding room. There's some overlap but one doesn't to the job of the other. As FriFlo mentioned, an EQ basically deals with the frequency response while treatment deals with time.



Correct.

Decay time and the most important thing: comb filtering caused by early reflections. 

Room correction will solve some of the peaks and nulls that average in your sweet spot because of early reflections. But you'll still always get the combing effect as you move about in your chair. Bass decay time doesn't even need to be mentioned :D

So in turn, acoustic treatment will increase the quality of your room correction immensely while also dealing with decay times in the room. I'd always go for room correction as well on top of acoustics because it's a huge improvement that can now be done properly in your treated room, and you're already done with the expensive stuff.

I see some good advice here in the thread regarding acoustic treatment. I can only emphasize that you should treat the corners first, then early reflections, then everything else. And for God's sake, *please don't waste your money on foam*. Owens Corning in the US or Rockwool in EU is the best solution. If you don't want to DIY, GikAcoustics has some very well made and eye pleasing mineral wool absorbers done with aforementioned materials according to where they're being made.


----------



## muk (Apr 12, 2018)

jononotbono said:


> This is quite drastic so I'm hoping to hear some results. At the very least, something extremely different. Fingers crossed!



Don't believe the Sonarworks 'with correction' screen. If you really want to know what it does measure with Room EQ Wizard, one time with Sonarworks deactivated, and one time with Sonarworks on.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 12, 2018)

muk said:


> Don't believe the Sonarworks 'with correction' screen. If you really want to know what it does measure with Room EQ Wizard, one time with Sonarworks deactivated, and one time with Sonarworks on.



Ok great. Always worth trying these things. About to calibrate Sonarworks for a second time as I want to see how it compares to first attempt.


----------



## muk (Apr 12, 2018)

Room EQ Wizard is free, by the way, and it should work well with the Sonarworks mic:

https://www.roomeqwizard.com/


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 12, 2018)

muk said:


> Room EQ Wizard is free, by the way, and it should work well with the Sonarworks mic:
> 
> https://www.roomeqwizard.com/



Downloading it now. Thanks.

I have some more questions about Sonarworks...

A question about using the avoid clipping option. When activated, it lowers the output by about 7db. Now, this is fine for monitoring back but it doesn't mean the mix down is going to be -6db does it? So in actual fact, the mix downs will be +6db compared to what I am hearing whilst using Sonarworks? I'm just trying to figure out how I don't give people mixes that are the wrong volume etc.

I usually have all music in a Cubase project going to a Sub Master bus (mainly for reasons such as being able to route Voiceovers, Dialogue and SFX etc to the Master Bus and have independent control over Music. So, sometimes, I just pull the Sub bus down if it's a bit too hot and this works well because it doesn't affect any processing before the sub bus because there is nothing after it in the chain (I don't really use Mastering tools because Mastering engineers deal with that and I need to leave headroom for them).

I want to keep the Avoid clipping button on as it's sensible but I am a bit lost as to what my true output volume is when using it?

Am I right in thinking I should lower my Sub Master bus by the exact amount Sonarworks is reducing things so on Mixdown, the audio has taken that into consideration?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 12, 2018)

jononotbono said:


> Downloading it now. Thanks.
> 
> I have some more questions about Sonarworks...
> 
> ...


You should be using it in the monitoring section where the level is completely irrelevant and you can only see the actual output level in the little meter there. Everything else like your main output meters will be unchanged.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 12, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You should be using it in the monitoring section where the level is completely irrelevant and you can only see the actual output level in the little meter there. Everything else like your main output meters will be unchanged.



I'm using it in the Cubase Control room. But what I don't understand is that if the "avoid clipping" button is on, it takes my monitoring down by 7db. So when I mix something down, it will be 7db louder than what I was monitoring at. Is that correct?


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 12, 2018)

Sorry if I am missing something glaringly obvious. Long night! haha


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 12, 2018)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Everything else like your main output meters will be unchanged.



Sorry man. I totally get what you're saying now. Ok, wicked. That's no concern at all then. The Control Room is just so useful.


----------



## robgb (Apr 12, 2018)

Okay, so I downloaded the headphones demo, since doing it without the microphone is pointless. I set it up for my headphones KRK KNS8400 (which are supposed to be flat anyway), and despite the EQ curve showing how "off" my headphones are, the Sonarworks correction sounded only slightly different than the headphones as-is. I also tried the ToneBooster's Morphit KRK KNS8400 preset, saw the correction curve was extremely similar, but also heard only a slight difference in the sound as opposed to the headphones as-is. 

I don't know what any of this means...


----------



## Henu (Apr 12, 2018)

@brainditch thanks a lot for your very interesting explanations! Some I knew, some I didn't, so this was very useful information!!!

I haven't been able to do the new measurements yet wholly, so I'm still trying to take the "extra" ones and post everything here. The SW calibrated mic is giving a bit different results, but nothing drastic though. Can't really sure which one sounds better- the one measured with Genelec mic or the SW mic. And after all, it's the neutrality I am after for....

EDIT: Checking through REW again to see the corrected results, it seems that the _signal does not go through Reference4_ in any situation. So it's still measured as uncorrected all the time, just like R4 wasn't even installed.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 12, 2018)

jononotbono said:


> I'm using it in the Cubase Control room. But what I don't understand is that if the "avoid clipping" button is on, it takes my monitoring down by 7db. So when I mix something down, it will be 7db louder than what I was monitoring at. Is that correct?


The file that you mix down is the same regardless of how you have the settings. Yes, when you play it outside of Cubase, it will be louder than playing in Cubase unless you compensate for that or run your audio through Cubase. When I used to use Sonarworks I had a monitoring preset to send everything through Cubase. I also have a number of different monitoring presets depending on what I'm doing so most of the time the level of playing anything outside of Nuendo is different.


----------

