# Sonarworks Speaker/Headphone Calibration WOW



## Daniel James

Hey All,

As some of you may know I have spent this past year travelling the world trying to get out of my comfort zone. For the previous 4-5 years before that I had a studio set up with a decent acoustic treatment. So as you can imagine moving from that set up to a rig with more portable monitors and no real say on the next room I would be working in, I made my life....difficult. However I usually managed to get a decent enough room set up in order to work. I had people I could trust to check what I was doing in the mix and I was 90% of the time right on the money as if I was doing it in my older 'flat' studio.

However I just flew home for the holidays and am staying with my parents, as always deadlines dont go away for the holidays so I had to find a room to work in. The only space available was my dad's study.....which could be an example of the worst kind of room you could work in.... Some hard brick walls, some thin plywood walls, perfectly square, with the desk located in the centre of the room (yikes). I knew instantly the room was fucking with the mix as my ears had gotten accustomed to a flat signal. It was the first time this whole year I thought about moving to a separate building and commuting to a studio...its that bad!

Thats where I found Sonarworks which is a bit of software which promised to take the room out of the equation. I was skeptical but I thought fuck it, its cheap enough to try, £135 which also comes with a specifically calibrated mic. So after the 10 or so minutes it takes to set up by having you place the mic in specific locations in your studio. I threw the plugin in my DAW chain.... Honestly my jaw fucking dropped. Everything sounded almost exactly how I remember it being in the perfectly treated room I had for 5 years. Stereo imaging came back. I could hear all the mids. The bass that had nulled itself out of existence was as full as I remember it being. For a point of reference here is how bad my studio WAS....notice the differences between the L-R speakers, that alone could fuck you up:







That 10db ish boost around 120hz was a killer. So was that splashy 6db high end. Also take note of the dipped mids between those two boosted signals (good luck hearing those) and the severe bass roll off!

So this is essentially what the software is doing. An opposite (ish) eq and volume balance adjustment:






The thing that it seems to well is the phase adjustments, nothing seems to have disappeared in the drastic eq curves it had to draw.

After calibrating it back you end up with an room response that looks like this:









Again if you go back to the initial image and look at the perceived volume of each speaker due to the imperfect placement, it even adjusted for that (throwing it in mono monitor puts the 'centre signal' right in front of me).

While the result is never going to be million dollar studio build perfect it really does sound and feel flat to me. Its the tone and imaging I remember from my well treated room. And as someone who works in multiple studios, having the ability to calibrate them to the same degree of flatness is invaluable.

This isn't even mentioning the Headphone calibration. The company has calibrated many of the top favourite studio headphones (such as the AKG 712 Pro's I use) and applies the same principle eq and phase adjustments to get the flat signal...and I shit you not, the translation from the headphones to the calibrated monitors is almost one to one.

All in all blown away and HAD to share with you guys!

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/sonarworks-reference-3

-DJ


----------



## URL

Test here
http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/sonarworks-reference-3


----------



## URL

Here on you tube is PTE doing a test.


Hm, I think I have to try this


----------



## ceemusic

Yep, a helpful tool.I've been using this since it's release & previously used IK's ARC ( which I no longer use) The HP calibration works well too.

I found the calibrated mic does make a bit of difference over a stock mic.


----------



## Kent

I've been a big fan of their stock- and custom-calibrated headphones. Will have to try their speaker stuff!


----------



## fiestared

Daniel James said:


> Hey All,
> 
> As some of you may know I have spent this past year travelling the world trying to get out of my comfort zone. For the previous 4-5 years before that I had a studio set up with a decent acoustic treatment. So as you can imagine moving from that set up to a rig with more portable monitors and no real say on the next room I would be working in, I made my life....difficult. However I usually managed to get a decent enough room set up in order to work. I had people I could trust to check what I was doing in the mix and I was 90% of the time right on the money as if I was doing it in my older 'flat' studio.
> 
> However I just flew home for the holidays and am staying with my parents, as always deadlines dont go away for the holidays so I had to find a room to work in. The only space available was my dad's study.....which could be an example of the worst kind of room you could work in.... Some hard brick walls, some thin plywood walls, perfectly square, with the desk located in the centre of the room (yikes). I knew instantly the room was fucking with the mix as my ears had gotten accustomed to a flat signal. It was the first time this whole year I thought about moving to a separate building and commuting to a studio...its that bad!
> 
> Thats where I found Sonarworks which is a bit of software which promised to take the room out of the equation. I was skeptical but I thought fuck it, its cheap enough to try, £135 which also comes with a specifically calibrated mic. So after the 10 or so minutes it takes to set up by having you place the mic in specific locations in your studio. I threw the plugin in my DAW chain.... Honestly my jaw fucking dropped. Everything sounded almost exactly how I remember it being in the perfectly treated room I had for 5 years. Stereo imaging came back. I could hear all the mids. The bass that had nulled itself out of existence was as full as I remember it being. For a point of reference here is how bad my studio WAS....notice the differences between the L-R speakers, that alone could fuck you up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 10db ish boost around 120hz was a killer. So was that splashy 6db high end. Also take note of the dipped mids between those two boosted signals (good luck hearing those) and the severe bass roll off!
> 
> So this is essentially what the software is doing. An opposite (ish) eq and volume balance adjustment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that it seems to well is the phase adjustments, nothing seems to have disappeared in the drastic eq curves it had to draw.
> 
> After calibrating it back you end up with an room response that looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again if you go back to the initial image and look at the perceived volume of each speaker due to the imperfect placement, it even adjusted for that (throwing it in mono monitor puts the 'centre signal' right in front of me).
> 
> While the result is never going to be million dollar studio build perfect it really does sound and feel flat to me. Its the tone and imaging I remember from my well treated room. And as someone who works in multiple studios, having the ability to calibrate them to the same degree of flatness is invaluable.
> 
> This isn't even mentioning the Headphone calibration. The company has calibrated many of the top favourite studio headphones (such as the AKG 712 Pro's I use) and applies the same principle eq and phase adjustments to get the flat signal...and I shit you not, the translation from the headphones to the calibrated monitors is almost one to one.
> 
> All in all blown away and HAD to share with you guys!
> 
> http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/sonarworks-reference-3
> 
> -DJ


Thanks for this post, I was thinking about buying it for some weeks, you're the trigger, I've ordered their mic. THANKS again for this, Merry Christmas.


----------



## David Chappell

Hmmm I might actually get this, certainly never had a disappointment with anything else I've bought after seeing your videos haha. Where did you get it for £135? I'm seeing it at about ~£225 on their site. Or do they have sales sometimes?


----------



## Symfoniq

Very interesting. This is far more affordable than all but the most rudimentary acoustic treatments...


----------



## DHousden

David Chappell said:


> Hmmm I might actually get this, certainly never had a disappointment with anything else I've bought after seeing your videos haha. Where did you get it for £135? I'm seeing it at about ~£225 on their site. Or do they have sales sometimes?


Yup, I'll be annoyed if it was available for this, as I just spent 269 Euros on it!


----------



## Daniel James

I got them from here: https://www.decks.co.uk/products/software/sonarworks/reference-3

-DJ


----------



## karelpsota

Thanks for the share @Daniel James

Quick question: Do you use it as an insert on your master channel, or can you use it on the "general" out of the computer?

I basically want to know if I can watch Youtube and still have the corrected speaker response.


----------



## URL

You use it on monitor channel not at the master channel if you bounce the master channel.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira

karelpsota said:


> I basically want to know if I can watch Youtube and still have the corrected speaker response.



Yes you can.

https://sonarworks.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/sections/202298185-System-wide-Calibration


----------



## Daniel James

karelpsota said:


> Thanks for the share @Daniel James
> 
> Quick question: Do you use it as an insert on your master channel, or can you use it on the "general" out of the computer?
> 
> I basically want to know if I can watch Youtube and still have the corrected speaker response.



Yes you can but the software is a VST/AU plugin, so you will need something to route the audio. The tutorial on their site will work but you get a lot of crackles and lag. I use Audio Hijack, its designed for reasons just like this. This is how I have it routed:





-DJ


----------



## mac

@Daniel James Does it induce any latency?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

I suggest using it in the linear phase mode for mixing. The latency is pretty high on that mode for writing through but I find it's worth adjusting for mixing.

When you're working in Cubase you can put it on the control room output of your speakers so that you don't have to worry about bypassing it when exporting or anything like that. I'm not sure if any other DAWs are able to have these sort of output only plugins which are impossible to accidentally bounce with.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

mac said:


> @Daniel James Does it induce any latency?



On the low latency mode it's about 1ms. On the linear phase I believe it's around 60ms.


----------



## mac

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> On the low latency mode it's about 1ms. On the linear phase I believe it's around 60ms.



that's quite the difference lol. So what can you do in low latency mode?


----------



## Daniel James

mac said:


> @Daniel James Does it induce any latency?



63ms for linear phase.
20ms for mixed phase (I track through this)
1ms for min

-DJ


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

mac said:


> that's quite the difference lol. So what can you do in low latency mode?



It's the same curve. The only difference is in the phase response where if it has some lead time (which results in increased latency) it's able to manipulate the temporal dimension and get a linear phase on the curve by looking ahead. When you have a lot of different bands working together like in these correction curves it can make a big difference. It is subtle though so it's not like it won't correct your room properly in the low latency mode. Fabfilter has some videos on comparing minimum phase vs linear phase EQing. In the case of Fabfilter I find the natural phase mode to be the most musical.


----------



## mc_deli

Best 200 euros I have ever spent.
I tried with Soundflower and AULab but it was glitchy... I have been using it on Logic's output for a year... must buy Audio Hijack...


----------



## Karma

Just ordered this as I am currently set up in a fairly poorly treated room. Hopefully it makes a difference!


----------



## Vakhtang

God damn this room sounds even worse now, after hearing the difference it made. 

Really really liking the results, actually set it up system wide after some messy routing (windows) for the monitors


----------



## wbacer

Will this work with a 5.1 surround setup?


----------



## Karma

Anyone know of a decent Windows alternative for Audio Hijack?


----------



## Daniel Petras

Is there a method to test the imbalance in your room before purchasing the software? 



wbacer said:


> Will this work with a 5.1 surround setup?


I'm also curious to know if this works for 5.1


----------



## SomeKindaThing

Sonorityscape said:


> Is there a method to test the imbalance in your room before purchasing the software?
> 
> 
> I'm also curious to know if this works for 5.1



I'm using it in a quad setup right now. I ran the room calibration once as normal, and then again with my surrounds as the main speakers. You can load multiple instances with different room profiles, so it's simple enough to set up for a quad setup. Not sure how well it would handle a sub.

One thing to make sure is that, if you are in quad or 5.1, that you put the plugin across all your speakers, otherwise you'll have mismatched latency.


----------



## Jaybee

DJ's review here was so great that Decks have taken it off sale  It was 40% off earlier today! Boooo!


----------



## karelpsota

Just compared IK Arc 2 with Sonarworks. Same room. Same mic.







Sonar is far more superior sound wise. Imaging and phasing is magically accurate despite my terrible acoustics.


----------



## Soundhound

It's 189 pounds ($234ish) right now, was it less earlier today? I've been thinking about getting this for a while and DJ put me over the ledge (not for the first time). It's $299 other places...


----------



## Daniel Petras

Does anyone know if this would be functional in audio middleware like Wwise?


----------



## Daniel Petras

Jaybee said:


> DJ's review here was so great that Decks have taken it off sale  It was 40% off earlier today! Boooo!


Hmm, brilliant marketing scheme.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

wbacer said:


> Will this work with a 5.1 surround setup?



No but I believe they're working on it although it's not at the top of their priorities. System wide implementation is more likely to come before that. If you already own it you can join the beta and see new features of the upcoming version. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to use multiple instances for surround because it might try to "correct" your surrounds into 60 degrees. Having them so wide will probably also through off the calibration and cause more issues.


----------



## muk

Have a look at Dirac Live as well guys. It offers the same thing as Sonarwork, it offers 5.1 already, and there's a free trial. It costs a bit more, though:

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


----------



## Jaybee

Soundhound said:


> It's 189 pounds ($234ish) right now, was it less earlier today? I've been thinking about getting this for a while and DJ put me over the ledge (not for the first time). It's $299 other places...



Yep it was £135 (inc VAT) - with a big "40% off" sticker on the page. Was tempted but now back to £189. You'd think that just having been given a huge boost in traffic/sales to your site by a respected composer review they'd leave the sale on until at least Christmas. Bah humbug etc.


----------



## Karma

I got it at £135. Must have been one of the last ones


----------



## Soundhound

That does kind of suck. And not a nice thing to do to Daniel either, assuming his review caused them to raise the price, which is conjecture on our part. 

Decks if you're listening you should put that sale back up, unless you want to lose a bunch of potential new fans.



Jaybee said:


> Yep it was £135 (inc VAT) - with a big "40% off" sticker on the page. Was tempted but now back to £189. You'd think that just having been given a huge boost in traffic/sales to your site by a respected composer review they'd leave the sale on until at least Christmas. Bah humbug etc.


----------



## babylonwaves

muk said:


> Have a look at Dirac Live as well guys. It offers the same thing as Sonarwork, it offers 5.1 already, and there's a free trial. It costs a bit more, though:
> 
> http://www.dirac.com/online-store/



and it uses a meta driver which means you don't have to use soundflower / AU lab etc. you simply select Dirac driver as you output driver and in Dirac Live you select which output device will receive the modified signal. Dirac also has a fast and a slow mode, the slow mode has a latency of about 20ms, the fast mode is @about 6 if my memory serves me right.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Just bought the studio monitor calibrator + mic for 200 euros!!


----------



## Karma

I finally got round to setting mine up yesterday. I was having a ~6db boost at around 50hz, as well as my high end having some real issues as well. The difference is huge


----------



## jcrosby

Symfoniq said:


> Very interesting. This is far more affordable than all but the most rudimentary acoustic treatments...


Reference is very useful, but for best results some should be used since there are time domain issues in every room that most room correction can't fully address and low end really does need to absorbed for the best results.

Low end reflections are massive waves and will interfere with upper ranges making some cancelation inevitable... I always recommend using it tandem with at least some basic treatment...

Something like this is reasonably priced and will address some common issues... and can only make Reference help your room have even better clarity...

http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-room-kit-package-1/


----------



## Daniel Petras

Karmarghh said:


> I finally got round to setting mine up yesterday. I was having a ~6db boost at around 50hz, as well as my high end having some real issues as well. The difference is huge


Awesome! I'm really excited - I'll post my results once mine are calibrated.


----------



## WindcryMusic

I can testify to the value of GIK Acoustics treatments ... I treated my (very bad, almost square) room about two years ago with some of their TriTraps and 244s, and it certainly helped. But alas, it didn't come close to fixing all of the problems, as my studio really is in a horrid space for audio. After Daniel's mention of Sonarworks in his recent video, I tried out Reference 3 for myself, and after some idiocy on my part with the initial calibration process, I got it up and running and it sounds pretty good indeed ... certainly it has made for an additional improvement on top of what the acoustic treatments provided. Daniel really ought to get a commission from Sonarworks for my purchase thereof.


----------



## Daniel Petras

WindcryMusic said:


> I can testify to the value of GIK Acoustics treatments ... I treated my (very bad, almost square) room about two years ago with some of their TriTraps and 244s, and it certainly helped. But alas, it didn't come close to fixing all of the problems, as my studio really is in a horrid space for audio. After Daniel's mention of Sonarworks in his recent video, I tried out Reference 3 for myself, and after some idiocy on my part with the initial calibration process, I got it up and running and it sounds pretty good indeed ... certainly it has made for an additional improvement on top of what the acoustic treatments provided. Daniel really ought to get a commission from Sonarworks for my purchase thereof.



Can I ask what you were having problems with? I'm trying to get past the mic sensitivity part at the beginning - it keeps asking me to turn up the mic signal level to a port where I get feedback


----------



## Daniel Petras

Sonorityscape said:


> Can I ask what you were having problems with? I'm trying to get past the mic sensitivity part at the beginning - it keeps asking me to turn up the mic signal level to a port where I get feedback



If anyone else is technically challenged like me, you need to turn off input monitoring on your interface.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Sonorityscape said:


> Can I ask what you were having problems with? I'm trying to get past the mic sensitivity part at the beginning - it keeps asking me to turn up the mic signal level to a port where I get feedback



I got past that step without a problem (sort of). Yes, input monitoring would be a problem - good on you for figuring it out yourself.

My error was dumber than that, I'm not proud to say. I got hung up at the step that measures the distance between the speakers (it was always complaining that the distance was too small, even though it wasn't). But it was my own silliness that was responsible … I never, ever remember that my iMac has a built-in mic (because I never use it), so I assumed that the default selection of "Mic 1" as the input device was referring to the first mic input on my Apogee interface. Not so much! And since that internal mic was more or less equidistant from both of my monitors ... 'nuff said.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Here's my before, after and correction respectively. Has anyone done the test more than once and noticed different results? I think I might try another test tomorrow and see.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Wow, I'm listening back to something right now and the low end sounds soo muddy without the corrections - this is insane! Without the plugin it literally sounds like I put on an EQ and made huge random dips like an idiot. And the high end sounds clean and crispy. I'm seriously blown away right now.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Sonorityscape said:


> Here's my before, after and correction respectively. Has anyone done the test more than once and noticed different results? I think I might try another test tomorrow and see.



I haven't had the Sonarworks app long enough to do it more than once, but I've measured my room's response numerous times with FuzzMeasure and never seen anything more than subtle variations. (I'm not counting the low end below 50 Hz or so … that always fluctuates quite a bit, and from what I understood from the author of FuzzMeasure, that is expected behavior).

Note that even simple changes in your room's configuration (e.g., whether a door was opened or closed) WILL make noticeable changes in your results.


----------



## URL

Which distance do you have between the left and right front speakers, how much influence the distance measurement, apparently the longest distance in the demo in youtube is 81 cm...or?


----------



## WindcryMusic

URL said:


> Which distance do you have between the left and right front speakers, how much influence the distance measurement, apparently the longest distance in the demo in youtube is 81 cm...or?



I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the distance between the center of the cones of my nearfields is 4' 3", a.k.a. 129.5 cm, and Sonarworks handled it just fine. In fact it only missed the distance estimation by about one inch, and that could have been just the variation in my mic position during the test. I thought that was pretty impressive, actually.


----------



## URL

In the Protools expert youtube video in this treat they showed that the max width settings between the speakers
was 81 cm or I totally misunderstood the info, I have about the same width as you between the speakers and if that not a problem when you do the measurement or why is the width only 81 cm in the Sonarworks settings?


----------



## Rob Elliott

For those that have worked with this - how are mixes sounding (translated) in cars, phones, other spaces, etc... Any over-correction issues?


----------



## Creston

I've had the headphone plugin for a while and stopped using it. Does anyone use it and trust it?


----------



## mc_deli

Sonorityscape said:


> Wow, I'm listening back to something right now and the low end sounds soo muddy without the corrections - this is insane! Without the plugin it literally sounds like I put on an EQ and made huge random dips like an idiot. And the high end sounds clean and crispy. I'm seriously blown away right now.


What speakers are you using and how low do they go?
It looks from your images like SW is boosting a lot at 60-80hz - If this is because your monitors do not go that low - well, I'm not so sure that's the right use for SW...


----------



## Daniel Petras

mc_deli said:


> What speakers are you using and how low do they go?
> It looks from your images like SW is boosting a lot at 60-80hz - If this is because your monitors do not go that low - well, I'm not so sure that's the right use for SW...



JBL LSR305 they go down to 43hz


----------



## mc_deli

Sonorityscape said:


> JBL LSR305 they go down to 43hz


That seems odd to be applying a 10dB boost at @80Hz ...I am trying to search for the source but I thought SW recommended max. 6dB cuts and less for boosts
(Big fan here by the way - changed my listening life for the better)

Edit: And this thread has spurred me to get Audio Hijack in


----------



## Daniel Petras

mc_deli said:


> That seems odd to be applying a 10dB boost at @80Hz ...I am trying to search for the source but I thought SW recommended max. 6dB cuts and less for boosts
> (Big fan here by the way - changed my listening life for the better)
> 
> Edit: And this thread has spurred me to get Audio Hijack in



I may have been a little careless with my measurements, and I also was using a make-shift mic stand from my keyboard stand and a piece of cardboard to hold the mic. I'm not sure if that could've affected the results, but I'm going to try again tomorrow. Nevertheless, the response I was getting seemed a lot cleaner, that's for sure.


----------



## mc_deli

Sonorityscape said:


> I may have been a little careless with my measurements, and I also was using a make-shift mic stand from my keyboard stand and a piece of cardboard to hold the mic. I'm not sure if that could've affected the results, but I'm going to try again tomorrow. Nevertheless, the response I was getting seemed a lot cleaner, that's for sure.


Hmm yeah you should probably try to be a bit more clinical! (understatement) and also use the dip switches on the JBLs first. It is also a bit odd to use a room correction system that costs more than the monitors... you might not be able to get optimum results...


----------



## Daniel Petras

mc_deli said:


> Hmm yeah you should probably try to be a bit more clinical! (understatement) and also use the dip switches on the JBLs first. It is also a bit odd to use a room correction system that costs more than the monitors... you might not be able to get optimum results...



Why would it matter which monitors are being used? I thought this corrected the room. Were the corrections I heard just a figment of my imagination?


----------



## mc_deli

Sonorityscape said:


> Why would it matter which monitors are being used? I thought this corrected the room. Were the corrections I heard just a figment of my imagination?



There are far more sophisticated answers to your question than I can give (without a lot of copy pasting). My layman's answer is: SW is using some complex algorithms to correct the frequency response of your speakers in your room at a specific listening position. It is a complex and clever EQ with bells on. Like any EQ, cuts are easy but it can't really add what's not there in the first place. So, a 10dB boost at a specific frequency can't really give you "critical" accuracy at that frequency. Also, the better the source audio - i.e. the better the monitors and things like their time domain response - the better the results are going to be with "correction". 

You are really asking the timeless mixing question: "can you polish a turd?" The answer is something like: "you'll have more fun trying if you didn't have a kebab the night before"


----------



## Karma

You don't NEED to use a mic stand - obviously it can help. I tried both with and without and the results weren't far from the same.


----------



## Daniel Petras

mc_deli said:


> There are far more sophisticated answers to your question than I can give (without a lot of copy pasting). My layman's answer is: SW is using some complex algorithms to correct the frequency response of your speakers in your room at a specific listening position. It is a complex and clever EQ with bells on. Like any EQ, cuts are easy but it can't really add what's not there in the first place. So, a 10dB boost at a specific frequency can't really give you "critical" accuracy at that frequency. Also, the better the source audio - i.e. the better the monitors and things like their time domain response - the better the results are going to be with "correction".
> 
> You are really asking the timeless mixing question: "can you polish a turd?" The answer is something like: "you'll have more fun trying if you didn't have a kebab the night before"





mc_deli said:


> There are far more sophisticated answers to your question than I can give (without a lot of copy pasting). My layman's answer is: SW is using some complex algorithms to correct the frequency response of your speakers in your room at a specific listening position. It is a complex and clever EQ with bells on. Like any EQ, cuts are easy but it can't really add what's not there in the first place. So, a 10dB boost at a specific frequency can't really give you "critical" accuracy at that frequency. Also, the better the source audio - i.e. the better the monitors and things like their time domain response - the better the results are going to be with "correction".
> 
> You are really asking the timeless mixing question: "can you polish a turd?" The answer is something like: "you'll have more fun trying if you didn't have a kebab the night before"


Tested 2 more times today and the results were more or less the same. Although every time it tries to measure the distance between my monitors it's way off by around a foot or more.


----------



## jcrosby

Sonorityscape said:


> Here's my before, after and correction respectively.


Yeah looking at your graph this is the problem with a square. Low end disappears or resonates severely... GIK stuff is fine for treating the mids and highs, but unless the room is acoustically built from the ground up traditional room treatment won't do much if anything below about 100-200 hz unless you've got a large listening space... (Trying to fit a 40 feet long wave in a 10 foot square is a monumental task...)

There's only one company I'm aware of that make traps that will absorb down to 30 hz but they're heavy, huge and pricy... 100-220 pounds each, up to 60" high and $600-$1500 each. (You can just buy the plans and DIY them, but they look like a bitch to build and the materials aren't cheap...) Anyway, glad to hear you hear a big difference. I bet the first listen was pretty satisfying 



mc_deli said:


> Like any EQ, cuts are easy but it can't really add what's not there in the first place. So, a 10dB boost at a specific frequency can't really give you "critical" accuracy at that frequency


 Exactly my point. The room probably sounds a lot better but Sonority should look into doing something about absorbing the low end in the future.

You can't simply EQ low end back in to a room with these dimensions... Again fitting a 40 foot long wave into a smaller space is physically not possible without mass to absorb it, and it being square makes it even more problematic.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Rob Elliott said:


> For those that have worked with this - how are mixes sounding (translated) in cars, phones, other spaces, etc... Any over-correction issues?



So far, I believe that my mixes with Sonarworks are translating approximately 1000% better than my mixes before ever did. And by that, I mean my first pass at a mix using Sonarworks is translating better than the end result of my previous process, which involved three or four iterations of checking it in other environments and tweaking the mix as best I could.

You can have my copy of Sonarworks ... but only if you pry it from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Ashermusic

WindcryMusic said:


> So far, I believe that my mixes with Sonarworks are translating approximately 1000% better than my mixes before ever did. And by that, I mean my first pass at a mix using Sonarworks is translating better than the end result of my previous process, which involved three or four iterations of checking it in other environments and tweaking the mix as best I could.
> 
> You can have my copy of Sonarworks ... but only if you pry it from my cold, dead hands.




It is hard for me not to have some skepticism. Can software make the sound more pleasing, sure but more accurate, which is what mixes translating is about? AFAIK, the waves come our of your speakers and reflect against your surfaces so unless something physical in the room happens, how can it be changed? Isn't is simply physics?

But I am open minded on the issue and if someone in L.A.has this and would spend a couple of hours demonstrating it to me, I would pay them for their effort.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Ashermusic said:


> It is hard for me not to have some skepticism. Can software make the sound more pleasing, sure but more accurate, which is hat mixes translating is about?



Your skepticism is entirely understandable. I shared it prior to now; in fact when I decided to download the demo, I mainly did do in order to prove to myself my expectation that it would offer no benefit. And I won't pretend for a second that this is a replacement for a proper acoustic space. Alas, such a space isn't available for everyone.

I find this helps me do A/B comparisons against other people's recordings much more successfully than I could without it, because my room was entirely hiding so many of the details. And I wouldn't describe the results as necessarily more "pleasing" - I'm not looking to make my studio space into a hi-fi system. I used to have some Tannoy nearfields that were musically flattering but not very honest, and those have long since been retired. Rather, I am now hearing things in my mixes that were previously inaudible, and which are usually revealing flaws therein that I was previously oblivious to and can now address much more easily. The pleasing part has been when I evaluate the results in other environments ... and isn't getting things to sound good in those other environments the point?


----------



## SBK

Got the calibration microphone to measurement and stuff, got the demo of both headphones and speakers.
I had serious problems in my room at 130Hz 12 dB boost! Has made the sound so nice now. I can really hear the music well while before I would suffer not knowing what to address!!!! Amazing


----------



## mc_deli

SBK said:


> Got the calibration microphone to measurement and stuff, got the demo of both headphones and speakers.
> I had serious problems in my room at 130Hz 12 dB boost! Has made the sound so nice now. I can really hear the music well while before I would suffer not knowing what to address!!!! Amazing



Again, same comment as before, are you saying that you are using a 12dB boost? You are certainly subjectively gonna hear more bass but my understanding is that that Sonarworks will not magically replace audio data that is not there in the source - it is meant for small cuts and minor boosts. A 12 dB boost won't magically give you a "critical listening" solution. You might like it. It might work. But it is not recommended AFAIK.

Sonarworks is great - but the idea of these couple of examples of major boosts are just going to mislead people IMHO


----------



## Kaan Guner

Does anyone have tried Toneboosters' Morphit?

This and Morphit does the same thing. Morphit has just released so I'm biased against Sonarworks having a kind off edge? I would love it if anyone who has Sonarworks could compare it to Morphit.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Kaan Guner said:


> Does anyone have tried Toneboosters' Morphit?
> 
> This and Morphit does the same thing. Morphit has just released so I'm biased against Sonarworks having a kind off edge? I would love it if anyone who has Sonarworks could compare it to Morphit.



Just to be clear, Sonarworks has two related products: the room speaker calibration utility that is mainly being discussed in this thread, and a separate utility for pre-calibrated headphones. The latter is similar to MorphIt, except that they also offer a more expensive calibration service for individual headphones, while MorphIt simply has curves for the typical response of a variety of headphone models.

Caveat: I don't own the Sonarworks headphone calibration element. What I do have is the Sonarworks Reference 3 software for room calibration (but without the headphone software portion), and MorphIt for headphone calibration. I opted to buy the latter before I'd even looked at Sonarworks; to my understanding, it supports a wider range of stock headphones out of the box than the Sonarworks alternative, and it was also substantially cheaper. I like the combination so far; for example, one thing my room monitoring can never tell me regardless of Sonarworks' processing is what is going in below around 45 Hz, because my Equator D8 nearfields don't reproduce those low frequencies in a meaningful way. I can hear what's happening in that frequency range more easily with my headphones, especially now that I'm using MorphIt. But outside of that, I find that corrected audio sounds very similar between my room and my headphones now when using the respective plugins, even though they are from different companies.

Sonarworks says that using the stock calibration profiles for headphones can result in a variance of up to 3Db in certain frequencies, whereas their calibration service can get it down to less than 1Db. My thinking is that my ears are already damaged enough from many years of playing live rock music nightly that 3Db is a drop in the bucket that I'm not going to worry much about.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Hey guys, so I did my first mix using the calibration. I was wondering if someone with a good room/monitors/mixing ear would be willing to listen and say if anything jumps out at them? I've attached the EQ corrections to show what I was working with: 



Daniel


----------



## Piano Pete

Does the speaker calibration software work without the specific mic they provide? I have a behringer ECM8000 that I have been using.


----------



## Raindog

I have used the software with the ECM8000 myself and found the results rather convincing. But I have no comparison with a calibrated mic, so I don´t know, if the results could even be better. But I like what the software did, no complaints.
Best regards
Raindog


----------



## WindcryMusic

Piano Pete said:


> Does the speaker calibration software work without the specific mic they provide? I have a behringer ECM8000 that I have been using.



Is it a calibrated ECM8000? I did my room with an ECM8000 that was calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs, using the 45º off-axis file (I gather that that the Sonarworks mic calibration is 30º off axis, so I figured this was the closest option I had). The resulting response graph in Sonarworks was almost identical to graphs I'd made earlier using FuzzMeasure, so I felt pretty confident it was sufficiently accurate.

If your ECM 8000 isn't calibrated, it might get you in the ballpark to improve things a bit, but it won't be all that accurate. The uncalibrated response of my ECM 8000 varies in the high and low ends of the easily audible range by up to 4db or so.


----------



## gsilbers

so how does this compare tot he IK multimedia ARC and those other competing products? why is this one better?


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry..

gsilbers said:


> so how does this compare tot he IK multimedia ARC and those other competing products? why is this one better?



http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2015/10/2/arc-2-vs-reference-3


----------



## gsilbers

oh, so the low end. ok, I thought it was a different type of product. cool


----------



## mc_deli

gsilbers said:


> oh, so the low end. ok, I thought it was a different type of product. cool


(Lord, sorry I am posting about Ref3 again)... more than just the low end in that review... read the comments there... and look for more on GS and elsewhere... Arc2 and Ergo lose out to Ref3 time and time again... on usability and sound... Ref3 also has the headphone correction, which appeals to some people... the only people I know who had Arc2 didn't stick with it... the people I know with Ref3 continue to use it. It is not a cure all but they have made a great plug in.


----------



## WindcryMusic

mc_deli said:


> (Lord, sorry I am posting about Ref3 again)...



Me too. 



> ... the people I know with Ref3 continue to use it. It is not a cure all but they have made a great plug in.



Count me in amongst that group (and be forewarned, the following may come off as a little gushy, but I'm just that happy). I'm in the middle of mixing and (home) mastering a soundtrack album, and from the moment I added Sonarworks to my very acoustically-challenged studio, I've been getting better and better outcomes … and equally as important, I'm getting to the desired outcomes much faster than I could before Reference 3. Once I learned to start trusting most of what I am hearing in there now with Reference 3 in the chain, as well as identifying what few/limited elements I still shouldn't trust and need to check in headphones (mainly sub-bass), with every new cue I'm finding that even my first mix/master translates well to other listening environments, and that had never, ever been the case prior. I seriously expected to give this software a pass when I downloaded the demo, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that, to my complete surprise, Reference 3 has changed my (musical) life.

Note: I have NOT received free products from Sonarworks.


----------



## nik

Hey guys, i was wondering how their licensing works if i buy the headphone and speaker calibration bundle. If i install it now and get a new computer later, can i still use it? And can i calibrate as often as i want?
Thx for the help,best regards


----------



## Symfoniq

I recently acquired the Sonarworks software and ran the calibration for the first time last night. Calibration was surprisingly easy, and the software's ability to correctly determine the dimensions between the speakers and my chair was uncanny. I didn't have to adjust a single inch.

Before running the calibration, I thought my Yamaha MSP7 monitors sounded pretty good. Post-calibration, I now think the monitors sound muddy _without_ Sonarworks inserted on the output bus. It is not an exaggeration to say that the difference in clarity is startling. I _am _mixing in a bad room, so YMMV quite a bit, but I suspect that Sonarworks is going to become a permanent resident in Cubase's Control Room.


----------



## Soundhound

Just ran the calibration for the first time. Easy to do, great software! I'm wondering about a couple of things.

1) The volume with the plugin active in the DAW on the master bus, (using the calibration file I created) is noticeably lower than with the plugin bypassed. Is that normal? The output fader on the Sonarworks plugin at the right is all the way up, where it is when first opening the plugin in the DAW.

2) Here's my calibration file screen. I'm hearing more high end definition with the plugin active active, but haven't tried it on a variety of material. Is this a room that needs bass traps perhaps? Or do you think it's fine working as is? I'm in this room to the end of this year, then will be moving again.


----------



## FredW

Soundhound said:


> 1) The volume with the plugin active in the DAW on the master bus, (using the calibration file I created) is noticeably lower than with the plugin bypassed. Is that normal? The output fader on the Sonarworks plugin at the right is all the way up, where it is when first opening the plugin in the DAW.


Looking at your screenshot the fader shows -7.2dB since you have 'Avoid Clipping' turned on. I assume this value is based on your calibration result. You can raise the volume to match the volume when the plugin is bypassed if you turn that switch off.


----------



## mc_deli

Soundhound said:


> Just ran the calibration for the first time. Easy to do, great software! I'm wondering about a couple of things.
> 
> 1) The volume with the plugin active in the DAW on the master bus, (using the calibration file I created) is noticeably lower than with the plugin bypassed. Is that normal? The output fader on the Sonarworks plugin at the right is all the way up, where it is when first opening the plugin in the DAW.
> 
> 2) Here's my calibration file screen. I'm hearing more high end definition with the plugin active active, but haven't tried it on a variety of material. Is this a room that needs bass traps perhaps? Or do you think it's fine working as is? I'm in this room to the end of this year, then will be moving again.


What he said: turn off avoid clipping.

Also, couple of questions:
- What speakers are you using (nothing under 110Hz?)...?
- Did you really name your file "Sonarworks Speaker Ref"?

- From the "add" dropdown it's useful to see the "correction" curve
- You have the maximum latency going on here. A useful feature is that you can switch SW to low latency for tracking

- One final tip - I am so much happier using SW in Audio Hijack rather than in the DAW (I know with Cubase's control room you have a better solution than Logic, which err doesn't have one!)


----------



## Soundhound

Thanks guys.

Fred
Audio clipping - I was turning the plugin on and off, and turning it on results in a drop in volume. Turning the lower right Calibration button on and off doesn't do that.

mc deli
Speakers - They're Genelec M030s. I have bass reduction on in the back of them at -2db, it's for having speakers against a wall and in this room they are farther from the back wall than my other room (about 2ft) might try that off now. Also have the bass EQ for tabletop, but I have them on Isoacoustic stands angled up at my head (4" height in front), so might try that off as well.

file name - it's the first calibration I tried and I put the date etc at the end of the name. Always looking for those little extra things I can do to make life harder. 

correction curve - good to see! I'll put the screen grab below

Audio Hijack - Is the benefit here just to have it out of the DAW completely, or to be able to reference online streams through Sonarworks, or something else?

thanks again guys!

edit: window w/correction curve added here:


----------



## FredW

Soundhound said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> Fred
> Audio clipping - I was turning the plugin on and off, and turning it on results in a drop in volume. Turning the lower right Calibration button on and off doesn't do that.



Don't touch the calibration button. It's the 'Avoid clipping' switch I'm referring to.


----------



## mc_deli

Yes, Audio Hijack can host plug ins outside the DAW in system audio before your system output.

Those Genelecs should surely go down under 60Hz (edit: finds 53Hz in the specs) so surely you should have something under 100Hz... your graph doesn't look like 2dB bass reduction...


----------



## mc_deli

http://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/M%20Series%20Studio%20Monitors/M040/genelec_m030_m040_manual-qsg.pdf
The freq graphs in here suggest these speakers shouldn't give such a drop off at 100Hz. 
Is it possible that the calibration did not go well... or is there another factor (what mic?)... something off...?


----------



## Soundhound

I'll give AJ a try thanks.

I know, that curve gave me pause. I'm using their mic.

I've turned off the -2db rollof on the genelecs, and tried the tabletop both ways, sounds clearer with it on. I'm going to try another calibration with those settings.


----------



## Soundhound

Just did the calibration curve again and some differences, but not much, that big bass rolloff is still there. I sent the pict to Sonarworks to see if they might have a suggestion.

FredW when I mentioned the lower right Calibration button I just meant turning it on and off to monitor with and without the Sonarworks processing.


----------



## Soundhound

Hang on, had the bass rollof on in Console (UAD Apollo), could that account for this drastic low curve? I can try again later with it off...


----------



## WindcryMusic

Soundhound said:


> Hang on, had the bass rollof on in Console (UAD Apollo), could that account for this drastic low curve? I can try again later with it off...



Haha! That could very easily be. It's good that you identified that … I was looking at your curves and was thinking "wow, and I thought MY studio space had poor bass response." I would definitely recalibrate with both that and the 2db rolloff on your nearfields disabled.

That recalibration may also result in an adjustment that doesn't make quite as large of an impact on your overall volume, since it shouldn't be trying to push the bass as hard. I believe that volume difference to be normal and expected, by the way, since the plugin is having to force a large amplitude gain on certain frequencies to compensate for room nodes and other dips in your response curve ... if it didn't, you would be overloading your output and quite possibly hearing distortion. I have adjusted to using a higher gain setting on my Apogee interface that compensates for the loss from the Sonarworks adjustment … the net effect is well worth it IMO.


----------



## Soundhound

Thanks very much! I tried again with the low end rollof unselected in UAD Console and the curve is certainly much less pronounced, but still pretty drastic? Or in an untreated room like mine (bare walls but wall to wall fairly thick charting on the floor) is this to be expected? Do you think it's workable like this?


----------



## Soundhound

Here's the 'After' curve for that same calibration, still a pretty big bass loss?


----------



## WindcryMusic

Soundhound said:


> Here's the 'After' curve for that same calibration, still a pretty big bass loss?



It's very possible, depending upon your room. My result is similar although not quite as deep (see below), and I have at least some wall and corner treatments. If you are in a small and almost square room, then yeah, this is the kind of thing you are likely to see. Based upon that big notch at around 70Hz, I'm guessing you have a pair of parallel walls about 12' apart?


----------



## Soundhound

Ha! Impressive! Sherlock Holmes would be proud, they are indeed parallel and 12' 10" wide, with some file cabinets along one wall. The room isn't square, a rectangle probably twice as long as it is wide. There are also eves that start at the front of the room and ease away toward the back, which is why I have it against one of the short sides of the room. 

Maybe I should look into some basic treatments to alleviate some of this deep roll off? I'm only here through the end of the this year, so just looking to make do for the time being...


----------



## WindcryMusic

Soundhound said:


> Ha! Impressive! Sherlock Holmes would be proud, they are indeed parallel and 12' 10" wide, with some file cabinets along one wall. The room isn't square, a rectangle probably twice as long as it is wide. There are also eves that start at the front of the room and ease away toward the back, which is why I have it against one of the short sides of the room.
> 
> Maybe I should look into some basic treatments to alleviate some of this deep roll off? I'm only here through the end of the this year, so just looking to make do for the time being...



Corner, freestanding bass traps are your friend. Or at least they could be. 

EDIT: I should ask: is the 12' dimension the long dimension or the short one in your room? If it is the long dimension (i.e., something like 12' by 6'), then be warned that such a small room is probably never going to give you any sort of reasonable bass reproduction no matter how heavily you treat it.


----------



## Soundhound

The 12" is the short, the long dimension is 18' 8" or so. So not a big room for sure, but not the smaller as you described. I'm looking into bass traps! Would be nice to not have such a big dip there at the bottom...

Plus if I need these in my studio room back home next year so I could bring them along...


----------



## Soundhound

Can anyone recommend a good source for learning to interpret these curves as they pertain to potential room treatments?


----------



## mc_deli

I just had a tidy up, bought some new cables, put a concrete block under the sub, plumbed in some synths, so I did the Sonarworks measurement again today. 

So elegant, until... it just hung on the "distance between speakers" part... I moved the mic, changed modes, tried again and again... but just couldn't get it to complete the left speaker "distance" measurement. Half an hour later. Beooop Beoop beooop etc etc.

That was when I checked the cables and realised I had the speakers swapped! What amazes me is how clever the software is. It can tell that there is something wrong with what should be a measurement up against the left speaker driver... amazing...


----------



## mc_deli

Here's my latest. I did some fiddling with my sub and repeatedly tested with SW3 and test tones.

I found that by setting the sub crossover at the (recommended) 80Hz and the sub volume at just a tickle (close to -30dB) I was able to get a much flatter starting point than before.
I have KRK VXT6 and KRK 10-s sub in a very small (1.7x2.8m) but acoustically designed and fully treated room (if it was up to me it would have been bigger said the actress to the bishop).

The blue "before" curves clearly demonstrate the KRK "smile" curve, which I understand is typical for most of their speakers. The VXT6 goes down to 49Hz (specs) so the sub barely has to register to add in some oomph down to 31Hz (again according to specs but also supported by SW3 measurement and test tone analysis, both visual and actually hearing it!).

- First pic shows SW3 calibration results and correction with best phase setting so highest latency (for e.g. mixing).
- Second pic shows phase setting for minimum latency (for e.g. tracking).
- Third pic shows how Audio Hijack hosts plug ins. I have Logic open, playing a test tone. With Audio Hijack on, the audio leaves Logic, goes through SW3 correction, then a ProQ (just using the analyser as a visual reference) and then to the output device (Babyface here).















I am super happy with this now. No need to switch SW3 on and off during bouncing. Hopefully I forget about this now. No more SW3 posts I promise


----------



## patrick76

Well because of the positive opinions expressed by those in this thread, I thought it would be worth it to give this a shot on my terrible room. I have some massive room modes in the bass to low mids. The result of using this plugin is very noticeable. First impression is that it is definitely worth the price I paid. A very low price for some impressive room treatment. Of course this is not a replacement for a properly treated room, but at this price you really get a great value. I'm looking forward to using this for a while and really seeing how it goes long term. Thanks to everyone for posting in this thread!


----------



## WindcryMusic

Something just occurred to me that could make Reference 3 even better in my opinion:

Just about my only annoyance with Reference 3 is needing to remember to disable it in Logic Pro X whenever I bounce. I am always bouncing in off-line mode (i.e., non-realtime), as I think is true for most users. Well, u-he's Diva synth is able to automatically detect when it's being used in an off-line mode, and can automatically change its accuracy setting when running in offline mode. From my brief experience as a pro audio software developer, I recall that VST plugins do get different inputs when running in an offline mode, so that probably explains how Diva is making that determination - I use the AU version thereof and it works there too, so there must be a similar method of detecting that situation for AU plugins.

What I would like to see is for Reference 3 to add that same type of off-line mode detection, and to auto-disable itself whatever it is running in off-line mode. After all, what good is a speaker calibration program doing if active when the speakers won't be in use? This would, at least for me, instantly solve the problem I have of needing to remember to disable that plug-in whenever I bounce. If there are some users who really do want to be able to have the Reference 3 plug-in running even in off-line mode for some reason, this could be set up as a user preference of some sort, but for me at least, this would be an amazingly valuable enhancement.

EDIT: I'm currently exchanging emails with Sonarworks about this idea, so we'll see where that goes ...


----------



## schatzus

Is anyone having any difficulty getting a decent speaker calibration? I have a fairly standard setup, and the calibration software shows my speakers about 90 -100 feet away from my chair. I've read everything in the Sonarworks knowledge-base yet still can't seem to get a calibration completed. It seems to be working well for many on the forum so would appreciate any tips or tricks. Thanks.


----------



## mc_deli

WindcryMusic said:


> Something just occurred to me that could make Reference 3 even better in my opinion:
> 
> Just about my only annoyance with Reference 3 is needing to remember to disable it in Logic Pro X whenever I bounce. I am always bouncing in off-line mode (i.e., non-realtime), as I think is true for most users. Well, u-he's Diva synth is able to automatically detect when it's being used in an off-line mode, and can automatically change its accuracy setting when running in offline mode. From my brief experience as a pro audio software developer, I recall that VST plugins do get different inputs when running in an offline mode, so that probably explains how Diva is making that determination - I use the AU version thereof and it works there too, so there must be a similar method of detecting that situation for AU plugins.
> 
> What I would like to see is for Reference 3 to add that same type of off-line mode detection, and to auto-disable itself whatever it is running in off-line mode. After all, what good is a speaker calibration program doing if active when the speakers won't be in use? This would, at least for me, instantly solve the problem I have of needing to remember to disable that plug-in whenever I bounce. If there are some users who really do want to be able to have the Reference 3 plug-in running even in off-line mode for some reason, this could be set up as a user preference of some sort, but for me at least, this would be an amazingly valuable enhancement.
> 
> EDIT: I'm currently exchanging emails with Sonarworks about this idea, so we'll see where that goes ...


What about using Audio Hijack or Soundflower to put Ref3 after the DAW? That way you don't have to turn it on and off, problem solved, no?


----------



## mc_deli

schatzus said:


> Is anyone having any difficulty getting a decent speaker calibration? I have a fairly standard setup, and the calibration software shows my speakers about 90 -100 feet away from my chair. I've read everything in the Sonarworks knowledge-base yet still can't seem to get a calibration completed. It seems to be working well for many on the forum so would appreciate any tips or tricks. Thanks.


Left and right swapped?
Mic level?
Mic feedback loop?
Correct mic?
Post mic processing?
Calibrating in a tin can?
...in a lighthouse?
...giant (Cern) doughnut?


----------



## schatzus

mc_deli said:


> Left and right swapped?
> Mic level?
> Mic feedback loop?
> Correct mic?
> Post mic processing?
> Calibrating in a tin can?
> ...in a lighthouse?
> ...giant (Cern) doughnut?


Left and right swapped? Nope, tested fine.
Mic level? Adequate but the software complains of signal to noise ratio. Only my computer is actually on in the room.
Mic feedback loop? Nope, input isn't routed to output.
Correct mic? XREF mic from Sonarworks
Post mic processing? None
Calibrating in a tin can? 
...in a lighthouse?
...giant (Cern) doughnut?
Fairly square room...Since the mic points at the monitor, could it be adding noise?


----------



## WindcryMusic

mc_deli said:


> What about using Audio Hijack or Soundflower to put Ref3 after the DAW? That way you don't have to turn it on and off, problem solved, no?



I've read far too many horror stories about Soundflower making Macs unstable, especially with audio devices with custom drivers like my Apogee Duet, to be willing to touch that thing with a ten foot pole, much less install it into the beating heart of my studio. I'd thought about Audio Hijack quite recently, which I thought I might trust a little more, but I still couldn't find anything from Apogee confirming that it is safe to use it in conjunction with their audio devices, and it seems very similar to Soundflower in its implementation, so I backed off of that idea. The auto-bypass option seems like a far lower risk solution to me.

Speaking of which, from what Sonarworks has told me today, they are indeed working on an auto-bypass feature, but not the same one as what I've described. Specifically, they said the auto-bypass solution they are working on should also work when bouncing in realtime rather than offline, so as to make it work for people who are bouncing with external processing hardware involved in their mix as well. I can't imagine how they are going to do that, and hope it isn't just another Soundflower-style solution that hacks into the system's audio device ... but it sounds intriguing.


----------



## mc_deli

WindcryMusic said:


> I've read far too many horror stories about Soundflower making Macs unstable, especially with audio devices with custom drivers like my Apogee Duet, to be willing to touch that thing with a ten foot pole, much less install it into the beating heart of my studio. I'd thought about Audio Hijack quite recently, which I thought I might trust a little more, but I still couldn't find anything from Apogee confirming that it is safe to use it in conjunction with their audio devices, and it seems very similar to Soundflower in its implementation, so I backed off of that idea. The auto-bypass option seems like a far lower risk solution to me.
> 
> Speaking of which, from what Sonarworks has told me today, they are indeed working on an auto-bypass feature, but not the same one as what I've described. Specifically, they said the auto-bypass solution they are working on should also work when bouncing in realtime rather than offline, so as to make it work for people who are bouncing with external processing hardware involved in their mix as well. I can't imagine how they are going to do that, and hope it isn't just another Soundflower-style solution that hacks into the system's audio device ... but it sounds intriguing.


I also tried the Soundflower:AULab route and I couldn't get it to work.

Audio Hijack works. Great.

I showed a screen above of how elegant it is (El Cap here).


----------



## mc_deli

schatzus said:


> Left and right swapped? Nope, tested fine.
> Mic level? Adequate but the software complains of signal to noise ratio. Only my computer is actually on in the room.
> Mic feedback loop? Nope, input isn't routed to output.
> Correct mic? XREF mic from Sonarworks
> Post mic processing? None
> Calibrating in a tin can?
> ...in a lighthouse?
> ...giant (Cern) doughnut?
> Fairly square room...Since the mic points at the monitor, could it be adding noise?


Feet/inches Stonehenge moment?


----------



## WindcryMusic

mc_deli said:


> I also tried the Soundflower:AULab route and I couldn't get it to work.
> 
> Audio Hijack works. Great.
> 
> I showed a screen above of how elegant it is (El Cap here).



Yep, I saw that, thanks! Looks like you have a Babyface for an audio interface. If only I could find one or more persons who use Audio Hijack with Apogee hardware without issues, then I might consider giving it a try. Unless Sonarworks comes out with their own auto-bypass solution first, that is, as I would prefer not to complicate my system any more than absolutely necessary.

EDIT: actually, there is one other concern I have with this approach. I use Toneboosters MorphIt for calibrating my headphones when I switch to mixing on those (I go back and forth between speakers and headphones a fair amount). It appears to me that it would be more difficult to manually bypass Sonarworks in such cases (since it is no longer right there in Logic's stereo buss, and I don't see a bypass option in the Audio Hijack UI either), so that would be another issue for my purposes.


----------



## mc_deli

WindcryMusic said:


> Yep, I saw that, thanks! Looks like you have a Babyface for an audio interface. If only I could find one or more persons who use Audio Hijack with Apogee hardware without issues, then I might consider giving it a try. Unless Sonarworks comes out with their own auto-bypass solution first, that is, as I would prefer not to complicate my system any more than absolutely necessary.
> 
> EDIT: actually, there is one other concern I have with this approach. I use Toneboosters MorphIt for calibrating my headphones when I switch to mixing on those (I go back and forth between speakers and headphones a fair amount). It appears to me that it would be more difficult to manually bypass Sonarworks in such cases (since it is no longer right there in Logic's stereo buss, and I don't see a bypass option in the Audio Hijack UI either), so that would be another issue for my purposes.


Audio hijack has a big red on/off button. And it's cheap. And there's a free trial. And it is interface agnostic AFAIK.

(I used Audio Hijack version 1 many moons ago for audio capture and it was a bit awkward. Version 3 and its plug in handling for system audio is brilliant. The drag and drop plug in routing interface is really very cool.)
YMMV


----------



## Soundhound

I'm looking into bass traps for my room since the Sonarworks calibration showed a pretty steep curve for the low end response. I'm wondering if bass traps would help in this room, which I'm using for my studio through the end of this year? 

The front of the room has eves, so the corners only go up a few feet, and the back has one corner, but the other side has steps up to an entry area to the room, so no clean corner. I've included here two pics of the room and my most recent Sonarworks Calibration showing the correction curve as well.

Thanks for any help!


----------



## mc_deli

Soundhound said:


> I'm looking into bass traps for my room since the Sonarworks calibration showed a pretty steep curve for the low end response. I'm wondering if bass traps would help in this room, which I'm using for my studio through the end of this year?
> 
> The front of the room has eves, so the corners only go up a few feet, and the back has one corner, but the other side has steps up to an entry area to the room, so no clean corner. I've included here two pics of the room and my most recent Sonarworks Calibration showing the correction curve as well.
> 
> Thanks for any help!


Frequency-wise that's not a disaster is it? I have similar small Genelecs at home and the problem with them is the lack of much under 120Hz - which is not exactly ideal for listening to bass instruments, bass drums etc!
With those eves you probably have all kinds of weird reflections and comb filtering going on. But in a temporary space, with monitors that are not really up to critical mixing, it would seem like a waste of time and effort to start acoustic treatment. You might improve the stereo image by cutting down some reflections with some panels... all depends on what makes you happy.

If you open up the "advanced" tab, what have you got the bass to? I think you should put the "max low frequency" on the bottom setting if you haven't already, as you probably don't want to be boosting frequencies with SW that your monitors can't reproduce (like that 100Hz correction in the graph - though your graph is not so extreme)...


----------



## Soundhound

Thanks for that! I looked at the Advanced setting for Max Low Frequencies and it's set to Extended (second most aggressive out of the four settings). For Max High Frequencies it's set to Neutral (middle of 3). These are the defaults I'm assuming, hadn't looked at them before. I'll give that a try, thanks.

In all this I'd also been thinking about getting a sub, or perhaps moving up to the slightly larger Genelec M040s for more bass response. The newer models also have some more advanced room calibration technology in them I think. I got these at Vintage King in L.A. and I think I remember them saying that when/if you want to move to different monitors they buy the originals back, to some degree or another...


----------



## mc_deli

Soundhound said:


> Thanks for that! I looked at the Advanced setting for Max Low Frequencies and it's set to Extended (second most aggressive out of the four settings). For Max High Frequencies it's set to Neutral (middle of 3). These are the defaults I'm assuming, hadn't looked at them before. I'll give that a try, thanks.
> 
> In all this I'd also been thinking about getting a sub, or perhaps moving up to the slightly larger Genelec M040s for more bass response. The newer models also have some more advanced room calibration technology in them I think. I got these at Vintage King in L.A. and I think I remember them saying that when/if you want to move to different monitors they buy the originals back, to some degree or another...


Even with the "max bass freq" on reduced (the min setting) Ref3 still wants to help you with frequencies under 100Hz where your monitors are rolling off steeply.
You would have to ask the Ref3 people this specifically, but I don't think this is going to help you. Those little Genelecs really aren't up to mixing and I don't think Ref3 is designed for monitors with such little bass extension (repeating earlier point).

You could try a sub - but a matched Genelec sub costs an arm and a leg. If you are serious enough about mixing to be trying Ref3 then you should be looking at some new - bigger - ballsier - monitors. I think that's pretty clear. And another excuse for a monitor thread 

EDIT: I promised no more Ref3 posts but I think I learnt something here - that Ref3 is not a good fit with tiny speakers. Ref3 wants to correct down to @80Hz on it's "reduced" setting. And at 250 squid or whatever, the software is deserving of monitors of a certain ability.


----------



## John Busby

Just curious...
has anyone tried the calibration with headphones yet that could give some feedback? most all the posts are referring to monitors


----------



## mc_deli

johnbusbymusic said:


> Just curious...
> has anyone tried the calibration with headphones yet that could give some feedback? most all the posts are referring to monitors


(Trying not to post about Ref3) Yes, I have the HD650 so I have used Ref3 headphones for that - with their stock calibration file. Of course, you can see the correction curve, the difference is palpable. What I don't know is how much each Sennheiser unit varies in frequency response - my guess with 300 squid headphones is not much so the correction curve is probably going to be quite accurate. I think you'd have to be pretty loaded (with cash) to get your own headphones calibrated rather than use the off the shelf model specific file provided by Sonarworks.

However it hasn't changed my life like the monitor correction because I don't use headphones much for mixing, if at all.


----------



## John Busby

mc_deli said:


> I don't use headphones much for mixing, if at all


i'm in quite the opposite position
i HAVE to use headphones and i just picked up the AKGk701's and they're definitely hyping hi freqs and dipping mids right out of the box.
kind of disappointing actually considering cans like these are "reference" headphones but according to SW no headphones playback flat enough for a true reference. i'm not sure if that's just SW's sales pitch or that really is the case across the board


----------



## mc_deli

johnbusbymusic said:


> i'm in quite the opposite position
> i HAVE to use headphones and i just picked up the AKGk701's and they're definitely hyping hi freqs and dipping mids right out of the box.
> kind of disappointing actually considering cans like these are "reference" headphones but according to SW no headphones playback flat enough for a true reference. i'm not sure if that's just SW's sales pitch or that really is the case across the board


I think you can look at the manufacturer's specs, consider what you think from listening to music on them and decide if you think you would benefit from a flatter response. 
Great mixes have been made on non-flat systems, it's all about having a feel for your system and how your mixes translate. With monitors it's a bit different if there are some room bumps and dips that correction can fix. With headphones, my personal opinion is more "proof in the pudding"... from the freq graphs found online, looks like the 701s are a little hyped in the bass and sparkle zone (well, 10k)... is that enough to confuse you when you are mixing and justify correction software... you know better


----------



## John Busby

mc_deli said:


> is that enough to confuse you when you are mixing


for me it is
the graphs i found show the hyped bass freqs in the low mids also which is, at least for me, the most troublesome area of the mix to get right.
granted, i haven't broken these cans in either and i've read that they need a good 100 to 200 hours; this very well may have something to do with what i'm hearing verses what i'm seeing on the graph.

i think it'd be worth it to do the trial, i'll post back in a day or two with results


----------



## kavinsky

its a cool concept sure
but the main problem for me here is that the speakers are not designed to give you a flat response.
if the plugins were calibrated to give the output that was meant by the speaker designers, then it'd be a much more convincing idea.
Btw I tried it with headphones and was not impressed at all.


----------



## WindcryMusic

A new mailing list email from Sonarworks indicates they are going to reveal more details on a system-wide solution in three days.


----------



## Soundhound

Saw that too. I've started using the Ref 3 plugin with Audio Hijack for all audio on my system. It definitely sounds different, I'm going to do another calibration after having cleaned up things around here recently...

Anyone else doing this as well? Using Sonarworks on all audio, not cleaning up.


----------



## mc_deli

Soundhound said:


> Saw that too. I've started using the Ref 3 plugin with Audio Hijack for all audio on my system. It definitely sounds different, I'm going to do another calibration after having cleaned up things around here recently...
> 
> Anyone else doing this as well? Using Sonarworks on all audio, not cleaning up.


I replied to the SW email.
I think that to beat the Audio Hijack solution the answer is in the latency - lower latency in low latency mode for recording and easy switching for mixing.

Has anyone tested if Audio Hijack adds more latency than that reported by Ref3?
EDIT: just remembered Audio Hijack has a latency/reliability slider


----------



## gsilbers

kavinsky said:


> its a cool concept sure
> but the main problem for me here is that the speakers are not designed to give you a flat response.
> if the plugins were calibrated to give the output that was meant by the speaker designers, then it'd be a much more convincing idea.
> Btw I tried it with headphones and was not impressed at all.



maybe I am not understanding your point but the idea from speaker designers in pro audio is to give a flat, most detailed and real sound.


----------



## Soundhound

I replied to their email as well. I did feel like there was some latency when playing a VI in Logic through Audio Hijack w the Ref3 plugin vs having the SW ref3 plugin just in Logic. Haven't looked at it carefully yet though.



mc_deli said:


> I replied to the SW email.
> I think that to beat the Audio Hijack solution the answer is in the latency - lower latency in low latency mode for recording and easy switching for mixing.
> 
> Has anyone tested if Audio Hijack adds more latency than that reported by Ref3?
> EDIT: just remembered Audio Hijack has a latency/reliability slider


----------



## WindcryMusic

Soundhound said:


> I replied to their email as well. I did feel like there was some latency when playing a VI in Logic through Audio Hijack w the Ref3 plugin vs having the SW ref3 plugin just in Logic. Haven't looked at it carefully yet though.



Hmm ... if that's the case, it would be a problem for me. The latency I get from Ref 3 as a plugin (in the central latency setting) is right on the ragged edge of acceptability for recording, and occasionally I am inclined to disable it even there. If Audio Hijack and similar approaches make that a bigger issue ... well, that would be a bummer.


----------



## mc_deli

Soundhound said:


> I replied to their email as well. I did feel like there was some latency when playing a VI in Logic through Audio Hijack w the Ref3 plugin vs having the SW ref3 plugin just in Logic. Haven't looked at it carefully yet though.


Have you found low latency mode?


----------



## WindcryMusic

mc_deli said:


> Have you found low latency mode?



Can't speak for Soundhound, but I had already tried that. In my opinion the audio quality suffers too much for me to want to use that mode … I'd just as soon disable the plugin entirely when latency is an issue.


----------



## WindcryMusic

Sonarworks has just announced a "Systemwide" solution for the problem, which it sounds like is going to be a separate application to provide a new system audio device, very much along the lines of Soundflower. They also say that for circumstances where latency is a concern, using the Reference 3 plugin directly will probably remain a superior option. Based upon that, I have suggested to them again that they should consider adding the option to auto-bypass Reference 3 when running in offline mode, since at least for people like me who mix entirely "in the box" and for whom latency is a concern, that would seem to be a superior (and quite simple to implement) solution.


----------



## Kejero

WindcryMusic said:


> Sonarworks has just announced a "Systemwide" solution for the problem,


Did you receive an email about this? I recently subscribed to their newsletter but I haven't seen anything...


----------



## WindcryMusic

Kejero said:


> Did you receive an email about this? I recently subscribed to their newsletter but I haven't seen anything...



Yes, I did. It was entitled "What is Sonarworks Systemwide?"


----------



## mc_deli

Just opened Systemwide... looks good... it's the plug in with output selection in the settings and appears in the menu bar... nice touch with a checkbox to disable if a Ref3 plug in is enabled (i.e. no double correction) and a switch on at start up option.

Only problemo is the price. 99 EUR/USD (70 intro). Audio Hijack does a lot more for half the money.

The big question is if Systemwide can provide "optimum" or "linear phase" correction (as set in the advanced Ref3 settings) at lower latency than Audio Hijack... I won't have time to test that for a bit...


----------



## WindcryMusic

mc_deli said:


> Just opened Systemwide... looks good... it's the plug in with output selection in the settings and appears in the menu bar... nice touch with a checkbox to disable if a Ref3 plug in is enabled (i.e. no double correction) and a switch on at start up option.
> 
> Only problemo is the price. 99 EUR/USD (70 intro). Audio Hijack does a lot more for half the money.
> 
> The big question is if Systemwide can provide "optimum" or "linear phase" correction (as set in the advanced Ref3 settings) at lower latency than Audio Hijack... I won't have time to test that for a bit...



I'd be interested to hear that.

Sonarworks did already say that Systemwide's latency would be higher than that of the plugin, which causes me to doubt I'd find it useful for DAW work. I wrote them another email to that effect, and in a reply they did appear to confirm that some sort of auto-bypass functionality for the Ref 3 plugin itself is also in the works, which I find to be very welcome news, whether it is my proposed solution or something else.


----------



## mc_deli

Interesting. It seems that, if you want to use the better quality settings (e.g. linear phase) then the 60+ ms latency means it has to be off for tracking. And that a few more or less ms either way during mixing isn't gonna change much. The one advantage I see of SW is having the on/off button in the menu bar - but that's not a biggie. What would be great would be to have the on/off as a key command.
Very hard to justify the extra expense of Systemwide when Audio Hijack works so well and does so much more (audio capture, plug ins on system audio etc etc).


----------



## Soundhound

An Audio Hijack question if I could. Sometimes when clicking somewhere in the Session window, or when just switching )OSX: Command + Tab) it opens one of the programs I have in the session, such as Spotify or Logic. Anyone else experience this?


----------



## Kejero

Where is this information on "Systemwide" available? I can't seem to find anything on their website... I've also never received a single mail from them, despite being subscribed with two email addresses now.


----------



## Kejero

Got some information from Sonarworks that may be interesting for others here: 

- The Systemwide upgrade is currently only available for current clients (not sure what that means, but it does explain why there's not much info available about it)
- Systemwide runs only on Mac for now
- There are currently some known issues with AVID audio interfaces


----------



## Daniel Petras

I posted these results when I first got the software and like people mentioned, the big boost below 100hz is not properly represented which is probably true as my room has no acoustic treatment.

I'm trying to find a workaround for this situation right now. Since I usually try and push my tracks to as loud as it can musically go in the mastering, I end up with some low freq. elements like booms usually clipping when I'd say they're usually at a reasonable level. When I go to render the master track, I bypass the Reference 3 and then the booms are no longer clipping. Would it be wise to ignore this clipping to a certain degree when the plugin is enabled due to the fact that a ~10db boost can't be correct or what might be another approach to this problem? Obviously, I would treat my room if it was an option, but I'd like to find the best solution to my current situation.


----------



## gsilbers

Sonorityscape said:


> I posted these results when I first got the software and like people mentioned, the big boost below 100hz is not properly represented which is probably true as my room has no acoustic treatment.
> 
> I'm trying to find a workaround for this situation right now. Since I usually try and push my tracks to as loud as it can musically go in the mastering, I end up with some low freq. elements like booms usually clipping when I'd say they're usually at a reasonable level. When I go to render the master track, I bypass the Reference 3 and then the booms are no longer clipping. Would it be wise to ignore this clipping to a certain degree when the plugin is enabled due to the fact that a ~10db boost can't be correct or what might be another approach to this problem? Obviously, I would treat my room if it was an option, but I'd like to find the best solution to my current situation.




when you do the calibration reference, does the software default to a specific volume?

I say because when I do those loud mastering sessions the volume changes a lot and therefore the bass is very different in level than I expected prior to mastering. normally the spl reference is 81db but that's very loud for most small setups when composing.
so I wonder if mastering at louder than normal would affect sonarworx in general


----------



## Daniel Petras

gsilbers said:


> when you do the calibration reference, does the software default to a specific volume?
> 
> I say because when I do those loud mastering sessions the volume changes a lot and therefore the bass is very different in level than I expected prior to mastering. normally the spl reference is 81db but that's very loud for most small setups when composing.
> so I wonder if mastering at louder than normal would affect sonarworx in general


It's funny you mention that. I think in the picture is what the level defaulted to, however I think I moved the level up to unity, as when the plugin is bypassed it then adds on the extra 11db which doesn't make sense to me (unless I'm doing something wrong). Wouldn't changing the volume level on the plugin be the same as changing the level on the master fader?


----------



## gsilbers

I'm yet to buy this so I am not sure. which is why I am hanging out here to check these small issues. 

the spl should remain the same. maybe use an spl meter (app) and keep it the same with or without the plugin?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

Sonorityscape said:


> I posted these results when I first got the software and like people mentioned, the big boost below 100hz is not properly represented which is probably true as my room has no acoustic treatment.
> 
> I'm trying to find a workaround for this situation right now. Since I usually try and push my tracks to as loud as it can musically go in the mastering, I end up with some low freq. elements like booms usually clipping when I'd say they're usually at a reasonable level. When I go to render the master track, I bypass the Reference 3 and then the booms are no longer clipping. Would it be wise to ignore this clipping to a certain degree when the plugin is enabled due to the fact that a ~10db boost can't be correct or what might be another approach to this problem? Obviously, I would treat my room if it was an option, but I'd like to find the best solution to my current situation.



Avoid clipping will...avoid clipping in the correction so you should leave it on. When you turn it off for exporting, it should not clip the same way. If it clips with it on, it'll probably also clip with it off. 

In my studio, the level is at 6dB to avoid clipping so I've calibrated with that in mind so when I play material not going through it, it stays at the same level.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Avoid clipping will...avoid clipping in the correction so you should leave it on. When you turn it off for exporting, it should not clip the same way. If it clips with it on, it'll probably also clip with it off.



Are you using the bypass button in the software or using your DAW bypass? I watched the PTE video on page 1 and he was saying to bypass the plugin in the DAW which does not make sense to me as when you bypass the plugin itself it keeps the levels the same. Maybe this is my problem.

And the clipping that is happening is only a result of the huge boost caused by the plugin (after the limiter) and therefore does not show up on my limiter but is very audible.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

Sonorityscape said:


> Are you using the bypass button in the software or using your DAW bypass? I watched the PTE video on page 1 and he was saying to bypass the plugin in the DAW which does not make sense to me as when you bypass the plugin itself it keeps the levels the same. Maybe this is my problem.
> 
> And the clipping that is happening is only a result of the huge boost caused by the plugin (after the limiter) and therefore does not show up on my limiter but is very audible.



If you leave the avoid clipping setting, it should be reducing it so that the boost can't cause any clipping. That's what it's there for.

The bypass button I think does keep the volume the same. You should probably bypass the plugin completely to export but if you're working with a mastering engineer, then there's no point and it can be at the reduced level when exported. In my case I never bypass anything since I have it in the Cubase control room so it's impossible for me to even export anything with it on. Behaves as if it were a hardware device outside of Cubase.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> if you're working with a mastering engineer


In my case, I try to do my own mastering, so I suppose I could add the extra gain back on the master fader after I bypass the plugin. I still don't really understand why you have to bypass the plugin completely. It makes no difference to my ears.


----------



## Daniel Petras

Wow. I just realized Reaper has monitoring fx that isn't rendered...


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

Sonorityscape said:


> In my case, I try to do my own mastering, so I suppose I could add the extra gain back on the master fader after I bypass the plugin. I still don't really understand why you have to bypass the plugin completely. It makes no difference to my ears.



Depends which bypass you're talking about. In general, to get rid of the correction. The entire plugin, to get the level reduction back up if you're doing something like mastering. If neither of the bypassing makes a difference, then you're doing something wrong (except in the case where the room is pretty good and so Reference doesn't make any noticeable corrections which I have had happen).


----------



## Daniel Petras

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Depends which bypass you're talking about. In general, to get rid of the correction. The entire plugin, to get the level reduction back up if you're doing something like mastering. If neither of the bypassing makes a difference, then you're doing something wrong (except in the case where the room is pretty good and so Reference doesn't make any noticeable corrections which I have had happen).


I'm saying I don't understand why you can't just bypass with the GUI bypass (the blue button) instead of just the DAW bypass. From listening, the GUI bypass gets rid of the correction while the DAW bypass gets rid of the correction and the level which is annoying as I don't want the level to change upon bypassing the plugin. I keep reading "you need to bypass the entire plugin in your DAW (not the GUI)", but no one has ever said "and here's why..."


----------



## JVitolins

Sonorityscape said:


> Here's my before, after and correction respectively. Has anyone done the test more than once and noticed different results? I think I might try another test tomorrow and see.


If pink noise is used to measure the room then results will be slightly different every time due to phase-ing. Slow sine sweep is far more reliable way to measure your room, because there shouldn't be more then +/-0.2dB differences between the takes if everything stays the same.


----------



## R. Soul

Just a heads up...

Their plugin is currently 40%.
I tried it on my HD650's and it seemed like it was merely doing some form of EQ correction, so I might have to test it again, seeing all the hype around here.

https://store.sonarworks.com/


----------



## brett

Is it just the headphone version on special or also the speaker version?

They all have 'discounts' but only the headphone version has the 40% sticker so perhaps the others are regular discounts?


----------



## SBK

An important notice for all Speaker Reference users:

Do not boost the "cuts"
It has an option to Advanced/Max correction "No Boost"

This is because when you have cancellation of frequencies in your room, the boosting will not bring them.

Although it could help when you don't have enough bass. B ut its difficult to know where you have cancellation or not. So :/


----------



## shomynik

SBK said:


> An important notice for all Speaker Reference users:
> 
> Do not boost the "cuts"
> It has an option to Advanced/Max correction "No Boost"
> 
> This is because when you have cancellation of frequencies in your room, the boosting will not bring them.
> 
> Although it could help when you don't have enough bass. B ut its difficult to know where you have cancellation or not. So :/



Hm, interesting. But with the boost I am getting much clearer and flatter picture. I indeed, without boost, have a massive dip, but the boost somehow is fixing that, and I am getting better bass info, much more defined with it than without it.


----------



## mc_deli

Sonorityscape said:


> I posted these results when I first got the software and like people mentioned, the big boost below 100hz is not properly represented which is probably true as my room has no acoustic treatment.
> 
> I'm trying to find a workaround for this situation right now. Since I usually try and push my tracks to as loud as it can musically go in the mastering, I end up with some low freq. elements like booms usually clipping when I'd say they're usually at a reasonable level. When I go to render the master track, I bypass the Reference 3 and then the booms are no longer clipping. Would it be wise to ignore this clipping to a certain degree when the plugin is enabled due to the fact that a ~10db boost can't be correct or what might be another approach to this problem? Obviously, I would treat my room if it was an option, but I'd like to find the best solution to my current situation.


Use the dip switches on your monitors.
Measure again.
Move your monitors.
Measure again.
Do anything you can to stop your bass hump. Add mass. Duvets. Cushions. Sofa. Move the sofa. Move the bed.
Measure again.
Tweak your sub, turn the sub level down.
Measure again.
Use the advanced settings in Ref3 and limit the bass correction.

If you still have measurements showing that you have such extreme bass nodes and mid scoop, you maybe have to come to terms with the idea that Ref3 cannot fix your lack of room treatment, monitor placement, monitor freq response etc.


----------



## SBK

shomynik said:


> Hm, interesting. But with the boost I am getting much clearer and flatter picture. I indeed, without boost, have a massive dip, but the boost somehow is fixing that, and I am getting better bass info, much more defined with it than without it.


Can you post your measurement frequency response? Where do you have dips? Maybe you think it helps, because its attenuating the fundamental frequency one octave bellow your dip and it helps? Can you also post your room dimensions?


----------



## CT

I'm demo'ing the headphone version at the moment with my current Sennheisers, as I am about to jump to either the 600's or 650's and wanted to get a sense of what exactly this much-hyped plugin does, in case I want to add it into my setup... and you know, things _do_ sound cleaner. 

But, I'm just not sure I buy it... I can't explain why. Even though there are definite audible improvements, I get a distinct whiff of snake oil from all this. I'm very open to anyone who really knows their stuff talking some sense into me though. 

Since it is simply not financially or architecturally practical for me at the moment to get into fine-tuning my room and investing in quality monitors, I have to make do with the headphone thing, and would very much like to believe this plugin will help optimize that approach for me.


----------



## mc_deli

miket said:


> I'm demo'ing the headphone version at the moment with my current Sennheisers, as I am about to jump to either the 600's or 650's and wanted to get a sense of what exactly this much-hyped plugin does, in case I want to add it into my setup... and you know, things _do_ sound cleaner.
> 
> But, I'm just not sure I buy it... I can't explain why. Even though there are definite audible improvements, I get a distinct whiff of snake oil from all this. I'm very open to anyone who really knows their stuff talking some sense into me though.
> 
> Since it is simply not financially or architecturally practical for me at the moment to get into fine-tuning my room and investing in quality monitors, I have to make do with the headphone thing, and would very much like to believe this plugin will help optimize that approach for me.


It's not a miracle cure for your mixes. All Ref3 will do is flatten the frequency response of your HD650s. I have the HD650s. The correction curve is based on an example HD650 (unless you send off your own pair for custom testing to Sonarworks).

In my opinion, in the same way that it is almost pointless to use Ref3 to correct your monitors if you don't have some treatment... It is pointless to use Ref3 to correct headphones if you are not using the a powerful enough headphone amp.

I say this because I don't use my HD650s for mixing because my headphone amp (Babyface) makes them sound shiiiiit. And therefore applying the generic correction curve of course does not cure that.

Snake oil? It's just a fancy EQ with the some phase trickery and loads of features and intuituve measurement.


----------



## CT

Of course, I don't expect some magic mix fixer or anything like that. Just wondering if there's some sneaky trade-off where the sound is being colored in some other undesirable way, or anything like that. If not, it really does seem like a worthwhile investment. I don't expect to have amp issues like you mentioned, but I suppose I'll find out soon enough.


----------



## mc_deli

miket said:


> Of course, I don't expect some magic mix fixer or anything like that. Just wondering if there's some sneaky trade-off where the sound is being colored in some other undesirable way, or anything like that. If not, it really does seem like a worthwhile investment. I don't expect to have amp issues like you mentioned, but I suppose I'll find out soon enough.


My experience is that on the linear phase setting (@70ms latency) the sound is uncoloured - or I should say not noticeably coloured to me - and the results with monitor correction are very useful (in treated rooms). 
I think the reason Ref3 gets positive comments is because it works better than e.g. IK Arc in terms of sound and features (particularly the measuring part) and works as well as e.g. Genelec GLM (but with a better and more intuitive interface IMHO).

(Yes, I have used Ref3 with KH120a, VXT6, Amphion One15, Genelec 8250a)

I would not advise spending money on this for headphones unless you are sure you don't have amp issues. Read up on impedance matching and your specs.


----------



## shomynik

SBK said:


> Can you post your measurement frequency response? Where do you have dips? Maybe you think it helps, because its attenuating the fundamental frequency one octave bellow your dip and it helps? Can you also post your room dimensions?


Gladly!

Here it is:






My room dimensions:

L : 4.6 m (15')
W: 3.3 m (10.8')
H: 3.1 m (10.1')

My monitor/LP placement is like this (I have a nice amount of treatment, broadband absorbers on all FRs (except front, coz of the window), so sides, top, rear, and front corners filled top to bottom with superchunks...also, some broadbands in the top/front corner):





I am still demoing sonarworks, but I am trilled with the results so far. The difference speaker software made for me is not night and day, like the headphone app made for my akg702, that one was drastic...but still very very good, I am thinking of buying some sens from them. But the speaker difference is very noticeable, it's just I can hear everything clearer now listening to the great mixes, and my mix decisions in my work are much easier, every tiny change I make is clearer. I haven't checked how my mixes translate to other speakers/systems, but I feel that it's going to be much better now. 

I can't say if the sound in my room is flat now, but it's much easier to work with, and I would much rather start from this then from my messed up sound without the sonarworks.


----------



## CT

mc_deli said:


> My experience is that on the linear phase setting (@70ms latency) the sound is uncoloured - or I should say not noticeably coloured to me - and the results with monitor correction are very useful (in treated rooms).
> I think the reason Ref3 gets positive comments is because it works better than e.g. IK Arc in terms of sound and features (particularly the measuring part) and works as well as e.g. Genelec GLM (but with a better and more intuitive interface IMHO).
> 
> (Yes, I have used Ref3 with KH120a, VXT6, Amphion One15, Genelec 8250a)
> 
> I would not advise spending money on this for headphones unless you are sure you don't have amp issues. Read up on impedance matching and your specs.



I have a JDS Labs Objective2 which is reasonably powerful, and have seen many people refer to pairing it with 600s and 650s successfully. Any reason to think otherwise?


----------



## mc_deli

miket said:


> I have a JDS Labs Objective2 which is reasonably powerful, and have seen many people refer to pairing it with 600s and 650s successfully. Any reason to think otherwise?


You'd have to check the numbers


----------



## mc_deli

shomynik said:


> Gladly!
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My room dimensions:
> 
> L : 4.6 m (15')
> W: 3.3 m (10.8')
> H: 3.1 m (10.1')
> 
> My monitor/LP placement is like this (I have a nice amount of treatment, broadband absorbers on all FRs (except front, coz of the window), so sides, top, rear, and front corners filled top to bottom with superchunks...also, some broadbands in the top/front corner):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still demoing sonarworks, but I am trilled with the results so far. The difference speaker software made for me is not night and day, like the headphone app made for my akg702, that one was drastic...but still very very good, I am thinking of buying some sens from them. But the speaker difference is very noticeable, it's just I can hear everything clearer now listening to the great mixes, and my mix decisions in my work are much easier, every tiny change I make is clearer. I haven't checked how my mixes translate to other speakers/systems, but I feel that it's going to be much better now.
> 
> I can't say if the sound in my room is flat now, but it's much easier to work with, and I would much rather start from this then from my messed up sound without the sonarworks.


I humbly suggest - if you haven't - that you use the advanced settings and "reduced" max low freq calibration limits. As discussed elsewhere a >6db boost at a particular frequency is not advisable and more likely to introduce anomalies... it's a trade off of course


----------



## CT

mc_deli said:


> You'd have to check the numbers



I have, just wondering if you or perhaps any others have had poor results with such a combination.


----------



## shomynik

mc_deli said:


> I humbly suggest - if you haven't - that you use the advanced settings and "reduced" max low freq calibration limits. As discussed elsewhere a >6db boost at a particular frequency is not advisable and more likely to introduce anomalies... it's a trade off of course


And I'll take it! 

I haven't came across that advice, but now after I tried it, it actually sounds even better.  No boost sounds totally uneven, no benefit at all, but with the redused correction (6db), it just very very slightly lowers that low bump and everything else stays the same. And it really sounds better! Thank you so much!!!


----------



## SBK

shomynik said:


> Gladly!
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> My monitor/LP placement is like this (I have a nice amount of treatment, broadband absorbers on all FRs (except front, coz of the window), so sides, top, rear, and front corners filled top to bottom with superchunks...also, some broadbands in the top/front corner):



Looks like you have the same problem as I did.
Do you have subwoofer? If you do, try playing with the crossover and HP filter to address that cancelation. Also is it matched with the speakers or is it from another company?
Also do you have something on the ceiling? I mean thick absorbing panels for those 130 Hz
If you address that 130 by only few dBs and maybe fix that dip on bass, then you don't need Reference at all

That cut on the high end is reflection from your desk...

Generally you have nice response. With that big room maybe you need some thicker panels to absorb that low mids


----------



## shomynik

SBK said:


> Looks like you have the same problem as I did.
> Do you have subwoofer? If you do, try playing with the crossover and HP filter to address that cancelation. Also is it matched with the speakers or is it from another company?
> Also do you have something on the ceiling? I mean thick absorbing panels for those 130 Hz
> If you address that 130 by only few dBs and maybe fix that dip on bass, then you don't need Reference at all
> 
> That cut on the high end is reflection from your desk...
> 
> Generally you have nice response. With that big room maybe y ou need some thicker panels to absorb that low mids


No sub, just two focal solos on the concrete blocks. Here are some pics:













So, superchunks in the corners (softer rockwool), the rest are broadbands (heavier rockwool), 10cm thick plus 10cm of space from the walls. There are two on the back wall as well.

Before I did the sonarworks measurement I did it with REW to find the best placement for my listening position as well as monitors. Only then I moved on the sonarworks. I don't think I could have done better job by myself only, without any pro assistance. Ofc, I would love to improve this if possible. I am planning to cover more surface with the absorbers to further lower the reflections, and maybe suprechunks in the rear corners as well. But I am very happy with this for now.

Thank you for all the help guys, really.


----------



## mwarsell

Regarding the headphone version, where exactly should one place it in the master bus? Second last before limiter? First?


----------



## shomynik

mwarsell said:


> Regarding the headphone version, where exactly should one place it in the master bus? Second last before limiter? First?


As a very last plug, so yes, after the limiter. You don't want it to have any involvement with the mastering processing, and ofc, you want it disabled while exporting. If you are in Cubase, just put it in the Control Room and forget it.


----------



## mwarsell

shomynik said:


> As a very last plug, so yes, after the limiter. You don't want it to have any involvement with the mastering processing, and ofc, you want it disabled while exporting. If you are in Cubase, just put it in the Control Room and forget it.



I can't have it as the very last since I will get clipping because of it. Or then I have to lower the faders quite a bit.

I use Studio One 3. I wonder if it has a Control room of kinds as well...?


----------



## shomynik

mwarsell said:


> I can't have it as the very last since I will get clipping because of it. Or then I have to lower the faders quite a bit.
> 
> I use Studio One 3. I wonder if it has a Control room of kinds as well...?



Having it last and disabling it while exporting is the only way you'll avoid it's processing in your master. And you really don't want that EQ in your master coz it's made for YOUR headphones ONLY. It's a priority to exclude that.

There is the "avoid clipping" feature you can use, or you can manually set plugin's output fader. Any loss of volume you have to make up after sonarworks, either by adding volume on your interface/headphones amp, or, if that's not possible, with additional plug, which again you should disable while exporting.

Also, if you use additional mastering analysers /meters, those too should be placed before sonarworks (after limiter), coz those are the levels you will be exporting.

I am not sure about Studio One but I think cubase/nuendo is the only daw with control room feature...might be wrong though.


----------



## mc_deli

mwarsell said:


> I can't have it as the very last since I will get clipping because of it. Or then I have to lower the faders quite a bit.
> 
> I use Studio One 3. I wonder if it has a Control room of kinds as well...?


Last deffo... but you can also put after the DAW (on Mac with e.g. Sonarworks' own Systemwide, or Audio Hijack... or in your soundcard chain with e.g. Totalmix).
The nice thing about having it after the DAW is no need to keep turning it off for bouncing. That said I keep it off for tracking anyway as I would rather avoid the extra latency.

(I've replied to a Ref3 post again, sorry)


----------



## shomynik

mc_deli said:


> Last deffo... but you can also put after the DAW (on Mac with e.g. Sonarworks' own Systemwide, or Audio Hijack... or in your soundcard chain with e.g. Totalmix).
> The nice thing about having it after the DAW is no need to keep turning it off for bouncing. That said I keep it off for tracking anyway as I would rather avoid the extra latency.
> 
> (I've replied to a Ref3 post again, sorry)


How do you mean in Totalmix? I have RME card and totalmix and sure would like to know how to use it for this.


----------



## gsilbers

mwarsell said:


> Regarding the headphone version, where exactly should one place it in the master bus? Second last before limiter? First?



last plugin on the masterbus chain. you are suppose to bypass it once you do a mixdown/bounce.


----------



## rrichard63

shomynik said:


> I am not sure about Studio One but I think cubase/nuendo is the only daw with control room feature...might be wrong though.



Reaper has this. In Studio One (and I suspect many other DAWs) there are workarounds that involve routing through aux busses and sub outputs. See, for example:

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=3553&sid=5bfdf22d0daf760e16eec6d57d62e51c

These workarounds need to be baked into all of your project templates if they are not to become a major chore.


----------



## mc_deli

shomynik said:


> How do you mean in Totalmix? I have RME card and totalmix and sure would like to know how to use it for this.


Sorry poor phrasing - not actually possible with TotalMix AFAIK but might be with something else similar... if your soundcard software hosts plug ins (like Audio Hijack does)...


----------



## shomynik

mc_deli said:


> Sorry poor phrasing - not actually possible with TotalMix AFAIK but might be with something else similar... if your soundcard software hosts plug ins (like Audio Hijack does)...


Ah, I wish.


----------



## rrichard63

mc_deli said:


> Sorry poor phrasing - not actually possible with TotalMix AFAIK but might be with something else similar... if your soundcard software hosts plug ins (like Audio Hijack does)...


This can be done in TotalMix using its internal loopback feature, but the method consumes an additional pair of inputs and outputs, and has its own defects. Assign your DAW main outputs to an unused pair of RME outputs, then turn on loopback for those outputs and route them to an unused pair of inputs, then assign those inputs to the plugin host of your choice (I've used Blue Cat Patchwork for this successfully), then assign the plugin host's outputs to your monitors. (I'm describing this from memory, I hope it's reasonably clear.) In addition to being cumbersome, this has another disadvantage, at least using ASIO drivers on Windows. Every time you switch DAWs, you have to restart the plugin host containing Ref3. That's a side effect of the way ASIO works.

But Soundworks now provides another way. The Systemwide version of Reference 3 is now available (I think the price is $59). It's limitation -- which is fatal for purposes of this discussion -- is that the Windows version doesn't support ASIO. I doubt that anyone in this forum uses anything but ASIO.


----------



## gsilbers

rrichard63 said:


> This can be done in TotalMix using its internal loopback feature, but the method consumes an additional pair of inputs and outputs, and has its own defects. Assign your DAW main outputs to an unused pair of RME outputs, then turn on loopback for those outputs and route them to an unused pair of inputs, then assign those inputs to the plugin host of your choice (I've used Blue Cat Patchwork for this successfully), then assign the plugin host's outputs to your monitors. (I'm describing this from memory, I hope it's reasonably clear.) In addition to being cumbersome, this has another disadvantage, at least using ASIO drivers on Windows. Every time you switch DAWs, you have to restart the plugin host containing Ref3. That's a side effect of the way ASIO works.
> 
> But Soundworks now provides another way. The Systemwide version of Reference 3 is now available (I think the price is $59). It's limitation -- which is fatal for purposes of this discussion -- is that the Windows version doesn't support ASIO. I doubt that anyone in this forum uses anything but ASIO.



Yes the systemwide. (JRR shop has the upgrade which i coudnt find in the sonarworks site.)

does anyone know if the systemwide adds noticeable latency in mac os?


----------



## shomynik

rrichard63 said:


> This can be done in TotalMix using its internal loopback feature, but the method consumes an additional pair of inputs and outputs, and has its own defects. Assign your DAW main outputs to an unused pair of RME outputs, then turn on loopback for those outputs and route them to an unused pair of inputs, then assign those inputs to the plugin host of your choice (I've used Blue Cat Patchwork for this successfully), then assign the plugin host's outputs to your monitors. (I'm describing this from memory, I hope it's reasonably clear.) In addition to being cumbersome, this has another disadvantage, at least using ASIO drivers on Windows. Every time you switch DAWs, you have to restart the plugin host containing Ref3. That's a side effect of the way ASIO works.
> 
> But Soundworks now provides another way. The Systemwide version of Reference 3 is now available (I think the price is $59). It's limitation -- which is fatal for purposes of this discussion -- is that the Windows version doesn't support ASIO. I doubt that anyone in this forum uses anything but ASIO.


mc_deli actually made me thinking about totalmix yesterday which lead me to loopback feature. I haven't all figured so thank you very much for the explanation. Very interesting.

When you say "switch daws", do you mean every time you open a daw, the host with sonarworks stops getting audio? Or you meant it happens when you close one daw and open another?

I am researching these options because while demoing I had problems with systemwide, probably for the reason you mentioned.


----------



## mc_deli

gsilbers said:


> Yes the systemwide. (JRR shop has the upgrade which i coudnt find in the sonarworks site.)
> 
> does anyone know if the systemwide adds noticeable latency in mac os?


There was a thread here. Yes, it does add more latency.
Can't find the thread now.


----------



## rrichard63

shomynik said:


> ... When you say "switch daws", do you mean every time you open a daw, the host with sonarworks stops getting audio? Or you meant it happens when you close one daw and open another? ...


If I recall correctly, it happens when you close one DAW and open another. It's fine with the first DAW you open. To be positive, I would have to reconstruct what I did, since I'm not using it now.


----------



## rrichard63

mc_deli said:


> There was a thread here. Yes, it does add more latency.
> Can't find the thread now.



http://vi-control.net/community/threads/sonarworks-systemwide.60795/


----------



## mwarsell

Has someone bought headphones which were pre-calibrated at Sonarworks? Or sent them your own? Is it worth it would you think? 

I'm in a situation where I'm only able to mix with cans so hmm...

Or is it audio voodoo?


----------



## mc_deli

mwarsell said:


> Has someone bought headphones which were pre-calibrated at Sonarworks? Or sent them your own? Is it worth it would you think?
> 
> I'm in a situation where I'm only able to mix with cans so hmm...
> 
> Or is it audio voodoo?


I think you can work this out a bit... find the freq response graph for your cans and see what it's like. You know Sonarworks is basically going to flatten that. Of course, you can use SW to flatten the response and then tilt if you want. So, do you really need it? Do your cans have a big dip in the mids? Are they hyped in the bass? Do you have problems mixing the low end?

I would have thought 99/100 users will get by with the general calibration profiles. Again, depending on what cans you have, how much do you think the freq response is going to vary between individual units? Does that make it worth sending and spending?

And, you can come over to my place and check HD650s with/without SW anytime


----------



## mwarsell

They calibrate the individual cans. I always thought that isn't the graph for every HD600 about equal? How much could be gained by calibrating individual cans?


----------



## aaronventure

mwarsell said:


> How much could be gained by calibrating individual cans?



Up to 2.2db more accuracy is their official stance. Might happen that your cans hit the average curve exactly and you gain nothing, might be that the overall tone changes noticeably. Schrödinger's Cat.


----------



## mc_deli

mwarsell said:


> They calibrate the individual cans. I always thought that isn't the graph for every HD600 about equal? How much could be gained by calibrating individual cans?


http://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/sennheiser-hd-650.php
In this case, with the HD series, IMHO very little to be gained from calibration, very very little from individual calibration. I don't use the headphone calibration... but then I don't mix on headphones (I got the headphone part of SW free, if that explains why I have it  )


----------



## guydoingmusic

So... are there no AudioHijack alternatives for PC?


----------



## storyteller

guydoingmusic said:


> So... are there no AudioHijack alternatives for PC?


As of windows 8 (which I don't think this aspect has been updated in further Windows versions), only two audio devices could be supported at once, which makes the concept of Audio Hijaack and the OS X version of multi-output audio devices very difficult to replicate in Windows. There are some sneaky ways about it though. The capacity to use more than one device is only available in WDM drivers, which makes it almost irrelevant for serious DAW users. However, ASIO4ALL is essentially a WDM wrapper in ASIO, so you can use that if you wanted to try this in order to use an ASIO device. That said....

You should be able to replicate something similar to what @Daniel James is doing with Audio Hijaack by using a portable install of Reaper as a passthrough for your system audio with something like Virtual Audio Cable on Windows (in place of OSX's Soundflower driver). What I am about to describe is the process in OS X, but it should be similar in Windows. It is essentially a way to replicate the official Sonarworks Systemwide Audio app but with lower latency and greater flexibility. For me, when using headphones, I also like to use the Waves NX desktop app for system audio, so I wanted the Sonarworks headphone plugin to fall in line AFTER waves NX, which is not possible with the official Sonarworks Systemwide Audio app.

The solution was to create a mini DAW instance running in the background via a portable install of Reaper. I have a free Reaper project file http://store.storyteller.im/product/a-storyteller-systemwide-audio-demo/ (available here) with complete setup instructions for OS X using Soundflower in order to route system audio through a tiny two track DAW project. It has worked well for me so far for system audio. You may want to read through the instructions in the project file to see how it could be replicated in windows, but make sure to substitute Virtual Audio Cable for Soundflower. Of course, Reaper is free to demo and very cheap for a license.


----------



## MarcelM

reference 4 is out. in case you didnt know


----------



## Jaybee

Heroix said:


> reference 4 is out. in case you didnt know



It looks like Systemwide is now bundled with the Headphone plugin. Various upgrade paths from v3. I assume if you had the Speaker & Headphone software but NOT Systemwide (previously €99) you'd now get this for €19 to go to v4?

https://www.sonarworks.com/reference/upgrade-policy#purchased-before


----------



## Breaker

€19 for the v4 including systemwide seems like a decent deal.

Interesting that I've received six emails from Sonarworks during the last 30 days but nothing about the release of v4.


----------



## guydoingmusic

Heroix said:


> reference 4 is out. in case you didnt know


I didn't know. Nor did I get an email. Thank you for the post, otherwise I'd still be using v3.

I got the free upgrade... so now I'm glad I didn't buy the Systemwide plugin as well because the upgrade was free either way. Downloading now. Hoping they all play well together.


----------



## MarcelM

weird a bit i got an email from them, but whatever.

good for us we have a place like this 

happy i could help


----------



## guydoingmusic

Running on Win7 here. So far,all is working great. It's nice to have everything running through the same calibration finally.


----------



## ckiraly

For me, it has been the single biggest improvement ever. I still can't believe my mixes now. Just wow!


----------



## Mornats

Jaybee said:


> It looks like Systemwide is now bundled with the Headphone plugin.



I'm not sure if it is. It looks like the headphone calibration (at 99 euro) is just the v4 version of the software and their new True-fi plugin is a headphone-only version of Systemwide. From what I can see the headphone calibration and True-fi don't come bundled. Maybe I missed something but I'm definitely interested as I want the headphone calibration but the True-fi thing would help me when I'm listening to reference tracks on Spotify. (For mixing I've bought a few CDs that are representative of what I want to sound like and I pop these into Ozone 8 advanced.)


----------



## guydoingmusic

Mornats said:


> I'm not sure if it is. It looks like the headphone calibration (at 99 euro) is just the v4 version of the software and their new True-fi plugin is a headphone-only version of Systemwide. From what I can see the headphone calibration and True-fi don't come bundled. Maybe I missed something but I'm definitely interested as I want the headphone calibration but the True-fi thing would help me when I'm listening to reference tracks on Spotify. (For mixing I've bought a few CDs that are representative of what I want to sound like and I pop these into Ozone 8 advanced.)


Systemwide is included.


----------



## Mornats

Oh ok, that's brilliant then, cheers. So I guess the True-fi thing is for those who just listen to music generally but want uncoloured headphones? That would make sense now.


----------



## mc_deli

So, my understanding is True-Fi is a new GUI and some consumer features for the headphone plug in.
And "Reference", the "speaker software" and "headphone plug in", has been updated to version 4.

I can't find anything on the Sonarworks site about what's new in v4.
The only thing seems to be that it's a paid upgrade for most users - i.e. as a speaker sw and headphone plug in owner, to get v4 I have to buy the "Studio edition" of Ref4, which bundles in the Systemwide app, which I don't need. In fact I've already paid for a better app (Audio Hijack) to do the job of Systemwide. The paid upgrade is only 19€ for me but, in the absence of any info, and it looking like a forced bloatware paid upgrade, it irks.

Overall, this is one of those dirty plays. You've heard me on here. I am massive fan and explainer of the Ref3 software. A lot of goodwill. But that website... I hate that once you are in the store, there's no way back, or that once you are in support there's no way back. I hate the lack of transparent info. It's so murky. I also get a lot of emails from these guys about sales for products I already own. Still nothing on Ref4, what it is, why I should upgrade...

Software good. Sales and marketing cretinous.


----------



## guydoingmusic

mc_deli said:


> So, my understanding is True-Fi is a new GUI and some consumer features for the headphone plug in.
> And "Reference", the "speaker software" and "headphone plug in", has been updated to version 4.
> 
> I can't find anything on the Sonarworks site about what's new in v4.
> The only thing seems to be that it's a paid upgrade for most users - i.e. as a speaker sw and headphone plug in owner, to get v4 I have to buy the "Studio edition" of Ref4, which bundles in the Systemwide app, which I don't need. In fact I've already paid for a better app (Audio Hijack) to do the job of Systemwide. The paid upgrade is only 19€ for me but, in the absence of any info, and it looking like a forced bloatware paid upgrade, it irks.
> 
> Overall, this is one of those dirty plays. You've heard me on here. I am massive fan and explainer of the Ref3 software. A lot of goodwill. But that website... I hate that once you are in the store, there's no way back, or that once you are in support there's no way back. I hate the lack of transparent info. It's so murky. I also get a lot of emails from these guys about sales for products I already own. Still nothing on Ref4, what it is, why I should upgrade...
> 
> Software good. Sales and marketing cretinous.


I agree... I was fortunate enough to be eligible for the free upgrade otherwise I would not have upgraded. It's funny though (not really) how when I was checking out in their store with Ref3 just a couple of weeks ago, they offered me the Systemwide plugin for $49 as a bundle. I didn't buy it. And then today... if I had bought it, I would be out $49 for no reason because it comes bundled in the upgrade. That makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## mc_deli

guydoingmusic said:


> I agree... I was fortunate enough to be eligible for the free upgrade otherwise I would not have upgraded. It's funny though (not really) how when I was checking out in their store with Ref3 just a couple of weeks ago, they offered me the Systemwide plugin for $49 as a bundle. I didn't buy it. And then today... if I had bought it, I would be out $49 for no reason because it comes bundled in the upgrade. That makes no sense to me at all.


What is the difference between 3 and 4? 
(In the absence of any info I have to presume the worst: that it's just a re-bundle :( )


----------



## storyteller

mc_deli said:


> What is the difference between 3 and 4?
> (In the absence of any info I have to presume the worst: that it's just a re-bundle :( )


One of the pages has the headphone profiles for the HD600 & 650 (among others) as "having been updated." So, that is interesting. I haven't compared it yet though.

*EDIT: * Scratch that. The updates are applied to reference 3 owners too. The link is here: https://sonarworks.com/blog/reference-4-now-supports-101-headphones/


----------



## mc_deli

OK I found this: http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...er-headphone-calibration-perfect-for-tracking
"Zero latency". To the reader this seems that the 70ms latency of the highest quality Ref3 speaker calibration has been reduced to zero in Ref4. I'm a cynic but that's just a lie isn't it? Zero latency is not actually possible. 
"...without any monitor latency issues"... really?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer

mc_deli said:


> What is the difference between 3 and 4?
> (In the absence of any info I have to presume the worst: that it's just a re-bundle :( )



Haven't found a list of changes. But what I have found is that the plugin version (not systemwide, but the VST) now offers 0 latency mode.


----------



## guydoingmusic

mc_deli said:


> What is the difference between 3 and 4?
> (In the absence of any info I have to presume the worst: that it's just a re-bundle :( )


So far I haven't seen any differences... maybe there is some programming or under the hood stuff going on to make it more efficient. The only thing before when I did the trial of Systemwide -- if I ran Systemwide and Ref 3 at the same time, it would crash Cubase EVERY time. They seem to be working just fine together now. Have been running all day and no crashes.


----------



## mc_deli

Having come this far, the thread on *other forum* has good user info:https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/1181625-sonarworks-releases-reference-4-a.html
Highlights include users reporting: ref4 plug in does run with no latency, some heavy CPU problems for some users under Ref3 are fixed under REf4, ref3 and ref4 on min phase are identical (they null) so only the latency has changed. The GUI update has last the headphone/speaker switch, which seems daft.


----------



## lpuser

Bad policy, bad marketing. Having purchase the plugin a few months ago with absolutely no upgrade in the meantime I am now "asked" to pay for version 4. Previously, customers have been treated differently and at least received one or more upgrades to a software they have bought.


----------



## Jaybee

Can't fault the products but their sales and marketing is all over the place. There's no correlation between a customer's bought products and their email marketing list so I constantly get emails offering me 40% off something I already own (and paid full price for). That is more than annoying.

Heard absolutely nothing about v4 until an email yesterday and I had to go digging about on their site to try and work out why I needed to upgrade. The only things I can see different is:


Systemwide is bundled in v4 (as confirmed earlier); and
v4 will get various upgrades/feature-adds over time

€19 to upgrade to v4 so will check that GS thread out for any showstoppers first as v3 is working just fine!

**Update**: Upgraded to v4 for €19 and loving Systemwide. Very low latency and way more stable/better solution that my old PC workaround of using Pedalboard & VBCable.


----------



## Raindog

It was a very good deal for me. Having upgraded from v3 of the speaker correction software for 19€ I‘ve got the headphone correction and the systemwide software as an addition. Sounds like a very fair deal to me, since the zero latency mode alone is worth the upgrade price. 
Regards
Raindog


----------



## jcrosby

mc_deli said:


> Having come this far, the thread on *other forum* has good user info:https://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/1181625-sonarworks-releases-reference-4-a.html
> Highlights include users reporting: ref4 plug in does run with no latency, some heavy CPU problems for some users under Ref3 are fixed under REf4, ref3 and ref4 on min phase are identical (they null) so only the latency has changed. The GUI update has last the headphone/speaker switch, which seems daft.



Yeah, I had the same issue switching speakers. Settings weren't retained. If this happens with headphones now too not a fan... I was experiencing ridiculous CPU spikes and dropouts in 3... Decided I'm just going to capture the curve with Logic's match EQ and use that for composing as it has 0 footprint, no latency, and other users said they essentially hear no difference... Planning on making a Pro-Q2 setting for other daws...


----------



## mc_deli

jcrosby said:


> Yeah, I had the same issue switching speakers. Settings weren't retained. If this happens with headphones now too not a fan... I was experiencing ridiculous CPU spikes and dropouts in 3... Decided I'm just going to capture the curve with Logic's match EQ and use that for composing as it has 0 footprint, no latency, and other users said they essentially hear no difference... Planning on making a Pro-Q2 setting for other daws...


Isn't there some cunning phase correction going on as well as extremely detailed EQ... the question is... will it null?


----------



## jcrosby

Perhaps? All I know is I did a number of match EQs tonight. (Minimum and linear phase; pink noise and sine sweep...)

Whatever mojo it is they claim is under hood I don't hear it, it sounds identical to my ears... It's working as a compositional solution at the very least, and frankly I'm not convinced that there's any other magic going on than inverse EQ... (If I want to get sciencey I can try a null test...) I may very well to offer up an answer... Would love to know if it's just inverse EQ. 

As far as phase correction my logic is this: What kind of phase correction? It would have to work in real time if it were doing anything that wasn't static... Considering it's not looking for me to feed it a live signal and analyze my reflections than "phase correction" is just fancy tech-speak for a choice of three phase modes on an EQ... 

Don't get me wrong though, it's all in its measurement algorithm. However it made its calculation is where I think the "magic" is... I think it determines the best EQ choice for the space based on a combination of peaks/nulls and dimensions...Give it a shot if if you have a decent match EQ plugin. I'm not hearing any audible difference. 

Either way it's working as a No-CPU zero latency option for those that were experiencing CPU problems...


----------



## Puzzlefactory

Seems a lot more expensive now than when Daniel originally posted this.

Still I may give the headphone edition a go (especially as that's what I use mostly these days as I'm relegated to working the early hours of the morning).


----------



## Blakus

This may have already been covered in this thread, but if you're just after headphone correction, it's worth checking out Toneboosters Morphit. It has a free trial and is very affordable. I compared this to Sonarworks for my DT770 and it was pretty much identical. In saying that, I'm a massive fan of Sonarworks in general for both monitors and headphones.


----------



## Puzzlefactory

I'll check that out thanks. 

Although unlike the idea of an upgrade path to the full version at a later date. 

Does anyone know if it does subwoofer calibration too?


----------



## rrichard63

Puzzlefactory said:


> ... Does anyone know if it does subwoofer calibration too?


Assuming I know what you mean by "subwoofer calibration", I think so. But it would be an iterative process. When you run the analysis program, if there's a big jump in response at the subwoofer crossover point, adjust the subwoofer level and rerun the analysis. Repeat until you are happy with the balance. It might be quicker to get the subwoofer level right using a spectrum analyzer (Voxengo Span is free and a great tool) and a white noise generator, before setting up Reference 4 Studio.


----------



## mc_deli

rrichard63 said:


> Assuming I know what you mean by "subwoofer calibration", I think so. But it would be an iterative process. When you run the analysis program, if there's a big jump in response at the subwoofer crossover point, adjust the subwoofer level and rerun the analysis. Repeat until you are happy with the balance. It might be quicker to get the subwoofer level right using a spectrum analyzer (Voxengo Span is free and a great tool) and a white noise generator, before setting up Reference 4 Studio.


Yeah SW helped me realise that I only needed a tickle from my sub. I also made the measurements with sub on and then sub off so I have two correction curves. But with my set up I need so little sub and so little correction that the sub is on all the time and I just put SW on (in Audio Hijack) when getting to the end of mixing.


----------



## leon chevalier

I still don't get why you guys need to calibrate your speakers to play World Of Warcraft ? Does the WOW sound track is that badly mixed ?


----------



## Mornats

leon chevalier said:


> I still don't get why you guys need to calibrate your speakers to play World Of Warcraft ? Does the WOW sound track is that badly mixed ?



I have Sonarworks and WOW so may try that. Will let you know if it helps with my DPS


----------



## leon chevalier

Mornats said:


> I have Sonarworks and WOW so may try that. Will let you know if it helps with my DPS


Everytime the thread popup, its title make me smile !


----------



## bjderganc

Sonarworks is currently 40% off 

Does anybody have before/after recordings that they'd be willing to share?


----------



## dimtsak

bjderganc said:


> Sonarworks is currently 40% off
> 
> Does anybody have before/after recordings that they'd be willing to share?



You can't check it with other people's recordings.
Just download the demo and check it with your headphones if they are supported.
Now, if you talk about speaker calibration, that's another thing. You will need a calibrated measurement mic.


----------



## Puzzlefactory

Oooh, the headphone version may have to be my final BF purchase (I’ve already spent far too much but hey ho).


----------



## bjderganc

Yup, I'm more interested in the room calibration. Wouldn't "before" and "after" mix audio shed some light onto the effectiveness of the EQ it's applying?

The "after" mix of course being what the user did based on the EQ info from Sonarworks, not the automatic curve adjustment from the plugin on the master out.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

bjderganc said:


> Yup, I'm more interested in the room calibration. Wouldn't "before" and "after" mix audio shed some light onto the effectiveness of the EQ it's applying?
> 
> The "after" mix of course being what the user did based on the EQ info from Sonarworks, not the automatic curve adjustment from the plugin on the master out.



You're expecting someone to mix a song without it and then re-mix it with it? Sounds a little unreasonable unless you're just comparing earlier work but then you can't really compare.


----------



## bjderganc

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You're expecting someone to mix a song without it and then re-mix it with it? Sounds a little unreasonable unless you're just comparing earlier work but then you can't really compare.



No, only asking if someone has something on hand


----------



## Mornats

It may be difficult to gauge how good Sonarworks is by doing that as the skill of the person mixing it will have a huge influence on the outcome. Best bet is to grab the demo and find out how well it works on your system. I grabbed the headphone calibration a short while ago and I think my mixes have improved since using it.


----------



## Thomas A Booker

There's been some discussion about the latency in systemwide. I'm probably being really dense, but why does that matter? When you're not using your DAW the latency isn't so important, and inside your DAW, you are just using the plugin, right?


----------



## rrichard63

Thomas A Booker said:


> There's been some discussion about the latency in systemwide. I'm probably being really dense, but why does that matter? When you're not using your DAW the latency isn't so important, and inside your DAW, you are just using the plugin, right?


Some folks who use multiple DAWs, etc., would like to avoid having to configure a monitoring chain separately in each DAW. When they try to use Systemwide instead, they encounter the latency problems. At least on Windows, the problem is substantial.


----------



## Thomas A Booker

rrichard63 said:


> Some folks who use multiple DAWs, etc., would like to avoid having to configure a monitoring chain separately in each DAW. When they try to use Systemwide instead, they encounter the latency problems. At least on Windows, the problem is substantial.



That makes a bit more sense, cheers.


----------



## charlieclouser

I just downloaded and installed the demo, and fortunately I have a pair of AT M-50x headphones, which are on the list of profiles provided with the demo.

I was massively underwhelmed. The difference between corrected vs uncorrected response was so slight that, for me, it wouldn't help me get "better" mixes. Not that I mix with headphones, but....

It seems there is no real way to check out the demo in anything other than headphone mode unless you've got a measurement mic handy (which I don't). And it's unclear whether their own mic is included with the $149 (on sale) package - although it appears that it isn't. There is also no clear info on their website about how to buy their mic, and I couldn't find a retailer that sells their mic as a separate product. So that's.... confusing.


----------



## rrichard63

charlieclouser said:


> ... it's unclear whether their own mic is included with the $149 (on sale) package - although it appears that it isn't. There is also no clear info on their website about how to buy their mic, and I couldn't find a retailer that sells their mic as a separate product. So that's.... confusing.


I haven't looked at it during the sale, but a while ago the website lists three things: Reference 4 Studio Edition for $249 (no mic), Reference 4 Studio Edition with mic for $299, and the microphone by itself for $69 plus shipping.

A very usable third-party mic is the Dayton Audio EMM-6, which is frequently discounted to about $75. If you find a used one, you can download the individual calibration profile for it. That profile is the key, more than using the Sonarworks branded mic. On using a third-party mic with Sonarworks, see:

https://sonarworks.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207211709


----------



## KerrySmith

charlieclouser said:


> I just downloaded and installed the demo, and fortunately I have a pair of AT M-50x headphones, which are on the list of profiles provided with the demo.
> 
> I was massively underwhelmed. The difference between corrected vs uncorrected response was so slight that, for me, it wouldn't help me get "better" mixes. Not that I mix with headphones, but....
> 
> It seems there is no real way to check out the demo in anything other than headphone mode unless you've got a measurement mic handy (which I don't). And it's unclear whether their own mic is included with the $149 (on sale) package - although it appears that it isn't. There is also no clear info on their website about how to buy their mic, and I couldn't find a retailer that sells their mic as a separate product. So that's.... confusing.



I haven’t noticed as large of a difference in the headphone correction. But the speaker cal (using their serial-numbered mic) has made a difference b/c my room is too small for the low end, even though it has a good deal of absorption. It’s saved me from a few big screwups that used to be obvious when I’d take them to my car.


----------



## Dan Drebing

charlieclouser said:


> I just downloaded and installed the demo, and fortunately I have a pair of AT M-50x headphones, which are on the list of profiles provided with the demo.
> 
> I was massively underwhelmed. The difference between corrected vs uncorrected response was so slight that, for me, it wouldn't help me get "better" mixes. Not that I mix with headphones, but....



I'm surprised, I've got a pair of AT M-50s and I hear a drastic difference in a little track I'm working on. Maybe the difference is very material dependent?? What I'm even more surprised about is that I own Morphit, a similar plugin, and the Reference 4 and Morphit presets for M-50 correction actually seem to correct in different directions! Morphit sounds like it hypes the highs, while Reference 4 sounds a lot darker and flatter to me. They both tamp down on the lows, but Reference 4 does so in a different manner than Morphit.


----------



## charlieclouser

rrichard63 said:


> I haven't looked at it during the sale, but a while ago the website lists three things: Reference 4 Studio Edition for $249 (no mic), Reference 4 Studio Edition with mic for $299, and the microphone by itself for $69 plus shipping.
> 
> A very usable third-party mic is the Dayton Audio EMM-6, which is frequently discounted to about $75. If you find a used one, you can download the individual calibration profile for it. That profile is the key, more than using the Sonarworks branded mic. On using a third-party mic with Sonarworks, see:
> 
> https://sonarworks.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207211709



Okay, now I see the mic on the Sonarworks website. Don't know what I was clicking on before. I was hoping to find it at the local Banjo Center™ in stock for in-person pickup, but no luck there.

I may give it a try if I can find someone who has the mic - that is, if I can use a borrowed Sonarworks mic with the demo package.

I'm secretly hoping it doesn't / won't / can't work because the workflow aspect is a bit of a hassle. What it needs to be is built in to the MOTU audio interface itself so you can leave it on the speaker outputs only, and not have to wonder if you bypassed it before printing / bouncing mixes. I haven't spent any time fiddling with my Logic Environment to see if I can set it up to be on the speakers, but NOT on the Objects that get bounced. It can probably be set up this way - I just haven't bothered to think too hard about it yet.

Hmmmm....


----------



## burp182

If you have a (preferably) small diaphragm Omni condenser with an accurate frequency sweep, you can get a file from Sonarworks and enter the proper frequency/amplitude values and use that as the calibration standard. I had a DPA 4006 and got wonderful results. Having said that, it'd be LOTS easier to borrow or buy the mic from them. But you'll get the full result with a good mic and sweep using the demo software.
I like it a lot, Charlie. Made a real difference in my room with multiple monitors. Headphones are always a crapshoot. The interaction of the drivers and the shape of your ears has such an effect on the sound that it becomes truly difficult to make verifiable measurements and corrections.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

charlieclouser said:


> Okay, now I see the mic on the Sonarworks website. Don't know what I was clicking on before. I was hoping to find it at the local Banjo Center™ in stock for in-person pickup, but no luck there.
> 
> I may give it a try if I can find someone who has the mic - that is, if I can use a borrowed Sonarworks mic with the demo package.
> 
> I'm secretly hoping it doesn't / won't / can't work because the workflow aspect is a bit of a hassle. What it needs to be is built in to the MOTU audio interface itself so you can leave it on the speaker outputs only, and not have to wonder if you bypassed it before printing / bouncing mixes. I haven't spent any time fiddling with my Logic Environment to see if I can set it up to be on the speakers, but NOT on the Objects that get bounced. It can probably be set up this way - I just haven't bothered to think too hard about it yet.
> 
> Hmmmm....



You can use any of the cheap measurement mics like the Behringer. They're all the same. Calibration file doesn't make a big difference, especially between individual mics. It's just a slight roll-off in the highs which you could adjust in Reference if you want. I went through the trouble of ordering theirs afters years of using a Behringer without any calibration file and I was very disappointed that using theirs (and using the calibration file) made no difference in the correction filter.

At the end of the day, it's just a correction EQ with an automatic calibration. I think all systems should be EQ'd. If you know how to do it properly yourself you could just use an outboard EQ (or maybe there's something in the MOTU software?) so that you don't have the hassle of dealing with it in Logic. Not all options will do linear phase like Reference is able to do but you don't always want linear phase in room correction. Keep in mind that then you have to route all of the other audio in your computer through Logic as well (I routed everything through Cubase for that for a long time). I had it in Cubase so it was completely "post" everything and impossible to print a file with it on. It also doesn't affect the metering of the master out. I replaced it with a DEQX so it's essentially built in to my speakers and I don't have to deal with it anywhere else but I still have it on a second monitor out in Cubase for my headphone correction. Nowadays I couldn't stand to work on my headphones without it. The linear setting also makes a big improvement there.


----------



## mc_deli

charlieclouser said:


> Okay, now I see the mic on the Sonarworks website. Don't know what I was clicking on before. I was hoping to find it at the local Banjo Center™ in stock for in-person pickup, but no luck there.
> 
> I may give it a try if I can find someone who has the mic - that is, if I can use a borrowed Sonarworks mic with the demo package.
> 
> I'm secretly hoping it doesn't / won't / can't work because the workflow aspect is a bit of a hassle. What it needs to be is built in to the MOTU audio interface itself so you can leave it on the speaker outputs only, and not have to wonder if you bypassed it before printing / bouncing mixes. I haven't spent any time fiddling with my Logic Environment to see if I can set it up to be on the speakers, but NOT on the Objects that get bounced. It can probably be set up this way - I just haven't bothered to think too hard about it yet.
> 
> Hmmmm....


This is what I did first: got a mate to come with their Ref3 SW and mic to try it out. Result: easy yes for my small room, easy to justify own SW mic to minimise risk of human error and be able to easily re-measure in future.
The bouncing hassle in Logic (where we don't have Cubase's control room) is covered a lot in this thread and elsewhere: try Sonarwork's own Systemwide or Audio Hijack.
I love SW - but then I am not a wildly successful famous composer - if you are not having problems with your mixes reproducing then I don't see why you would go to the hassle TBH

PS Thanks for all your amazing posts here!


----------



## Chris Richter

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You can use any of the cheap measurement mics like the Behringer. They're all the same. Calibration file doesn't make a big difference, especially between individual mics. It's just a slight roll-off in the highs which you could adjust in Reference if you want. I went through the trouble of ordering theirs afters years of using a Behringer without any calibration file and I was very disappointed that using theirs (and using the calibration file) made no difference in the correction filter.


I recently read that especially those Behringers have a very high ranging build quality and response. Thats why they are so cheap. So I don't agree with your point here. You might have been lucky in purchasing a good Behringer.
There is a hi-fi forum where there was a post from someone who makes custom calibration files. He/she posted the measurements of over 100 Behringers and boy did they have variances. Unfortunately I don't remember the site. Google it or take my word for it (well better don't :D)


----------



## rrichard63

charlieclouser said:


> ... What it needs to be is built in to the MOTU audio interface itself so you can leave it on the speaker outputs only, and not have to wonder if you bypassed it before printing / bouncing mixes. I haven't spent any time fiddling with my Logic Environment to see if I can set it up to be on the speakers, but NOT on the Objects that get bounced. It can probably be set up this way ...


I don't know Logic at all, but most DAWs have a way to do this. Some make it easier than others. As you point out, it is the key to making Sonarworks (or IK Multimedia ARC, Toneboosters Morphit, etc.) usable.

After you have solved the problem of preventing yourself from printing your room or headphones correction, you can move on to the related problem of switching between speakers and headphones. You will inevitably forget to switch correction curves in Sonarworks about half the time. Then you will want a second control room buss in your DAW template with your headphones on a second hardware output pair. This stuff is ... um ... interesting, isn't it?


----------



## rrichard63

Dan Drebing said:


> ... I own Morphit, a similar plugin, and the Reference 4 and Morphit presets for M-50 correction actually seem to correct in different directions! Morphit sounds like it hypes the highs, while Reference 4 sounds a lot darker and flatter to me. They both tamp down on the lows, but Reference 4 does so in a different manner than Morphit.


I was afraid somebody was going to bring this up. Before drawing conclusions, however, I would make the comparison with a spectrum analyzer as well as with my ears. It would be educational to find out what your ears are responding to in the different correction curves.

A lot could depend on how the developers measure headphones. Are they using the same equipment and methods? How many samples of each model do they test to compute their averages? Or are they using the headphone manufacturer's published curves? Finally, are some models more uniform from sample to sample than other models?


----------



## Raindog

rrichard63 said:


> I don't know Logic at all, but most DAWs have a way to do this. Some make it easier than others. As you point out, it is the key to making Sonarworks (or IK Multimedia ARC, Toneboosters Morphit, etc.) usable.
> 
> After you have solved the problem of preventing yourself from printing your room or headphones correction, you can move on to the related problem of switching between speakers and headphones. You will inevitably forget to switch correction curves in Sonarworks about half the time. Then you will want a second control room buss in your DAW template with your headphones on a second hardware output pair. This stuff is ... um ... interesting, isn't it?



As mc-Deli stated. There is a solution for Logic users (at least as long as Logic doesn´t provide a proper monitor control environment such as the one in Cubase) which is to use Audio Hijack.
Look at THIS thread where it has been discussed in more Detail

https://vi-control.net/community/th...-speaker-correction.66275/page-2#post-4156872

Best regards
Raindog


----------



## rrichard63

Raindog said:


> As mc-Deli stated. There is a solution for Logic users (at least as long as Logic doesn´t provide a proper monitor control environment such as the one in Cubase) which is to use Audio Hijack.


I wish there were something like Audio Hijack for Windows. As far as I could tell when I looked into this, there isn't.


----------



## shomynik

rrichard63 said:


> I wish there were something like Audio Hijack for Windows. As far as I could tell when I looked into this, there isn't.



If you have any channel routing capabilities with your interface maybe this as standalone could help you. Worked great here with rme.

https://www.bluecataudio.com/Products/Product_PatchWork/


----------



## rrichard63

shomynik said:


> If you have any channel routing capabilities with your interface maybe this as standalone could help you. Worked great here with rme.
> 
> https://www.bluecataudio.com/Products/Product_PatchWork/


I have RME hardware and Patchwork and really like both. RME's internal loopback works fine. Patchwork works fine until you close one DAW and open a second one. At that point, if I remember correctly, ASIO stops dead.

I decided that there might be a way to make this work, but I that it would involve assigning each DAW to different hardware inputs and outputs. Haven't tried that yet. How did you make your setup work for you? Thanks!

The thing I like about Patchwork in this situation is that you can have it feed your control room buss through two chains, one going to a headphone jack and the second going to your monitors. And you can switch each one on and off by MIDI remote control. I wish I could get it to cooperate with multiple applications (one after the other, not at the same time).


----------



## shomynik

rrichard63 said:


> I have RME hardware and Patchwork and really like both. RME's internal loopback works fine. Patchwork works fine until you close one DAW and open a second one. At that point, if I remember correctly, ASIO stops dead.
> 
> I decided that there might be a way to make this work, but I that it would involve assigning each DAW to different hardware inputs and outputs. Haven't tried that yet. How did you make your setup work for you? Thanks!
> 
> The thing I like about Patchwork in this situation is that you can have it feed your control room buss through two chains, one going to a headphone jack and the second going to your monitors. And you can switch each one on and off by MIDI remote control. I wish I could get it to cooperate with multiple applications (one after the other, not at the same time).



Ah, then you know it all. 

I don't use multiple daws just cubase so don't know about asio problem, but I was losing audio from the patchwork from time to time. But it was still better than systemwide at the time when I was demoing it. And simply reseting the patchwork was bringing audio back. I think it's a problem with some sample rate missmatches, like beetween opened daw peoject and the system. Patchwork didn't always follow. I can imagine the additional convolution with multiple daw.

But the new systemwide should work well now as people reporting it. I decided to invest some more in my room threatment before purchasing sonarworks (I already have the mic), and I am happy to hear those systemwide bugs was sorted. They are sorted, right?


----------



## rrichard63

shomynik said:


> But the new systemwide should work well now as people reporting it. I decided to invest some more in my room threatment before purchasing sonarworks (I already have the mic), and I am happy to hear those systemwide bugs was sorted. They are sorted, right?


My understanding is that it is much improved, but that it still imposes the latency inherent in the default Windows audio drivers. It's likely to be useful for mixing but not for tracking.

EDIT: The other, more important, problem with Systemwide is that you can't send your DAW output through it and at the same time use ASIO for inputs or effects sends. It's really intended for listening to media players, YouTube, etc.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

CQrity said:


> I recently read that especially those Behringers have a very high ranging build quality and response. Thats why they are so cheap. So I don't agree with your point here. You might have been lucky in purchasing a good Behringer.
> There is a hi-fi forum where there was a post from someone who makes custom calibration files. He/she posted the measurements of over 100 Behringers and boy did they have variances. Unfortunately I don't remember the site. Google it or take my word for it (well better don't :D)



I know that they vary in the general production run so there's a website that you can get the files based on ranges of serial numbers and then it's pretty good. I'm pretty sure all of those companies are using the exact same mic. Comparing the Behringer with the Sonarworks showed that they were pretty much identical. Probably +/- 0.2dB but the shape of both was flat with just a high frequency roll off. All that the calibration file really did was compensate for that. When using these for room correction, the little fluctuations are irrelevant.


----------



## shomynik

rrichard63 said:


> My understanding is that it is much improved, but that it still imposes the latency inherent in the default Windows audio drivers. It's likely to be useful for mixing but not for tracking.
> 
> EDIT: The other, more important, problem with Systemwide is that you can't send your DAW output through it and at the same time use ASIO for inputs or effects sends. It's really intended for listening to media players, YouTube, etc.


Thx for the reply, great to hear that. I am not concerned about systemwide latency, or the other problem you mentioned as I have cubase and system audio on completely different totalmix channels, so reference plugin and systemwide are separated as well.


----------



## pmcrockett

rrichard63 said:


> I wish there were something like Audio Hijack for Windows. As far as I could tell when I looked into this, there isn't.


Using VoiceMeeter Banana, which is one of those programs that does end-of-stream Windows audio mixing, you can set up ASIO-capable programs as inserts to the audio stream which of course lets you apply VST plugins. VoiceMeeter suggests using Image-Line Minihost Modular for this; I use a portable install of Reaper (which lets me permanently route through VoiceMeeter without affecting my main Reaper install) because Minihost can't deal with shell plugins such as Waves, and I use Nx in my headphone correction chain. As long as I have VoiceMeeter set as my audio device, all have to do to enable the VST chain is launch Reaper, which remembers the appropriate project and routing.

I haven't stress-tested the setup yet but my recollection from when I tried this less successfully on an older computer was that introducing VoiceMeeter into the audio chain substantially increased latency. I've successfully run small DAW projects with acceptable latency (although VoiceMeeter seems to be reporting the latency value wrong), but I'm not sure how a larger project would fare. It's all a little glitchy, too — I occasionally have to restart programs/Windows to make things work properly, but generally speaking, it works well enough to be worth keeping around, if only for the novelty of being able to stream YouTube etc. through a VST chain.

There's a YouTube tutorial for setting all this up here.

There's another program, DDMF Virtual Audio Stream, that can apparently do all this without having to use an external VST host, but I tried it and couldn't get it to load Waves plugins (probably a shell problem like Minihost has), so I abandoned it without further testing.


----------



## Chris Richter

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I know that they vary in the general production run so there's a website that you can get the files based on ranges of serial numbers and then it's pretty good. I'm pretty sure all of those companies are using the exact same mic. Comparing the Behringer with the Sonarworks showed that they were pretty much identical. Probably +/- 0.2dB but the shape of both was flat with just a high frequency roll off. All that the calibration file really did was compensate for that. When using these for room correction, the little fluctuations are irrelevant.


I didn't found the source itself but a guy on Gearslutz referencing the graph with the measurements:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/790459-ecm-8000-a.html
There you can see about 4 dB variances @40Hz-60Hz, below that even more. I am not enough into room acoustics to judge wether that is an vital issue or not. For mixing purposes however thats an awfull lot to me.
My point isn't the difference of those mics. It's about using a mic without a dedicated calibration file. One has to decide if _up to _4dB deviation in a relevant frequency is a deal breaker. For someone starting out in room acoustics maybe not. You may also get a good mic. For my part, I won't take the gamble


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

CQrity said:


> I didn't found the source itself but a guy on Gearslutz referencing the graph with the measurements:
> https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/790459-ecm-8000-a.html
> There you can see about 4 dB variances @40Hz-60Hz, below that even more. I am not enough into room acoustics to judge wether that is an vital issue or not. For mixing purposes however thats an awfull lot to me.
> My point isn't the difference of those mics. It's about using a mic without a dedicated calibration file. One has to decide if _up to _4dB deviation in a relevant frequency is a deal breaker. For someone starting out in room acoustics maybe not. You may also get a good mic. For my part, I won't take the gamble



Something seems wrong in those measurements. They're way too far off, especially considering that the Behringer don't come with a calibration file. I've never heard of there being variations in the lower end. My Sonarworks and Behringer measure pretty much identically. Looking at the Sonarworks file, below 3k, it's all within +/-0.16 dB down to 20Hz. After that it just goes up with 20k being 2.38 dB (the correction so the mic is -2.38 dB).


----------



## Chris Richter

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Something seems wrong in those measurements. They're way too far off, _especially considering that the Behringer don't come with a calibration file_. I've never heard of there being variations in the lower end. My Sonarworks and Behringer measure pretty much identically. Looking at the Sonarworks file, below 3k, it's all within +/-0.16 dB down to 20Hz. After that it just goes up with 20k being 2.38 dB (the correction so the mic is -2.38 dB).


I don't get what you are saying here. They are off BECAUSE they aren't calibrated.
In your particular case those mics aren't different, because maybe you got a lucky hand?


----------



## rrichard63

pmcrockett said:


> Using VoiceMeeter Banana, which is one of those programs that does end-of-stream Windows audio mixing, you can set up ASIO-capable programs as inserts to the audio stream ...


Thank you. I will look into VoiceMeeter.

With regard to Waves Nx and hosts that don't understand the Waves shell, there used to be a program called Shell2VST. I say "used to be" because the site where you could download it, xlutop.com, it has disappeared. This consistently works for me, although others have reported problems. PM me if you want to try it.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

CQrity said:


> I don't get what you are saying here. They are off BECAUSE they aren't calibrated.
> In your particular case those mics aren't different, because maybe you got a lucky hand?



I'm saying that as measurement mics (or any mic for that matter) there's way too much variance in that graph. You should be able to use it without a calibration file. The difference that the calibration file makes should be small. I've used 3 of the Behringer mics made many years apart and they've all been similar. I think something was wrong with how that person measured it. The "calibration file" for the Behringer is basically just a generic graph print-out that come with it. There can't be that much of a production tolerance or else that graph would be completely useless.


----------



## Chris Richter

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I'm saying that as measurement mics (or any mic for that matter) there's way too much variance in that graph. You should be able to use it without a calibration file. The difference that the calibration file makes should be small. I've used 3 of the Behringer mics made many years apart and they've all been similar. I think something was wrong with how that person measured it. The "calibration file" for the Behringer is basically just a generic graph print-out that come with it. There can't be that much of a production tolerance or else that graph would be completely useless.


It's a mic for ~60$? If it's that good, why should one ever take a measurement mic that's above 500$ if it does the same? Or the other way round, how do you think Behringer can make such a low price? Their "calibration file" is a joke. And therefore useless. Of course it can't help if it's generic. Therefore a custom calibration service exists. 
To bring this to an end: everybody can see the graphs and has to make up their own mind wether they are trustworthy or not. I feel like I am done with this for now. Take care!


----------



## charlieclouser

Got dang it.

Got freaking dang it.

@vrocko did me a HUGE solid today.

He went WAY out of his way to come over to my studio and lend me his calibrated SonarWorks reference mic so I could calibrate my system with the demo version of Reference v4 software.

And now my speakers and room sound A LOT better than they did yesterday. Got dang it.

When I tried the software with the supplied profile for my Audio Technica MH-50x headphones, the difference was NOT huge - at least, not huge enough for me to want to deal with implementing the correction as a plugin. But when I finished calibrating my speakers and tried the correction, the difference was pretty serious. It removed major "boof" and "boxiness" in the 100hz-150hz range and clank in the upper midrange, added "juiciness" in the sub bass and "fizz" in the very high range. It's a big difference.

For a minute there I was hoping that I could emulate the derived correction using the in-built digital 4-band parametric eq in the Dynaudio AIR system, but the correction needs to stuff like create a boosted range that has different slopes on the left and right sides of bands, so trying to emulate that curve with a "normal" parametric eq may do more harm than good. Still fiddling with that aspect of it.

Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.

Response curve:






and the calculated Correction Curve:






On a side note, @vrocko also let me check out his Audeze LCD-X headphones, and they were pretty darn great. Compared to my lowly MH-50x cans, the LCD-X had a lot less cloudy-ness and more separation in the bottom end, a little less clanky harshness in the upper midrange, and a little more legible fizz in the upper highs. With some of my "bass test tracks" like Groove Armada "Final Shakedown", The Prodigy "Diesel Power", and Crystal Method "Busy Child" it was easier to hear the difference between the three different kick drum layers, separation between little sub hits and the synth bass, etc. I could also pick out the difference between the various sampled hi-hats in Busy Child more easily. With the MH-50x priced at $150 and the LCD-X priced at $1,700, is the difference worth $1,500? That's a question for another day. BUT. The difference was immediately apparent, and although it was not life-changing, it was still definitely significant. Sound field felt wider and more spacious and the bottom end was less "clamped". It's like, everything was present in the MH-50x, but it was all more legible in the LCD-X.

So.... many thanks to @vrocko for doing me a huge solid, even though it may cost me some money in the long run!


----------



## Tfis

My Behringer mic has been calibrated (90°) and the deviation goes from -2.4 dB @15kHz to +1.3 dB @36Hz (and even more at frequencies lower than 17Hz, but in that region you won't do measurements). So even without a calibration file, this 3.7dB range is ok for room measurement purposes, where the focus is on room modes and the low end.


----------



## shomynik

charlieclouser said:


> Got dang it.
> 
> Got freaking dang it.
> 
> @vrocko did me a HUGE solid today.
> 
> He went WAY out of his way to come over to my studio and lend me his calibrated SonarWorks reference mic so I could calibrate my system with the demo version of Reference v4 software.
> 
> And now my speakers and room sound A LOT better than they did yesterday. Got dang it.
> 
> When I tried the software with the supplied profile for my Audio Technica MH-50x headphones, the difference was NOT huge - at least, not huge enough for me to want to deal with implementing the correction as a plugin. But when I finished calibrating my speakers and tried the correction, the difference was pretty serious. It removed major "boof" and "boxiness" in the 100hz-150hz range and clank in the upper midrange, added "juiciness" in the sub bass and "fizz" in the very high range. It's a big difference.
> 
> For a minute there I was hoping that I could emulate the derived correction using the in-built digital 4-band parametric eq in the Dynaudio AIR system, but the correction needs to stuff like create a boosted range that has different slopes on the left and right sides of bands, so trying to emulate that curve with a "normal" parametric eq may do more harm than good. Still fiddling with that aspect of it.
> 
> Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.
> 
> Response curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the calculated Correction Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, @vrocko also let me check out his Audeze LCD-X headphones, and they were pretty darn great. Compared to my lowly MH-50x cans, the LCD-X had a lot less cloudy-ness and more separation in the bottom end, a little less clanky harshness in the upper midrange, and a little more legible fizz in the upper highs. With some of my "bass test tracks" like Groove Armada "Final Shakedown", The Prodigy "Diesel Power", and Crystal Method "Busy Child" it was easier to hear the difference between the three different kick drum layers, separation between little sub hits and the synth bass, etc. I could also pick out the difference between the various sampled hi-hats in Busy Child more easily. With the MH-50x priced at $150 and the LCD-X priced at $1,700, is the difference worth $1,500? That's a question for another day. BUT. The difference was immediately apparent, and although it was not life-changing, it was still definitely significant. Sound field felt wider and more spacious and the bottom end was less "clamped". It's like, everything was present in the MH-50x, but it was all more legible in the LCD-X.
> 
> So.... many thanks to @vrocko for doing me a huge solid, even though it may cost me some money in the long run!



Just one thing for consideration Charlie,
@mc_deli kindly pointed out to me much earlier in this thread the thing about correction boost limit, which I found indeed very true and helpful. I'll just quote his post:



mc_deli said:


> I humbly suggest - if you haven't - that you use the advanced settings and "reduced" max low freq calibration limits. As discussed elsewhere a >6db boost at a particular frequency is not advisable and more likely to introduce anomalies... it's a trade off of course


----------



## Chris Richter

shomynik said:


> Just one thing for consideration Charlie,
> @mc_deli kindly pointed out to me much earlier in this thread the thing about correction boost limit, which I found indeed very true and helpful. I'll just quote his post:


Do you have a source for that information? I would love to read about the reasoning for that


----------



## jcrosby

charlieclouser said:


> Got dang it.
> 
> Got freaking dang it.
> 
> @vrocko did me a HUGE solid today.
> 
> He went WAY out of his way to come over to my studio and lend me his calibrated SonarWorks reference mic so I could calibrate my system with the demo version of Reference v4 software.
> 
> And now my speakers and room sound A LOT better than they did yesterday. Got dang it.
> 
> When I tried the software with the supplied profile for my Audio Technica MH-50x headphones, the difference was NOT huge - at least, not huge enough for me to want to deal with implementing the correction as a plugin. But when I finished calibrating my speakers and tried the correction, the difference was pretty serious. It removed major "boof" and "boxiness" in the 100hz-150hz range and clank in the upper midrange, added "juiciness" in the sub bass and "fizz" in the very high range. It's a big difference.
> 
> For a minute there I was hoping that I could emulate the derived correction using the in-built digital 4-band parametric eq in the Dynaudio AIR system, but the correction needs to stuff like create a boosted range that has different slopes on the left and right sides of bands, so trying to emulate that curve with a "normal" parametric eq may do more harm than good. Still fiddling with that aspect of it.
> 
> Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.
> 
> Response curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the calculated Correction Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, @vrocko also let me check out his Audeze LCD-X headphones, and they were pretty darn great. Compared to my lowly MH-50x cans, the LCD-X had a lot less cloudy-ness and more separation in the bottom end, a little less clanky harshness in the upper midrange, and a little more legible fizz in the upper highs. With some of my "bass test tracks" like Groove Armada "Final Shakedown", The Prodigy "Diesel Power", and Crystal Method "Busy Child" it was easier to hear the difference between the three different kick drum layers, separation between little sub hits and the synth bass, etc. I could also pick out the difference between the various sampled hi-hats in Busy Child more easily. With the MH-50x priced at $150 and the LCD-X priced at $1,700, is the difference worth $1,500? That's a question for another day. BUT. The difference was immediately apparent, and although it was not life-changing, it was still definitely significant. Sound field felt wider and more spacious and the bottom end was less "clamped". It's like, everything was present in the MH-50x, but it was all more legible in the LCD-X.
> 
> So.... many thanks to @vrocko for doing me a huge solid, even though it may cost me some money in the long run!



Holy shit! That's a serious Peak/null situation. Your low end must be incredibly satisfying now!

Do you have much treatment in your space Charlie? My room's small, and anything but ideal shaped but the acoustics I put in did an absolute ton of heavy lifting. (I kind of went ham though as my room is chllenging for a number of reasons... Best money spent hands down though... (Some upgrades are prestige meets placebo, acoustics are anything but that. The single most audible change you can make to any space... As I often say, I'll take a shitty set of speakers in killer room over a great set of speakers in a bad one any day of the week.) 

Anyway 3-6dB nulls in the 100-200 range are pretty common... nearing 12 is pretty serious though... (Schroeder frequency related if you haven't read up on it before... https://www.acousticfields.com/schroeder-frequency/)

If your room's a little light on treatment Sonarworks will make noticeably better improvements after putting some in. With nulls and peaks that deep and wide you should think about doubling down even if you have a fair amount already.... If your rooms fairly treated then may well be a room dimension issue or related to speaker placement/mix position...

Good luck and enjoy that newly found low end in the meantime!


----------



## shomynik

CQrity said:


> Do you have a source for that information? I would love to read about the reasoning for that


Actually I don't, I just took mc_deli's word for it, tried it and liked it. Also it kind of make sense to me as such a big dip in the room suggest a greater problem with that freq, so it's a question what's there to boost in the first place.

Maybe @mc_deli could point us to some additional info, I am interested as well.


----------



## Noam Guterman

charlieclouser said:


> Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.



That's no problem. What DAW are you using? In Cubase you can put the plugin as an insert on the Control Room, and on Reaper the Monitoring Chain. Those are the DAWs that I use but I'm sure other DAWs allow it too.


----------



## jamwerks

There has been a thread here recently about one way to use Sonarworks with Logic.

After all the hype here I finally purchased it but not yet installed. Got the version with the mic.


----------



## charlieclouser

jcrosby said:


> Holy shit! That's a serious Peak/null situation. Your low end must be incredibly satisfying now!
> 
> Do you have much treatment in your space Charlie?



Heh. Treatment? What's that? I have wall-to-wall carpet, does that count?

When I moved into this place ten years ago I managed to carve a hole of six days to between a movie and the start of a tv series, in which we had to break down two huge setups in Hollywood and shlep them twenty miles west and get everything operational, and I haven't touched it since then. All we did was throw down the carpet over the polished concrete floors and randomly hang some absorptive panels I had lying around.

Then I got back to work and didn't have a break until fairly recently. I always knew that I had ridiculous low end nulls but I just powered through the problem, and recently started using the MH-50x headphones for policing the bottom end. 

I never really wanted to get into this issue until I could purchase my own analysis package, one that I could understand and use myself. In many of Trent's rooms we'd have the legendary Coco Brandon come out and "tune the rooms", and it always seemed like voodoo - he'd use this ancient tone/noise generator thing that made these resonant white noise sounds (which Trent sampled and used on many records, of course!) and then he'd recommend treatment and eventually apply corrective monitor eq using a White graphic eq rack unit that was strapped in front of the power amps - so no danger of accidentally bouncing through that. But still, it was voodoo - now way to really see a nice and tidy graphic representation of what the problems were and how to fix them. 

But now that I can see and understand the problems in my room I'm ready to go down that long and dusty road, and get the room completely sorted out, bar no expense. Part of what triggered this was hearing a mix at my friend's place on the same model of speaker I use (Dynaudio AIR-15) and thinking it sounded amazingly good - much better than it sounded at my place. At that moment I knew there was more quality in my speakers than my room would allow to reach my ears.

For a minute there I was hoping that I could just emulate the derived correction curve using the built-in 4-band parametric eq that's inside the Dynaudio AIR's DSP - and that may still be a suitable solution IF I first get some treatment done to sort out the biggest part of the nulls. But just experimenting last night I realized that the derived correction curves needed many bands, some of which had asymmetrical curves - like 48db/octave on one side and 12db/octave on the other, etc. It was not possible to satisfactorally duplicate the Sonarworks correction curve using "normal" eq plugins. FabFilter Pro-Q got me a lot closer than Logic's stock eq, but still it wasn't exact. After applying treatment I will investigate this further, and possible purchase some sort of digital in-out "drive rack" processor that has the ability to create very complex curves, and possibly comes with its own calibrated mic and analysis / correction software solution. I really don't like the idea of using a plugin on the DAW machine to apply speaker correction, preferring to do the equivalent of what Coco used to do with an outboard eq that straps in front of the monitor rig. So this will be an ongoing quest. Now to spend some money on bass traps!

Again, many thanks to @vrocko for lending me his calibrated Sonarworks mic!


----------



## Mornats

I use a pair of Audio Technica M50x headphones too Charlie and I get different results than you do. I hear a fair bit of difference between the calibrated and uncalibrated output using Sonarworks 4. With the calibration on, the bass isn't as full and there's more airiness around the top end with something missing from around the lower mid range. I've just done a quick test on one of my tracks that I know well (and was mixed before I got Sonarworks) and made some adjustments and I think it sounds much better now.

I would trust your ears far more than I'd trust mine though but I wonder if using the generic profiles for headphones is a bit hit or miss?


----------



## charlieclouser

Mornats said:


> I use a pair of Audio Technica M50x headphones too Charlie and I get different results than you do. I hear a fair bit of difference between the calibrated and uncalibrated output using Sonarworks 4. With the calibration on, the bass isn't as full and there's more airiness around the top end with something missing from around the lower mid range. I've just done a quick test on one of my tracks that I know well (and was mixed before I got Sonarworks) and made some adjustments and I think it sounds much better now.
> 
> I would trust your ears far more than I'd trust mine though but I wonder if using the generic profiles for headphones is a bit hit or miss?



I did notice a difference when applying Sonarworks correction on the M-50x, but it wasn't like "holy crap!" - it was more like, "oh, I guess that's a little better." Sort of like when you're at the optometrist and they're like, "Is this better, worse, or about the same? A or B.... A.... B.... A..... B...." and you're like, "Can I see A again?"

The difference between corrected and uncorrected with the M-50x was less than the difference between the M-50x and the Audeze LCD-X that @vrocko brought over - and was a "different kind of different". The M-50x sound contained almost everything that the LCD-X did, but it was sort of smushed together and felt like it was closer to my head, with the sound being injected into my ears by force, while the LCD-X felt like the sound was occurring a few inches (feet?) away from my head and arriving at my ears less forcefully, if that makes sense.

That said, I was only using the front-panel headphone jacks on the MOTU 1248, so if I used headphones all the time I'd be looking into a LittleLabs Monotor, Grace M-920, or SPL Phonitor headphone amp / D>A solution. But first I will deal with my room....


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

charlieclouser said:


> I did notice a difference when applying Sonarworks correction on the M-50x, but it wasn't like "holy crap!" - it was more like, "oh, I guess that's a little better." Sort of like when you're at the optometrist and they're like, "Is this better, worse, or about the same? A or B.... A.... B.... A..... B...." and you're like, "Can I see A again?"
> 
> The difference between corrected and uncorrected with the M-50x was less than the difference between the M-50x and the Audeze LCD-X that @vrocko brought over - and was a "different kind of different". The M-50x sound contained almost everything that the LCD-X did, but it was sort of smushed together and felt like it was closer to my head, with the sound being injected into my ears by force, while the LCD-X felt like the sound was occurring a few inches (feet?) away from my head and arriving at my ears less forcefully, if that makes sense.
> 
> That said, I was only using the front-panel headphone jacks on the MOTU 1248, so if I used headphones all the time I'd be looking into a LittleLabs Monotor, Grace M-920, or SPL Phonitor headphone amp / D>A solution. But first I will deal with my room....



Don't forget to test out the different latency/phase settings in Reference. It's subtle but can clear out some haziness of the low latency settings. You can't really write through it because of the latency (60ms?).

If you have the budget for it and want a step up from Reference, you should check out a DEQX. Your system isn't ideal for it since you can't have the active crossovers but it's still a huge step up when working in full range. I'm sure there's a way that you could schedule a demo at your studio. With a DEQX you wouldn't have to worry about printing through. 

I've heard that Acourate can do similar things but it's a lot more complicated to set up and I think people normally need a separate computer for that.


----------



## Mornats

charlieclouser said:


> I did notice a difference when applying Sonarworks correction on the M-50x, but it wasn't like "holy crap!" - it was more like, "oh, I guess that's a little better." Sort of like when you're at the optometrist and they're like, "Is this better, worse, or about the same? A or B.... A.... B.... A..... B...." and you're like, "Can I see A again?"
> 
> The difference between corrected and uncorrected with the M-50x was less than the difference between the M-50x and the Audeze LCD-X that @vrocko brought over - and was a "different kind of different". The M-50x sound contained almost everything that the LCD-X did, but it was sort of smushed together and felt like it was closer to my head, with the sound being injected into my ears by force, while the LCD-X felt like the sound was occurring a few inches (feet?) away from my head and arriving at my ears less forcefully, if that makes sense.
> 
> That said, I was only using the front-panel headphone jacks on the MOTU 1248, so if I used headphones all the time I'd be looking into a LittleLabs Monotor, Grace M-920, or SPL Phonitor headphone amp / D>A solution. But first I will deal with my room....



Now that I've made more tweaks to my track I'm noticing that having Sonarworks on or off is making less of a difference now. It's noticeable but yeah, it's not "holy crap!" as you say. So I'm putting my money on it being a terrible mix to start with that possibly had a lot going on in the frequencies that were being corrected. And holy crap, I just looked up the price of those LCD-X headphones!

I've not tried the room correction as my room is simply terrible. It's square and it's in a rented flat (apartment) so I can't do anything to it. It's also my living room so bass traps have nowhere to go anyway. I can stand in the middle of my room, turn to one side and pretty much all of the bass disappears completely. Stand in a corner and it's like being stood in front of my bass amp at a gig. I don't think Sonarworks could do much in there.


----------



## Mornats

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Don't forget to test out the different latency/phase settings in Reference. It's subtle but can clear out some haziness of the low latency settings. You can't really write through it because of the latency (60ms?).
> 
> If you have the budget for it and want a step up from Reference, you should check out a DEQX. Your system isn't ideal for it since you can't have the active crossovers but it's still a huge step up when working in full range. I'm sure there's a way that you could schedule a demo at your studio. With a DEQX you wouldn't have to worry about printing through.
> 
> I've heard that Acourate can do similar things but it's a lot more complicated to set up and I think people normally need a separate computer for that.



I've got mine set to linear phase and only have Sonarworks on to mix so I've usually got my audio interface set to 2048 samples anyway


----------



## vrocko

charlieclouser said:


> Got dang it.
> 
> Got freaking dang it.
> 
> @vrocko did me a HUGE solid today.
> 
> He went WAY out of his way to come over to my studio and lend me his calibrated SonarWorks reference mic so I could calibrate my system with the demo version of Reference v4 software.
> 
> And now my speakers and room sound A LOT better than they did yesterday. Got dang it.
> 
> When I tried the software with the supplied profile for my Audio Technica MH-50x headphones, the difference was NOT huge - at least, not huge enough for me to want to deal with implementing the correction as a plugin. But when I finished calibrating my speakers and tried the correction, the difference was pretty serious. It removed major "boof" and "boxiness" in the 100hz-150hz range and clank in the upper midrange, added "juiciness" in the sub bass and "fizz" in the very high range. It's a big difference.
> 
> For a minute there I was hoping that I could emulate the derived correction using the in-built digital 4-band parametric eq in the Dynaudio AIR system, but the correction needs to stuff like create a boosted range that has different slopes on the left and right sides of bands, so trying to emulate that curve with a "normal" parametric eq may do more harm than good. Still fiddling with that aspect of it.
> 
> Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.
> 
> Response curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the calculated Correction Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, @vrocko also let me check out his Audeze LCD-X headphones, and they were pretty darn great. Compared to my lowly MH-50x cans, the LCD-X had a lot less cloudy-ness and more separation in the bottom end, a little less clanky harshness in the upper midrange, and a little more legible fizz in the upper highs. With some of my "bass test tracks" like Groove Armada "Final Shakedown", The Prodigy "Diesel Power", and Crystal Method "Busy Child" it was easier to hear the difference between the three different kick drum layers, separation between little sub hits and the synth bass, etc. I could also pick out the difference between the various sampled hi-hats in Busy Child more easily. With the MH-50x priced at $150 and the LCD-X priced at $1,700, is the difference worth $1,500? That's a question for another day. BUT. The difference was immediately apparent, and although it was not life-changing, it was still definitely significant. Sound field felt wider and more spacious and the bottom end was less "clamped". It's like, everything was present in the MH-50x, but it was all more legible in the LCD-X.
> 
> So.... many thanks to @vrocko for doing me a huge solid, even though it may cost me some money in the long run!


 Charlie, you are very welcome. It was awesome seeing your place and getting a bit of insight how a busy composer like yourself is set up. Picking your brain a bit and seeing how you work was so informative and inspiring. It was amazing to see the organization you have implemented in your main workstation, you are like a ninja on that thing.

Looking at your the results of your test I am a little surprised, l didn’t think it was going to be that drastic in the low end especially when we were sitting at your listening position. I am curious to see what is causing it, sorry for opening the can of worms HAHA. By the way those Dynaudio’s sound amazing.

Thanks again for having me over and letting me pick at your brain, I hope I wasn’t too annoying.


----------



## jamwerks

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> You can't really write through it because of the latency (60ms?)...


I was under the impression that there was a "no-latency" mode in the lastest version?


----------



## charlieclouser

vrocko said:


> Charlie, you are very welcome. It was awesome seeing your place and getting a bit of insight how a busy composer like yourself is set up. Picking your brain a bit and seeing how you work was so informative and inspiring. It was amazing to see the organization you have implemented in your main workstation, you are like a ninja on that thing.
> 
> Looking at your the results of your test I am a little surprised, l didn’t think it was going to be that drastic in the low end especially when we were sitting at your listening position. I am curious to see what is causing it, sorry for opening the can of worms HAHA. By the way those Dynaudio’s sound amazing.
> 
> Thanks again for having me over and letting me pick at your brain, I hope I wasn’t too annoying.



Annoying? Fuck no dude. That was a fun afternoon of shooting the shit, and your experience (addiction?) with so many headphone models was pretty educational. I'm glad that you sort of agree that the lowly M-50x is one of the best values out there, and that it almost doesn't make sense to question them until you get to the high end of the market like the LCD-X. You definitely have a good set of ears and a good handle on what we were hearing, so that was a pleasure!


----------



## mc_deli

CQrity said:


> Do you have a source for that information? I would love to read about the reasoning for that


I can't give you a technical explanation - you'll have to search for that.
But, what I do know is, SW have a correction boost limit for a reason (there is brief mention of it on their site IIRC).
And that common sense says that a massive EQ boost is going to create anomalies. Again, you can search to find out why in general massive EQ boosts might be problematic.
Also if you need a massive EQ boost then that suggests there is something "structurally" wrong with the environment you should fix e.g. move the monitoring from short wall to long wall, small square room where any monitoring is compromised at certain frequencies, big room node that would be better addressed by treatment than EQ etc etc

(I read too much but I am reliant on my copy paste finger to reproduce it, sorry )


----------



## charlieclouser

By the way, I don't know if this product has been discussed on here, but for non-Cubase Mac users this might be a good way to use the Sonarworks correction plugin without using the SystemWide mode:

https://www.menubus.audio

It also would be a method of using something like Waves Q-Clone EQ to simulate a correction response derived from Sonarworks analysis.

I haven't tried it out yet, but I stumbled upon it while browsing the Sonarworks thread on Gearslutz. Maybe it's not going to do anything that we can't already do, but I thought I should post the link just so we can find it again later.

In the Gearslutz thread there's some discussion about using Q-Clone or Logic's Match EQ to duplicate a Sonarworks correction response, by playing pink noise through Sonarworks, capturing it, matching it, blah blah blah but I haven't dug too deep into it yet.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

jamwerks said:


> I was under the impression that there was a "no-latency" mode in the lastest version?


There's always been a low latency more (~1ms).


----------



## Thomas A Booker

Just a heads up: if you don't have a spare XLR cable lying around, the mic doesn't include one.

I interpreted

_This package includes:

* Professional measurement microphone with XLR connection (requires 48V phantom power)_

as saying that it came with the connection cable, but they only mean that the mic uses XLR.


----------



## KerrySmith

charlieclouser said:


> Got dang it.
> 
> Got freaking dang it.
> 
> @vrocko did me a HUGE solid today.
> 
> He went WAY out of his way to come over to my studio and lend me his calibrated SonarWorks reference mic so I could calibrate my system with the demo version of Reference v4 software.
> 
> And now my speakers and room sound A LOT better than they did yesterday. Got dang it.
> 
> When I tried the software with the supplied profile for my Audio Technica MH-50x headphones, the difference was NOT huge - at least, not huge enough for me to want to deal with implementing the correction as a plugin. But when I finished calibrating my speakers and tried the correction, the difference was pretty serious. It removed major "boof" and "boxiness" in the 100hz-150hz range and clank in the upper midrange, added "juiciness" in the sub bass and "fizz" in the very high range. It's a big difference.
> 
> For a minute there I was hoping that I could emulate the derived correction using the in-built digital 4-band parametric eq in the Dynaudio AIR system, but the correction needs to stuff like create a boosted range that has different slopes on the left and right sides of bands, so trying to emulate that curve with a "normal" parametric eq may do more harm than good. Still fiddling with that aspect of it.
> 
> Now I just need to wrap my brain around how to implement the correction on my stereo monitor output object in a way that will insure I never bounce or print through the correction. The derived response and correction curves are shown in screen shots below.
> 
> Response curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the calculated Correction Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, @vrocko also let me check out his Audeze LCD-X headphones, and they were pretty darn great. Compared to my lowly MH-50x cans, the LCD-X had a lot less cloudy-ness and more separation in the bottom end, a little less clanky harshness in the upper midrange, and a little more legible fizz in the upper highs. With some of my "bass test tracks" like Groove Armada "Final Shakedown", The Prodigy "Diesel Power", and Crystal Method "Busy Child" it was easier to hear the difference between the three different kick drum layers, separation between little sub hits and the synth bass, etc. I could also pick out the difference between the various sampled hi-hats in Busy Child more easily. With the MH-50x priced at $150 and the LCD-X priced at $1,700, is the difference worth $1,500? That's a question for another day. BUT. The difference was immediately apparent, and although it was not life-changing, it was still definitely significant. Sound field felt wider and more spacious and the bottom end was less "clamped". It's like, everything was present in the MH-50x, but it was all more legible in the LCD-X.
> 
> So.... many thanks to @vrocko for doing me a huge solid, even though it may cost me some money in the long run!




That looks like my room’s curve. . I don’t use Logic, so I can’t counsel you on the specifics, but I’m sure the idea is the same. 

In Pro Tools, my (basic) template has all of the music going to a bus, so that I can overlay VO and SFX before hitting the Master. So what I did after deciding to try using Reference 4 all of the time is to route that Buss to 2 sets of outputs on my D/A. Basically everything goes to Outs 1-2 AND Outs 3-4. 3-4 has Reference 4 inserted on it, and 1-2 just has a Peak Limiter to prevent overs. This way, I can switch between which output I am monitoring, but when I go to Bounce, it defaults to 1-2, and I don’t have to worry about Reference 4.


----------



## Ctd

Forgive me if someone already mentioned this but Reaper has a feature called monitoring fx which is exactly what it sounds like. 

You put corrective plugins on a send that goes to the monitor outs but doesn't effect the master bus. It's brilliant and adds to my Logic vs Reaper internal debate because I'd still rather write in Logic.


----------



## rrichard63

Ctd said:


> Forgive me if someone already mentioned this but Reaper has a feature called monitoring fx which is exactly what it sounds like. ...


My understanding is that Cubase also has this feature. Many DAWs do not, even though it seems obvious.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

Interested to know people's thoughts on the DRY/WET signal.
The headphone version has been tremendous for me this past year.
I've finally updated to the full studio version (alongside the more important acoustic treatment)

Are people trying to stick to 100% or having to pull it back to more 60-70%?

Also, I'm just making sure I'm using systemwide right as the latency seems as good as Audio Hijack now.

In Logic system setting I have
Input Audient
Output SystemWide
With Systemwide sitting on the taskbar I make the output my Audient. 

When bouncing out from logic this shouldn't affect anything convertor wise?
As in would it be better to have my output in logic as my Audient?

Apologies, I'm having a moment


----------



## Leandro Marcos

I purchased this software last month by @Daniel James recommendation started in this thread. Haven't put it to test yet.


----------



## Noam Guterman

Kaufmanmoon said:


> Interested to know people's thoughts on the DRY/WET signal.
> The headphone version has been tremendous for me this past year.
> I've finally updated to the full studio version (alongside the more important acoustic treatment)
> 
> Are people trying to stick to 100% or having to pull it back to more 60-70%?


I like 100%. Commitment!


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

To add to my post above, are people actually using systemwide now or sticking with Audio Hijack?


----------



## Jaybee

Kaufmanmoon said:


> To add to my post above, are people actually using systemwide now or sticking with Audio Hijack?



1. 100% 'wet'. 
2. Systemwide (on PC) is brilliant. Set and forget. Loads on boot and runs the DAW plus any other audio source (iTunes, youTube, Spotify etc) through the correction with minimal latency. I used to run a convoluted fix using VBCable & Pedalboard2 to use Sonarworks outside the DAW and it's *far* better & more stable than those combined.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

Jaybee said:


> 1. 100% 'wet'.
> 2. Systemwide (on PC) is brilliant. Set and forget. Loads on boot and runs the DAW plus any other audio source (iTunes, youTube, Spotify etc) through the correction with minimal latency. I used to run a convoluted fix using VBCable & Pedalboard2 to use Sonarworks outside the DAW and it's *far* better & more stable than those combined.



Good to hear. It only occurred to me this morning that although I was hearing the calibration through itunes, spotify and general internet, I wasn't hearing it through Logic, hence why I set the output in logic to Systemwide. I was just worrying that this might mess things up when bouncing out mixes convertor wise? but reading now that doesn't seem to be the case (hopefully someone can clarify?)


----------



## Noam Guterman

Kaufmanmoon said:


> Good to hear. It only occurred to me this morning that although I was hearing the calibration through itunes, spotify and general internet, I wasn't hearing it through Logic, hence why I set the output in logic to Systemwide. I was just worrying that this might mess things up when bouncing out mixes convertor wise? but reading now that doesn't seem to be the case (hopefully someone can clarify?)


What you're doing won't print it, but I think a better way to do it is to instead put the PLUGIN on the MONITORING chain.


----------



## Jaybee

Noam Guterman said:


> What you're doing won't print it, but I think a better way to do it is to instead put the PLUGIN on the MONITORING chain.



+1, I'm using it this way on Reaper in the Monitor FX chain only


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

Ah yes I know it won’t print if I bounce, just wondered if it would bypass Audient converters...I've stupidly never sat and thought about if choosing different output devices makes a difference in logic when bouncing audio.

I'll choose Audient as my input and Systemwide as my output from now on.
It works as well latency wise as Audio Hijack but has the advantage of just working right away when I switch on the computer or open up Logic.
Edit
Actually with systemwide as my output the latency is no good for recording guitars so having to rethink things a little


----------



## rrichard63

Jaybee said:


> Systemwide (on PC) is brilliant. Set and forget. Loads on boot and runs the DAW plus any other audio source (iTunes, youTube, Spotify etc) through the correction with minimal latency.


Doesn't this mean that your DAW is not using ASIO?


----------



## Thomas A Booker

rrichard63 said:


> Doesn't this mean that your DAW is not using ASIO?



You can still use ASIO in your DAW - it won't be affected by the systemwide exe running in Windows, but (in Reaper at least) you can put the plugin version on the Monitor FX chain. Then the plugin version will automatically "take over" while you're using your DAW with ASIO.


----------



## rrichard63

Thomas A Booker said:


> You can still use ASIO in your DAW - it won't be affected by the systemwide exe running in Windows, but (in Reaper at least) you can put the plugin version on the Monitor FX chain. Then the plugin version will automatically "take over" while you're using your DAW with ASIO.


Yes, but I don't think that's what jaybee is talking about.


----------



## Thomas A Booker

rrichard63 said:


> Yes, but I don't think that's what jaybee is talking about.



Based on this:


Jaybee said:


> +1, I'm using it this way on Reaper in the Monitor FX chain only


I assume that is what Jaybee is talking about?

Unless I'm mistaken, if you were using systemwide but not using ASIO in your DAW, there'd be no point putting the plugin on the Monitoring FX as the audio would already be getting processed by the systemwide version.


----------



## rrichard63

Thomas A Booker said:


> Based on this:
> 
> I assume that is what Jaybee is talking about?
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, if you were using systemwide but not using ASIO in your DAW, there'd be no point putting the plugin on the Monitoring FX as the audio would already be getting processed by the systemwide version.


It looks like I misread the thread. I apologize.


----------



## rrichard63

ka00 said:


> if seemingly the goal is to use this plugin to transform something that sounds rich and full and render something that sounds flat, like how I heard the songs on the site after calibration, then clearly that’s not the final step in the process?


The goal is to remove as much as possible of the playback chain (headphones and/or speakers-plus-room) from the sound, so you are listening as much as possible to the music rather than listening to your gear and room. The premise -- which some might contest -- is that mixes that sound "natural" and/or "good" this way will translate better to a wider variety of playback systems than mixes that sound "natural" and/or "good" because they have been crafted to sound that way in your specific playback environment.


----------



## jcrosby

ka00 said:


> Umm, has anyone tried the headphone calibration preview on the Sonarworks site and found it made things sound worse?
> 
> I took a listen to the comparisons for my Sony 7520, and felt the music lost character and felt flatter when the calibration was engaged.
> 
> I’m guessing this has to do with trying to make the sound output as flat and neutral as possible. Kind of like how RAW or LOG formats in photography/video try to capture a neutral image that can be tweaked in post.
> 
> If that’s the case, then the thing I’m not getting is how will you know when you are done mixing? Because if seemingly the goal is to use this plugin to transform something that sounds rich and full and render something that sounds flat, like how I heard the songs on the site after calibration, then clearly that’s not the final step in the process?
> 
> I mean, how do you then know what you’re listening for and how to improve it if you are presumably having to ignore your instincts to add more bass or more treble for example, in order to make it sound flat like the examples on the site with the calibration engaged?
> 
> Obviously there’s something about this I’m not fully grasping, so don’t take this as criticism of the headphone calibration plug-in per se.
> 
> Rather, I’m just hoping some kind soul can dumb this whole thing down for me as I’m trying to trust my ears but seemingly can’t with this workflow (unless of course my Sony 7520s just happen to be hopelessly out of spec for some reason and everyone else’s sounds great with the plug-in).
> 
> Thanks



*Reference, reference, reference... Plain and simple... *
Sonarworks is fantastic, just make sure you reference your music with the closest possible target also being passed through the room correction... 

Regardless of whether you're working in a acoustically brilliant space, or a space you've had to do some correction on; any skilled angineer will tell you they begin any session listening to a few references they know intimately well so they can understand how the room's fingerprint is influencing reproduction of references they religiously refer to...


----------



## Jaybee

Thomas A Booker said:


> Based on this:
> 
> I assume that is what Jaybee is talking about?
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, if you were using systemwide but not using ASIO in your DAW, there'd be no point putting the plugin on the Monitoring FX as the audio would already be getting processed by the systemwide version.



Hi, just for clarification. On my PC Systemwide handles all the audio outside the DAW (iTunes & any web pages etc) but as soon as I open Reaper the Sonarworks plugin which is placed in the Monitor FX section takes over and does use regular ASIO as you would expect.


----------



## salcar

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


----------



## Noam Guterman

ka00 said:


> how will you know when you are done mixing?


You'll need to listen on the calibrated headphones for a good amount of time before you "get" what a good/final mix sounds like. But when you get there it's worth it because the decisions you made along the way were more accurate.


----------



## Noam Guterman

salcar said:


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


interesting! is it of of any competition to Sonarworks?


----------



## salcar

Noam Guterman said:


> interesting! is it of of any competition to Sonarworks?


yes, it is a great alternative.
- follow this site, and acquire the miniDSP UMIK-1 mic: http://www.roomeqwizard.com/
- this videos: 
- this plugin for the vst convolution on cubase master (or monitor) http://apulsoft.ch/apqualizr2/
- and finally this software for copy the same eq-curve (measure with roomeqwizard) in windows https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/?source=typ_redirect


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

For the record as a Mac user i've found even with the latest version of Systemwide, there's still too much latency when using it as the output device in logic.
Audio Hijack is still the best option.
It's a shame as I'd love to just turn on the Mac and not have to keep reminding myself to switch on the plugin.
I must admit Sonarworks has reinvigorated my love of listening to music and has taken away a huge "hawwwww" 100-200hz from my speakers.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

I have one last question. 
Listening spot option 'calibration limit control' where you can pick "reduced", "natural", "extend" e.t.c in the highs and lows?
Are people using this or just leaving it off?


----------



## Jaybee

Kaufmanmoon said:


> I have one last question.
> Listening spot option 'calibration limit control' where you can pick "reduced", "natural", "extend" e.t.c in the highs and lows?
> Are people using this or just leaving it off?



Left that option off here.


----------



## Noam Guterman

Kaufmanmoon said:


> I have one last question.
> Listening spot option 'calibration limit control' where you can pick "reduced", "natural", "extend" e.t.c in the highs and lows?
> Are people using this or just leaving it off?


I found 'Aggressive' for both of them to be the best sounding.
Cheers


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Daniel, thanks so much for this: it makes a world of a difference in my space!


----------



## jamwerks

Finally did my calibration, and yes Wow! I had just treated my room, and using 1st generation Adam S2a's. Pretty radical eq curve  but it sounds amazingly better .


----------



## T.j.

I feel super dumb but can anyone please tell me where to find the 'measuring / setup' part of the software?
I only see systemwide in my programfiles/sonarworks, but nothing on that interface leads me to the measuring software. I can only load the calibration file, not create one.
Am I missing something? I upgraded directly from the headphone version, so now I have 'studio edition' or whatever it's called. Was I supposed to install something else? Re-install?
I can see the license is activated but where is the program?

I've emailed sonarworks but not sure what their response time will be. 
Wanted to take measurements tonight since my mic just came in.

Thanks


----------



## nik

T.j. said:


> I feel super dumb but can anyone please tell me where to find the 'measuring / setup' part of the software?
> I only see systemwide in my programfiles/sonarworks, but nothing on that interface leads me to the measuring software. I can only load the calibration file, not create one.
> Am I missing something? I upgraded directly from the headphone version, so now I have 'studio edition' or whatever it's called. Was I supposed to install something else? Re-install?
> I can see the license is activated but where is the program?
> 
> I've emailed sonarworks but not sure what their response time will be.
> Wanted to take measurements tonight since my mic just came in.
> 
> Thanks


as far as i can remember u can choose what to install during installation process. after installation i had a desktop icon for the measurement process.so if u really cant find it it be go through the installation process again.hope that helps,best regards
nik


----------



## T.j.

nik said:


> as far as i can remember u can choose what to install during installation process. after installation i had a desktop icon for the measurement process.so if u really cant find it it be go through the installation process again.hope that helps,best regards
> nik



Right, I can vaguely remember seeing it at some point so I guess it must have been during installation, or perhaps the first time I opened the program.
I'll reinstall and see if that works, Thanks!


----------



## T.j.

Yep seeing it now, thanks again!


----------



## nik

T.j. said:


> Yep seeing it now, thanks again!


you are very welcome,happy to help!


----------



## jcrosby

Kaufmanmoon said:


> For the record as a Mac user i've found even with the latest version of Systemwide, there's still too much latency when using it as the output device in logic.
> Audio Hijack is still the best option.
> It's a shame as I'd love to just turn on the Mac and not have to keep reminding myself to switch on the plugin.
> I must admit Sonarworks has reinvigorated my love of listening to music and has taken away a huge "hawwwww" 100-200hz from my speakers.



What I do to get around this is leave systemwide on, (for general listening), route Logic directly to my interface, and use pink noise and Logic's match-EQ to capture reference's EQ curve. If you unlink the channels it clones the left and right corrections SW makes, and has a zero latency setting...


----------



## Noam Guterman

Did anyone upgrade to Reference 4.1? How did you like the improvements? Especially the revamped calibration process


----------



## ckiraly

Noam Guterman said:


> Did anyone upgrade to Reference 4.1? How did you like the improvements? Especially the revamped calibration process



I did. I actually had to use a beta of 4.1 per Sonarworks because for some reason the previous version just wouldn’t work with my system. That said, 4.1 worked flawlessly and was really simple and straightforward. Also kudos to Sonarworks tech support for their quick responses and resolution.


----------



## MarcelM

i tried the demo of version 4 and it really doesnt convince me. i have version 3 and results are for my ears not much of a difference. so for me its not worth upgrading.


----------



## Divico

Kaufmanmoon said:


> Listening spot option 'calibration limit control' where you can pick "reduced", "natural", "extend" e.t.c in the highs and lows?
> Are people using this or just leaving it off?


Played around with it. Use neutral. The page says this option is implemented to protect speakers from potential harm oO
Does anyone else have a problem with systemwide when changing buffer sizes in your interface ?
I do this a lot and on Windows 10 I have to restart systemwide each time I change my interfaces buffer. Pretty anoying. On Windows 7 and Reference 4.0 this didnt happen.


----------



## Pablocrespo

Yes, I had problems with systemwide changing, not buffer but rate from 48k to 44k, not sure what I did but I think it went away


----------



## Omji

I have a novice's question. Since I am travelling a lot, I have to use exclusively headphones for my mixing. I own some wonderful Beyerdynamic, but, as expected, I have the usual issue, i.e. my mixes sound wonderful in them, but rather “different” in other sound systems.

So, for me the Sonarworks plug-in is a brilliant concept.

And, of course, when I inserted it in my mixes, it was rather frustrating...it all sounds much more dull, lifeless and ‘amateur’.

Now, my question is this: if I insert a nice EQ in my master channel and try to recreate the same sound that was originally on my headphones (without the Sonarworks flattening) – will that work, or is it just some cheap trickery? Or should I rather reset the whole mix, maybe start from scratch?

And to go one step further…if I find that magical EQ setting, can I simply apply it to the master channel of all my mixes, even without using Sonarworks, and have my mix sound more “universally correct”?

I would highly appreciate any opinions on that matter!


----------



## aaronventure

Omji said:


> I have a novice's question. Since I am travelling a lot, I have to use exclusively headphones for my mixing. I own some wonderful Beyerdynamic, but, as expected, I have the usual issue, i.e. my mixes sound wonderful in them, but rather “different” in other sound systems.
> 
> So, for me the Sonarworks plug-in is a brilliant concept.
> 
> And, of course, when I inserted it in my mixes, it was rather frustrating...it all sounds much more dull, lifeless and ‘amateur’.
> 
> Now, my question is this: if I insert a nice EQ in my master channel and try to recreate the same sound that was originally on my headphones (without the Sonarworks flattening) – will that work, or is it just some cheap trickery? Or should I rather reset the whole mix, maybe start from scratch?
> 
> And to go one step further…if I find that magical EQ setting, can I simply apply it to the master channel of all my mixes, even without using Sonarworks, and have my mix sound more “universally correct”?
> 
> I would highly appreciate any opinions on that matter!



The very first thing you should do is start listening to some of your favorite pieces with Sonarworks, in order to re-calibrate your ears (if you want recorded orchestral music, can't really go wrong with recent JW scores as well as Jurassic Park, Schindler's list, Star Wars prequels. If you have Sonarworks Systemwide (was a separate purchase with Reference 3, included with Reference 4), it should be as easy as enabling it and simply playing the music. If not, you'll have to import the tracks into your DAW and play them there.

I would highly suggest Systemwide, though, and have every single sound go through it; films, games, music—everything. That way you'll really get accustomed to what is a flat frequency response. It might take a few days of active listening but once you get there, there's no going back :D

I have everything going through it and switch between my headphones and speakers with one click. The switch is always natural-sounding due to Sonarworks. Things do sound really weird without it, overexcited in the case of headphones, and a bit too muddy and bassy in the case of my speakers.


----------



## Divico

Omji said:


> And to go one step further…if I find that magical EQ setting, can I simply apply it to the master channel of all my mixes, even without using Sonarworks, and have my mix sound more “universally correct”?


Dont do that. Keep in mind that if someone hears your Mix through the BD you have withou correction the frequency boosts you do will sum up. A good mix should sound good on every system. Think of a compromise.



Omji said:


> Now, my question is this: if I insert a nice EQ in my master channel and try to recreate the same sound that was originally on my headphones (without the Sonarworks flattening) – will that work, or is it just some cheap trickery? Or should I rather reset the whole mix, maybe start from scratch?


Depends on what you do with your eq. If there is a problem dig into the tracks. If its overall frequency response an EQ on the master can help. Whatever you do check how your Mix translate on other systems!


----------



## Omji

aaronventure said:


> The very first thing you should do is start listening to some of your favorite pieces with Sonarworks, in order to re-calibrate your ears (if you want recorded orchestral music, can't really go wrong with recent JW scores as well as Jurassic Park, Schindler's list, Star Wars prequels. If you have Sonarworks Systemwide (was a separate purchase with Reference 3, included with Reference 4), it should be as easy as enabling it and simply playing the music. If not, you'll have to import the tracks into your DAW and play them there.
> 
> I would highly suggest Systemwide, though, and have every single sound go through it; films, games, music—everything. That way you'll really get accustomed to what is a flat frequency response. It might take a few days of active listening but once you get there, there's no going back :D
> 
> I have everything going through it and switch between my headphones and speakers with one click. The switch is always natural-sounding due to Sonarworks. Things do sound really weird without it, overexcited in the case of headphones, and a bit too muddy and bassy in the case of my speakers.



Thank you Aaron! That's a truly sound advice! Kind of scary as well, since I absolutely love the sound of my headphones, and after many years my ears are really calibrated in them. But I will certainly give it a try! Thanks a lot!!!


----------



## Omji

Divico said:


> Dont do that. Keep in mind that if someone hears your Mix through the BD you have withou correction the frequency boosts you do will sum up. A good mix should sound good on every system. Think of a compromise.
> 
> 
> Depends on what you do with your eq. If there is a problem dig into the tracks. If its overall frequency response an EQ on the master can help. Whatever you do check how your Mix translate on other systems!



Yes, of course it is like this! I just wondered, if I can work out a "wizards trick" to make it easier and quicker (and I still have some hope) ! Thank you very much!!!


----------



## Greg

Version 4 just completely blew me away! I tried everything I could to get version 3 to sound right but there was always this issue with phase cancelation or some funky business that destroyed my stereo image and took the life out of the high end. Did the exact same process with version 4 and now it sounds glorious. The low end sounds quite different too, the resonant notches just melted away and the clarity there is much different than v3.


----------



## martinjuenke

I‘d like to recommend Sonarworks as well. I calibrated both my speakers and my headphones and got rid of my low end mixing problems. One of my best investments...


----------



## dgburns

A bit late to the party. Just moved the setup and Reference 4 just made me a believer. This thing is great. Just pissed I missed the BF sale.

This is maybe the best studio investment I never made, till now.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

I agree.
I'm gonna have to re-calibrate, due to the latest 4.1 upgrade
Best purchase ever, along with my Kemper!


----------



## josephspirits

Does anybody know if Sonarworks has a history of having a Holiday sale over the coming weeks?


----------



## Andrew Goodwin

They do tend to run sales, just had one in September and last December there was one as well(seeing on my emails). Also in the version 4 they introduced the zero latency monitoring option handy for playing those VSTs!


----------



## josephspirits

Andrew Goodwin said:


> They do tend to run sales, just had one in September and last December there was one as well(seeing on my emails). Also in the version 4 they introduced the zero latency monitoring option handy for playing those VSTs!



Cool, thanks for checking your emails. I'll keep an eye out!


----------



## neblix

Sonarworks is the best investment you can make into your production.


----------

