Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile

    Improve Your Audio System - Tonight!

     

     

        

        Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

     

    I was inspired to use the title of this article, Improve Your Audio System - Tonight!, by a grocery store tabloid I saw many years ago. It was so preposterous that I never forgot it. The big headline on the tabloid was, “Lose Ten Pounds - Tonight!” However, the title to my article is 100% true. The vast majority of audiophiles can improve their audio systems by a large margin, tonight. On the other hand, the keys that open the gates to heaven, also open the gates to hell. Many audiophiles, myself included, should reach out to a professional, who can improve their system immensely, tonight. OK, reach out to a professional tonight, but don’t expect results tonight. 

     

    What is this improvement about which I’m taking? State of the art room correction. I can’t stress this enough. There’s room correction, and there’s state of the art room correction. Given the time and money we spend on this hobby, to squeeze even more enjoyment out of our favorite music, we should shoot for the best when it comes to room correction. The differences between good and state of the art can be humongous. 

     

    As a former hater of DSP and all room correction, I know what many members of this community are likely thinking. All the geeks remember in 1998 when Linux would be on every desktop by Y2K, and all the more traditional audiophiles remember when the latest Class D amp had finally dethroned the best Class A had to offer. Neither of those well-hyped proclamations were realistic, even if they were wholeheartedly believed by the proclaimers. As The Who said, we won’t get fooled again. I understand why we won’t soon forget these somewhat aspirational claims and why we remain skeptical about room correction. We’ve been there and done that. Or so we thought. Many of us have heard good room correction, some of us have heard bad room correction, but few of us have heard state of the art room correction, in the hands of a professional. 

     

    In fact, just today I received the April edition of the Merrill Audio Newsletter, in which Editor Alan Hyman and Mark Block wrote a section titled “Measuring my System and Room.” I like reading this newsletter, as it’s usually very different from anything I cover here on Audiophile Style. In this April letter, the author states, “One thing I don’t use REW for is room correction. There lies madness (for me). Room correction only works for low frequencies, and even there it can’t fix standing-wave suckouts. I prefer to get the setup as good as possible and then let the system do its thing.”

     

    I place absolutely zero blame on Alan and Mark for writing that incorrect statement, and believe that they truly believe it’s accurate and they are doing their best to help readers of the newsletter. For that I applaud them. They are helping people get more out of their audio systems, and not using room correction for this exercise. In fact Mark says, “Over time, I’ve learned just enough to get myself into trouble. Humility about my expertise must be practiced religiously. I limit myself to interpreting frequency responses for specific purposes: blending in subwoofers; placing the speakers in the room for best tonal balance; adjusting toe-in for better in-room response; confirming or falsifying problems I think I hear.”

     

    I’m not sure I’ve met Mark, but I like him already. The more you know, the more you know you don’t know. The more I’ve learned about room correction, the more I’ve learned I don’t know about room correction. This is why I leave it to a professional. Like Mark, I know enough to get myself in trouble, and I’ve done that a few times. It’s ugly. 

     

    State of the art room correction is nothing like its predecessors. Sure, it stands on the shoulders of that which came before it, but the results take audio systems to new heights only dreamt about by previous product designers. We are no longer limited by weak hardware, expensive FPGAs, point and click wizards, and lack of options. Today, state of the art room correction can take advantage of endless computing power, even though it isn’t needed in most cases, and measurement applications that are far more advanced than anything previously available. 

     

    Geek’s Note: This is an excerpt from my immersive audio DSP article, but the facts are valid for mono, stereo, multichannel, and immersive audio. 

     

    It starts with 65,536 tap FIR filters. This alone is well beyond the capabilities of traditional processors. As one listens to higher sample rates, the filter can be upsampled to several hundred thousand or over one million taps automatically. This ensures the frequency resolution of the FIR filter stays the same when the sample rate increases and is a distinction with a major difference.
     
    Frequency resolution = fs / N where fs is the sample rate and N is the number of filter taps.
     
    A 65,536 tap FIR filter at 48 kHz (Atmos is currently all released at 48 kHz) has a frequency resolution of 48000/65536 = 0.732 Hz. 
     
    The frequency range spans 0Hz to 24 kHz. Thinking of an FIR filter as a graphic equalizer: 24000/0.732 = 32,768 sliders for an FIR equalizer. This FIR real world example has 1000 times the frequency resolution of a 1/3 octave equalizer. In addition a rough rule of thumb is that the effective low frequency limit of the filter is to multiply the frequency resolution by 3, which is 3 x 0.732 Hz = 2.2 Hz. A 65,536 tap FIR filter running on a computer can control frequencies down to 2.2 Hz.

     

     

    I’ve spent the last several years using state of the art room correction in my two channel and twelve channel systems. I’ve also read as much as I can comprehend about the topic and sought help from experts in the field. The bottom line for me is that the technology must produce a result that I want. I don’t care if it’s really advanced, powerful, and uses a million-bit processing to make my room measure perfectly. If I can’t hear the texture of the drum head when Jimmy Cobb brushes it, can’t feel the power of Marcus Miller’s bass, or be floored by the percussive transients of a full orchestral crescendo, then DSP isn’t for me. Fortunately, because of state of the art room correction, I can hear all of this even better. My room is no longer the loudest instrument in the Miles Davis Quintet. 

     

    Surely there must be a huge cost and long lead time to obtain such state of the art room correction. Nope, it’s all available tonight, for those with the requisite skills. For everyone else like me, cut right to the chase by hiring Mitch Barnett of Accurate Sound ( @mitchco ). His bespoke service is tailored to you. Yes, your system, your room, and most importantly, your taste. Heck, if you want a few different room correction profiles, that you can enable with the click of a mouse or tap of the finger on an iPad, Mitch can easily provide that. Mitch has worked on literally hundreds of rooms, wrote a book about room correction, and offered a master class video for free. 

     

    For the ambitious among us, who already own a measurement microphone, and want to dive into taking measurements, I advise caution. When I first did this, I was bummed out by what I saw. Even though what I heard in my room didn’t sound as bad as the measurements looked, the visual sight of a frequency response mountain range with large peaks and valleys was disheartening. Plus, there was nothing I could do to make it better. Everything I tried in the free REW app made it worse. I had no idea what I was doing, and it showed. 

     

    Take a brief moment to think about the field you work in or think about the best people in the business, any business. Those people usually eat, sleep, and breathe the profession, and / or have so much experience they laugh at putting in 10,000 hours. Now, think about your audio system and the incredibly high level of performance you’re seeking. Can you see why I recommend bringing in the big guns, to obtain state of the art room correction performance? State of the art involves both technology and a professional who knows what s/he is doing. 

     

    Getting back to the raison d'etre for this article, my dream is that everyone can read it with curiosity and hope that there’s something available that will make their audio systems and music sound even better. This is absolutely NOT an article meant to drive a wedge between those with and those without room correction. Such an article serves nobody. 

     

    I believe so strongly in room correction that I can’t write about it enough. It’s based on science, its implementation is an art, it’s inexpensive, and it enables audio systems to deliver what we all want, an even better musical experience. 

     

    Reach out to a professional tonight. It’s the best money you’ll spend on HiFi this decade. 


     

     

     

     

    About the author - https://audiophile.style/about
    Author's Complete Audio System Details with Measurements - https://audiophile.style/system

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    19 minutes ago, JR_Audio said:

    Hi Chris. This is my strong opinion too. CU in Munich? All the best. Juergen

    I will absolutely be in Munich. Can’t wait to see you!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 minutes ago, firedog said:

    Couldn't agree more. Just spent a week working on my new setup. Measured and setup correction myself with Audiolense. Not bad. Definitely better than what I started with. 

     

    Then sent my measurements to Mitch Barnett at Accurate Sound.

    He looked at my measurements, saw something odd, and I measured again, getting  better measurements as a result of his expertise. He then sent me 3 filters - one each day for 3 days. The first was good, the second was better, and the third was great!

    This system is now locked in - room effects gone and the sound is clear and very alive sounding.

     

    Mitch is easy to work with and will work with you to get a result you are happy with. 

     

    The expense involved is a tiny fraction of what I spent on the hardware. It's without a doubt the best bang for the buck in audiophilia. If you aren't doing this you aren't getting all  you paid for with your system and not enjoying the music as much as you could.

     

    Your comments gave me happy goosebumps. That has been my experience exactly!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Given that I am temporarily going to be moving into a smaller room which will become my home office / music listening space, this article and others on this topic have piqued my interest as something that can help with the problems of bookshelf speakers on a desktop. My question is this. How do I get the room as good as it can get and then, how do I get the measurements?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Jason, @AudioDoctor

    Are you listening nearfield on your office desk?

    Or with a distance in your Eames lounge chair?

    Celebrate a sunny Labor Day, Tom

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, firedog said:

    Couldn't agree more. Just spent a week working on my new setup. Measured and setup correction myself with Audiolense. Not bad. Definitely better than what I started with. 

     

    Then sent my measurements to Mitch Barnett at Accurate Sound.

    He looked at my measurements, saw something odd, and I measured again, getting  better measurements as a result of his expertise. He then sent me 3 filters - one each day for 3 days. The first was good, the second was better, and the third was great!

    This system is now locked in - room effects gone and the sound is clear and very alive sounding.

     

    Mitch is easy to work with and will work with you to get a result you are happy with. 

     

    The expense involved is a tiny fraction of what I spent on the hardware. It's without a doubt the best bang for the buck in audiophilia. If you aren't doing this you aren't getting all  you paid for with your system and not enjoying the music as much as you could.

     

    Which microphone did you use?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

    Jason, @AudioDoctor

    Are you listening nearfield on your office desk?

    Or with a distance in your Eames lounge chair?

    Celebrate a sunny Labor Day, Tom

     

    It will be nearfield.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

     

    It will be nearfield.

    Fellow German Julian did a Video for this

    But you can always ask @mitchco

    😉

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You know I recently bought a $400 Sony home theater receiver that was on sale for a rather modest home theater room. The room previously sounded like junk. I was blown away at what that Sony room correction processing power brought.

     

    not only am I a purest turned believer I will take it further and say the days of Wilson speakers and stacks of DCS being required for out of this world sound are numbered.

     

    how long will it be before a modest $10,000 speaker and amp combo makes a $100,000 system completely negated due to processing? I can’t wait.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, DuckToller said:

    Which microphone did you use?

    "just" the UMK-1 from mini-DSP

    I used to have an expensive pro measurement microphone.

    It needed a preamp.

    This is USB based and much easier to use.

    I can't compare results, as I sold the expensive mic.

    But I'm very happy with the results with the inexpensive mic.

    Seems to me the key is a decent mic with an individual calibration file, and not a generic one.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, firedog said:

    "just" the UMK-1 from mini-DSP

    I used to have an expensive pro measurement microphone.

    It needed a preamp.

    This is USB based and much easier to use.

    I can't compare results, as I sold the expensive mic.

    But I'm very happy with the results with the inexpensive mic.

    Seems to me the key is a decent mic with an individual calibration file, and not a generic one.

    Oh that's good, that you like your outcome and that you achieved it with the Umik-1.

    I do my measurements with the 2nd gen Umik-1, too. Just looking for assurance 😉

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, mitchco said:

     

    I tried uBACCH and if I set up my speakers 25 inches apart and sit 6 feet back, (as per Arch's article in Part III), the soundstage is the size of my front wall. Really incredible effect.  But that is not a practical setup (for me). Moving back to an equilateral triangle, the effect is pretty much neutralized. Further disappointed by the unreasonable price tag.

    I demoed BACCH4Mac last year, but decided against keeping it past the trial period because it was expensive, complicated to set up, and required a USB signal to run through my old laptop if I wouldn’t also buy a Mac Mini. -All too much for me at the time even though the system gave a surprising soundstage improvement within a very narrow listening position. I liked the effect for most recordings very much but, like you, I am back to the classic 60 degree triangle.

     

    HAF xtalk filtering in my standard setup is more general “reduction” for a broad sweet spot where you can sit any way you want, rather than total “cancellation” within a rigid, narrow space, -unless you pay $$ Theoretica for a head-tracking system.

     

    I also use the miniDSP USB microphone.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Meridimac said:

    I demoed BACCH4Mac last year, but decided against keeping it past the trial period because it was expensive, complicated to set up, and required a USB signal to run through my old laptop if I wouldn’t also buy a Mac Mini. -All too much for me at the time even though the system gave a surprising soundstage improvement within a very narrow listening position. I liked the effect for most recordings very much but, like you, I am back to the classic 60 degree triangle.

     

    HAF xtalk filtering in my standard setup is more general “reduction” for a broad sweet spot where you can sit any way you want, rather than total “cancellation” within a rigid, narrow space, -unless you pay $$ Theoretica for a head-tracking system.

     

    I also use the miniDSP USB microphone.

     

    My issue with the BACCH software it was very specific for a very small, sweet spot, like listening to a pair of ESL 57 speakers. Get out of the zone even a small amount, it didn't sound good. Maybe that is just me. Also, the expense, as it cost more than my whole system does. 

     

    I get why people like it. Just not for me. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm really trying to keep an open mind about BACCH and crosstalk cancelation. Currently it isn't for me, but I'm really happy to hear guys like @JoeWhip, who has spent quite a bit of time with it recently, tell me they like it and think there's something there. 

     

    Options are always good. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, mitchco said:

    I am hoping to give X-talk Shaper a trial and plugin it into HLHost and shoot a video on how one can easily add plugins to Roon or Qobuz or other music sources that do not support the plugin model. Video will be for both Mac and Windows.

    If my room works well with my speakers (perhaps open floor plan, cathedral ceiling and asymmetric placement help?) and improving timbre/tone is my goal rather than increased soundstage per se, which tools/software do you recommend?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi @PYP I would recommend taking acoustic measurements of your speakers in your room at the listening position. Then by looking at the frequency response we can understand the tone/timbre of your system and what areas may need adjusting via DSP/DRC tools. 

     

    If you have a measurement mic and can follow one of the measurement procedures below, please send me the measurements and I can take a look. Thanks.

     

    12 hours ago, mitchco said:

    For two channel measurements, REW does a great job of getting the measurements. I use a slightly different method to avoid the two clock issue of trying to sync a record stream (UMIK-1 USB ADC with it's own clock) with the playback stream (DAC with its own clock). It's not just clock drift but the random start and stop times of each stream that never shall meet.

     

    The idea is to put REW in wait mode and then play a "sweep" file that is a prerecorded .wav file one plays in the music player, just like any music file. The left and right sweep files contain a start "chirp" that tells REW when to start recording. Then the 20 Hz to 20 kHz sweep plays, followed by a stop chirp, which stops REW from recording further. This approach eliminates any timing issues using 2 clocks. 

     

    I made a couple of "rough" videos on how to to this on Mac and on Windows using these sweep files. Initially, go easy on the volume until all connections are sorted and the process is repeatable. Then turn up the volume to your regular listening level and then take the left and right measurements. Send me the REW .mdat measurement file so I can evaluate your room. That's step 1. 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My system includes a Trinnov Altitude 16, which seems to offer very high quality room connection for immersive audio system (Wilson Audio Alex V and other Wilson Audio speakers, combined with D'Agastino amps).  How do you compare the sound quality for the Accurate Sound set-up versus the Trinnov Altitude 16?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 minutes ago, Wine Doctor said:

    My system includes a Trinnov Altitude 16, which seems to offer very high quality room connection for immersive audio system (Wilson Audio Alex V and other Wilson Audio speakers, combined with D'Agastino amps).  How do you compare the sound quality for the Accurate Sound set-up versus the Trinnov Altitude 16?

    Trinnov is likely the best processor for room correction but still can’t compete with state of the art solutions. I’ve recommended Trinnov to many people because it’s very easy and very good. 
     

    I know it has been discussed around here before, with some actual facts and graphs, but I can’t find it while I’m on the go at the moment. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 minutes ago, Wine Doctor said:

    My system includes a Trinnov Altitude 16, which seems to offer very high quality room connection for immersive audio system (Wilson Audio Alex V and other Wilson Audio speakers, combined with D'Agastino amps).  How do you compare the sound quality for the Accurate Sound set-up versus the Trinnov Altitude 16?

    Here’s one post. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...