Quick aside. I too had the issue you found with a new pair of ELAC UF5's with the tweeter being misaligned, possibly, and distorting. I was horrified while listening to a lossless piano recording two nights ago. So I called and spoke with ELAC Americas who described what can happen when the tweeter is not aligned properly and are sending replacement concentric drivers. Thanks for the Jan 2021 audioscience post about this or the distortion would've driven me crazy.
Interesting take on room correction. Became a big fan of Auro3D after learning about it more with the videos you guys have done, may be looking at changing how I do room correction now after seeing this. Keep up the great work ! It's nice to see work being done that supports/works for people with set ups that aren't just high end dedicated theater rooms.
Would be awesome to see you discuss the technical details behind this with channels like Audioholics, Grimani, Home Theater Gamer, in a livestream. Just to see different perspectives on it. It would certainly also give it some more credibility.
Home Theater Gamer has a copy of the Magic Beans app. He's been busy, but I'm sure he will get around to testing it. I've also talked with Anthony Grimani on the phone about the methods used and he seemed very interested. I hope to have him try it out sometime.
@@joentell I just mentioned in a comment above about Mathew Poe being interested but he did mention something about Anthony not yet indorsing the method, but would be nice to have both have a free limited time trial to review with no expectations .
I liked the A/B vs Dirac and the way you showed how stuff around the speaker can change the frequency response. Question tho, is each rooms transition frequency calculated or is it a base line? Keep it up man!
I watched both videos and I remain confused as to why the target curve isn't simply the desired in-room response at the listening position? I thought the applied EQ would consist of the filter parameters to get the actual frequency response (including all effects from the electronics, speakers, crossovers, and room reflections) to get as close as possible to the "target." If so, then the target is a matter of psychoacoustics and human preferences and not dependent on the room. But you say the target curve should change depending on the room reflections etc, whereas I would expect that the _correction_ curve would be the thing that adapts to the room reflections etc.
I recall on my Harman Kardon Avrs the EZset EQ calibration used 3 sets of measures, one near field, in front of every speaker (except the subs) to measure what was emited from the speakers , one at listening position were each speakers would emit the tones, to measure what was received and how the room transformed the sound❤, and the 3rd one was for bass management with a measure left of listening position and another one right of listening position. The results were quite good given it was 15 years ago and the system did manage 7.2 speakers already.
@@joentell it was AVR 630, 745 and 760, the AVR760 was named AVR 7550HD in the US AFAIK, I don’t recall the method being written in the manuals, the On screen setup menu explained how to do it.
I watched part 1, was super excited about part 2, forgot about it, until someone mentioned magic beans today! Man this is some great stuff. How does it handle speakers with bad directivity and uneven response? Like most centers will measure pretty poorly, curious how magic beans treat it. Great work!
Friend, tell me if there is an AV receiver that can calibrate the room if the speakers are connected via DTS play fi, in short, is it possible to build a cinema with Bluetooth speakers?
Great video Joe! 🙂 I still got one or the other question with the combining TrueTarget with Dirac: How will the nearfield- and in-room-response look like, if you run Magic Beans, export the target curve for Dirac and apply it within your (existing) Dirac project? Furthermore: How many measurement points have to taking for the demo Dirac project in your video? I've made the experience with Dirac, that if you take measurements from too few points, it will definetely overcorrect certain frequencies and therefore screw things up.
The more measurements positions in Dirac the better for the reasons you mentioned. Magic Beans will make custom target curves for each speaker that you will import into Dirac. You can still adjust individual points in Dirac after.
Hey, Joe. I tried doing something like this using REW and Audyssey. I created a kinda sorta Frankenstein method. My system has never sounded better and more natural. Im sure the real product is even better which is a testament to how good this method is.
My home theater 7.4.4 additionally front center surround deep bass expanded with REL T7x: This magic beans method works, it works in an incredible way. I didn't tell my friends about the new method, I just let them watch films. Everyone, without exception, was blown away by the new listening experience. Would Harry Potter have set the system?🤔😘
That's the good and bad thing about Magic Beans. Once you've gotten it setup right with True Target, all there is to do is to enjoy content. But then, there's not much to tweak...unless you decide to upgrade your gear. :-)
@@joentell This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm still working adding a few more room treatments and equipment but so far I'm extremely happy with MB calibration results. I was using MultEQ-X before MB and I loved it but MultEQ-X couldn't make my system sound as good as MB has. In addition, Joe has provided me with excellent support. Thank you! Keep up the good work.
I also think that Dirac just corrects (the average of) the room response. No windowing applied. That can lead to strange results when measuring at one position. I also think it is not the right way to make such fine corrections above Schroeder. I dont know why they not use a FDW of like 10 ms or so to correct above that. My impression was that is only using broader filters above a certain frequency. Dirac is imo on the aggressive side of corrections. An because of that there should always be used many measurement points when doing corrections above 500Hz so that this fine corrections will be smoothed out. In REW you can easily a FDW to a far field measurement. The Trinnov lets you see which correction curve applied so you can see what it is doing there. It is also taking into account a FDW and you can force it to only make broad corrections above a frequency you can chose. It would also be interesting what Audyssey does.
I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but I always assumed some of the weirdness in the Dirac MLP measurements I would take is because it’s correcting for more than just that position. Because it’s correcting for more than ONLY the MLP, there are some tradeoffs. This does make me more curious about how the Magic Beans method would sound in comparison.
The main issue I have with most auto-room correction is they only base their corrections on MLP measurements which can't be separated out from the nearfield direct response from the speakers. Our ears can do it, but a mic and software cannot. There might be a way if we used 2 mics, but that's beyond this video.
Good stuff Joe, much needed video showing comparisons with Dirac. I think the popular question now is, why do we care so much about the NF response when we listen at the MLP? Is there any science around that? Maybe you can cover in your next video.
I am planning to cover that in a follow-up video. I have it planned out that I will release these videos in a way that is digestible for most people. I mentioned in video part 1 of 2 that the nearfield direct sound arrives at our ears at MLP first, and that initial sound informs us what the sound characteristics are prior to the later reflections. At the end of this video, I mentioned that reality is our reference. That's the topic of the next video showing why NF is so important.
Hi, greetings from Germany. Is it possible to adjust the target curve? E.g i want more bass or less or a higher slope in the high frequency area? So basically as possible with Dirac, audessy etc?
You can adjust the target curves in Audyssey MultEQ-X by adding another adjustment curve or in Dirac by manually adjusting the points. In most cases, it's better to use bass and treble tone controls.
@@joentell İŞ THIS RIGHT ? Without any bass management, you get a much better sense of scale, power and precision in the bass region. The other reason is that it frees up the subwoofer to just handle that important '.1' channel on multichannel sound tracks. Free from the responsibility of bass redirection, the subwoofer also gains more head room and precision.
@@amigosdohometheater5140 I don't agree with statement at all. Unless you are using giant speakers capable of full-range output down to 20Hz, you should be using bass management. With the subs set properly, it should be a seamless blend with your main speakers and add MORE sense of scale. Any decent subwoofer should be able to handle the bass managed portion as well as the .1 LFE content.
I had an A-ha moment when watching your video. You can EQ the highs with certain accuracy but EQing the lows only changes what comes out of the speakers…it does not EQ the room!
@@upitshak The research has shown that our binaural hearing and brain address the room factor for the higher frequencies. Bass is smoothed and resonances are removed.
@joentell So if i run Dirac. I should really leave it as is with the results and not import a 6, 8, or 10 db Harman target boost over the results. Will the be really inaccurate after importing?
I can't answer that without having more measurements. It can sound better or it can make it worse. Every room is different and there are other variables. The whole point of this video series is there's no one-size-fits-all target curve. You have to go by the measurements like the MB app does.
@@joentell side note maybe worth mentioning, have you heard of issues with Dirac live, MacBook with usbC and umik1 having issues during calibration recently? Problems with the master volume and mic gain controls. Or allowing to take proper measurements or getting a prompt that phase will not be corrected do to erroneous readings. Found a few threads where there no current fix. @joentell
Below the transition region, it gets a bit more tricky. Sometimes a left speaker will have issues that the right doesn't. When using multiple subs, you can idealize the response a bit more.
Regardless of the contributions, whether and why this method works, whether someone saves $250, it's definitely a transfer of knowledge from an expert, Joe, to an enthusiast, it's me. After all these years of experimenting with REW, etc. I can say: I now have a home cinema.😀🙃
Someone can do much of this manually in REW. It's just when you have to do 11-16 speakers where it gets very tedious and there's lots of room for error. This is how I used to do it before. The app can do the same thing in under 20 minutes with no mistakes.
I am very confused! Do you believe that people are creating their room curves based off anechoic or Klippel data? Because if you believe this, I think that you are off the mark by country mile. people are making their room curves from measurements taken at the listening position, I don’t understand how taking them Nearfield helps at all. It doesn’t matter what the speaker is doing Nearfield it matters what is happening where your ears are in the listening position. You keep comparing your method to Anechoic measurements or Klipple measurements but nobody is doing this. We only use these to get an approximation of how the speakers will act in most rooms. They’re pretty accurate too. We’re not making target curves from this though.
There’s also what looks like zero treatment in that room. Reflections galore that are gonna really mess up the sound and your measurements. Doing this backward my friend….
It's ok to be confused. I believe that people mostly use generic target curves based on a poll I did recently. They are only relying on corrections based on measurements taken at the listening position. I think that is the mistake. Not relying on nearfield measurements shows limited understanding of acoustic and psychoacoustic theory. But that's understandable. Not everyone wants to read books and AES papers on the topic. That's why I created an app that just gives the correct answer. I will show in another video why nearfield is more important than you seem to think. I touch on it briefly in Part 1 of 2 of my target curve videos. We're judging my room now? I think you would be surprised to see my RT60 measurements. This is a 20x20x9ft space with lots of "diffusion" all around. 🤣
@joentell the nearfield video would be awesome. I'm a newbie and I'm still super confused even after absorbing a lot of your content. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually but some more help would be great!
@@joentell always eager to learn more so will be watching your upcoming videos. Yes, lots of quadratic diffusion going on ;) Do you have any links to papers done about the near-field measurements? I would imagine you just leave the above the Schroeder frequency alone accept for broad changes you might want to make and then eq the room dependent low end below the Schroeder and then you’re good. Find the sound you prefer to eq to that.
in most people's room(s) bass and nulls are the biggest problem to tackle. This is why measurements is great and all but fixing the bass and nulls is a whole different story.
You should have had a seminar/demonstration at 2024 MWAVE next month. A lot of industry experts will be there and it would be nice to get some secondary perspectives. I admit to being very skeptical myself. Much of what you are describing doesn’t make sense to me.
I previously offered to enter a blind comparison shootout against other room correction software where attendees would vote and the results would be made public. The idea was shot down because they thought the results towards other brands might not be satisfactory if theirs didn't come out on top. I was willing to take the chance because I believe in my product. I don't ever expect to ask again.
@@joentell doesn’t need to be a blind shootout. I can understand the hesitation by some companies. Many things can skew the results if it’s not done properly. A demonstration would have been enough, with some industry experts and knowledgeable enthusiasts in attendance. I’m curious myself, but I would need to see some validation from people in the industry/hobby that I trust before dropping that kind of money. Just saying.
Wow, two hundred and thirty 400 hundred dollars for an app that google good design, input it in Play Store for free or just charge 2030 bucks. Seriously, you're using your phone speakers? I have a high in Android and I still wouldn't trust it without buying an actual mic in a laptop. This is a ridiculous price that's price gouging, and if you really gave a s*** about your viewers, you wouldn't charge all that money. Yeah, I stopped this video as soon as I looked into your app and what it cost that is ridiculous.You know, the free apps that are probably just as good, but you wouldn't want anybody to know that because they take out of your pocket that you obviously have more money than the rest of us.That work factory jobs full time, right
I worked over 2 years developing this app, and you want it for free? I need to earn a living also! There are lots of things that I would like that are out of my budget, but I don't complain about the price, especially if it's not something I need. Do you really NEED a calibration app? No. Anyway, you claim there are free apps that do the same thing. You can go for those, but I can tell you right now they don't do the same thing. I've posted on AVS Forum how to achieve similar results using REW (free) but the trade-off is it will take hours. That's what I used to do and why I created the app in the first place. And FYI, I do care about my viewers, but I also care about feeding my family and having a roof over our heads. I've been broke before. Don't talk to me about that.
Definitely not snake oil, I purchased the software and have used it on my 13.2 SVS setup and it works as intended. This software has honestly transformed my system and this is after spending countless hours in REW and buying thousands in room acoustic’s. As a home theater enthusiast I am happy we have people in our community such as Joe that are creating useful tools.
Thank you. I appreciate you standing up for what we're doing with MB! There's nothing better than hearing from people who have used it to improve the sound of their systems. I can't wait for @SnoDawg to drop some knowledge about acoustics, psychoacoustics, and DSP. LOL.
Absolutely, MB is incredible. Im still shocked when I now hear my system compared to where it was before MB. To even have my friends and family that are not home theater enthusiasts tell me how much better it sounds is crazy to me. I can’t wait for more people to experience MB.
Did you just seriously measure in 0° for the listening position for REW? That's a no, no! Do it in 90°. You should know this and throw that data you just used out. This whole video is now null and void because of that one crucial error.
I have a feeling you might not understand why they recommend a 90° position for MLP measurements. It's relevant for single point measurements where they expect sounds coming from speakers placed in various locations and they don't want a speaker placed behind the mic to be to the rear of the mic. Even though the mic is supposed to be omni-directional, it still has a different response off-axis which is why they provide a 90° calibration profile. This is not relevant for moving mic measurements where we can just point the mic to the speaker being measured. So, please inform yourself before claiming that what I'm doing is "null and void."
@@joentell actually no you didn't. Your reason is for ht people where speaker are placed all around the room. You want to correct for all the interactions with the room hence why Dirac uses 90°. You want to see what the speakers and room are both doing. This is also how you hear with your ears. 0° is for taking part of the room out of the equation and should never be used when measuring in a main listening position. And you're supposed to be the "professional"? 🤣 You do you know that you're just an average guy like us uploading videos and giving people misinformation like many of you RUclipsrs.
@@dicmccoy you're the one providing misinformation. I have no idea where you got the idea that the 90° angle is for capturing all of the sounds and 0° does not. I've read an AES paper specifically about the off-axis angles of a calibration mic and how it affects calibration. Please, stop making things up.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
True Target by Magic Beans Audio is now available! magicbeansaudio.com
Quick aside. I too had the issue you found with a new pair of ELAC UF5's with the tweeter being misaligned, possibly, and distorting. I was horrified while listening to a lossless piano recording two nights ago. So I called and spoke with ELAC Americas who described what can happen when the tweeter is not aligned properly and are sending replacement concentric drivers. Thanks for the Jan 2021 audioscience post about this or the distortion would've driven me crazy.
Interesting take on room correction. Became a big fan of Auro3D after learning about it more with the videos you guys have done, may be looking at changing how I do room correction now after seeing this. Keep up the great work ! It's nice to see work being done that supports/works for people with set ups that aren't just high end dedicated theater rooms.
Joe this is great information. You are on the cutting edge with true target.
Would be awesome to see you discuss the technical details behind this with channels like Audioholics, Grimani, Home Theater Gamer, in a livestream. Just to see different perspectives on it. It would certainly also give it some more credibility.
Home Theater Gamer has a copy of the Magic Beans app. He's been busy, but I'm sure he will get around to testing it. I've also talked with Anthony Grimani on the phone about the methods used and he seemed very interested. I hope to have him try it out sometime.
@@joentell sounds good! All perspectives from knowledgeable people are welcome.
Good work so far Joe.
Audioholics are the biggest blowhards in the space. They get pissed whenever someone else even has an opinion - only they're allowed to do that.
@@joentell I just mentioned in a comment above about Mathew Poe being interested but he did mention something about Anthony not yet indorsing the method, but would be nice to have both have a free limited time trial to review with no expectations .
I liked the A/B vs Dirac and the way you showed how stuff around the speaker can change the frequency response.
Question tho, is each rooms transition frequency calculated or is it a base line? Keep it up man!
The transition region is different for every room and is highly dependent on room size.
I watched both videos and I remain confused as to why the target curve isn't simply the desired in-room response at the listening position? I thought the applied EQ would consist of the filter parameters to get the actual frequency response (including all effects from the electronics, speakers, crossovers, and room reflections) to get as close as possible to the "target." If so, then the target is a matter of psychoacoustics and human preferences and not dependent on the room. But you say the target curve should change depending on the room reflections etc, whereas I would expect that the _correction_ curve would be the thing that adapts to the room reflections etc.
I recall on my Harman Kardon Avrs the EZset EQ calibration used 3 sets of measures, one near field, in front of every speaker (except the subs) to measure what was emited from the speakers , one at listening position were each speakers would emit the tones, to measure what was received and how the room transformed the sound❤, and the 3rd one was for bass management with a measure left of listening position and another one right of listening position. The results were quite good given it was 15 years ago and the system did manage 7.2 speakers already.
Which AVR was it. I took a look at old manuals and I don't see the method you described.
@@joentell it was AVR 630, 745 and 760, the AVR760 was named AVR 7550HD in the US AFAIK, I don’t recall the method being written in the manuals, the On screen setup menu explained how to do it.
Good vid production.
I watched part 1, was super excited about part 2, forgot about it, until someone mentioned magic beans today! Man this is some great stuff. How does it handle speakers with bad directivity and uneven response? Like most centers will measure pretty poorly, curious how magic beans treat it. Great work!
It takes directivity into account and doesn't attempt to overboost based on certain proprietary thresholds and criteria we have set.
Friend, tell me if there is an AV receiver that can calibrate the room if the speakers are connected via DTS play fi, in short, is it possible to build a cinema with Bluetooth speakers?
Great video Joe! 🙂
I still got one or the other question with the combining TrueTarget with Dirac: How will the nearfield- and in-room-response look like, if you run Magic Beans, export the target curve for Dirac and apply it within your (existing) Dirac project?
Furthermore: How many measurement points have to taking for the demo Dirac project in your video? I've made the experience with Dirac, that if you take measurements from too few points, it will definetely overcorrect certain frequencies and therefore screw things up.
The more measurements positions in Dirac the better for the reasons you mentioned. Magic Beans will make custom target curves for each speaker that you will import into Dirac. You can still adjust individual points in Dirac after.
Hey, Joe. I tried doing something like this using REW and Audyssey. I created a kinda sorta Frankenstein method. My system has never sounded better and more natural. Im sure the real product is even better which is a testament to how good this method is.
That's awesome!
My home theater 7.4.4 additionally front center surround deep bass expanded with REL T7x: This magic beans method works, it works in an incredible way. I didn't tell my friends about the new method, I just let them watch films. Everyone, without exception, was blown away by the new listening experience. Would Harry Potter have set the system?🤔😘
That's the good and bad thing about Magic Beans. Once you've gotten it setup right with True Target, all there is to do is to enjoy content. But then, there's not much to tweak...unless you decide to upgrade your gear. :-)
@@joentell This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm still working adding a few more room treatments and equipment but so far I'm extremely happy with MB calibration results. I was using MultEQ-X before MB and I loved it but MultEQ-X couldn't make my system sound as good as MB has. In addition, Joe has provided me with excellent support. Thank you! Keep up the good work.
I also think that Dirac just corrects (the average of) the room response. No windowing applied. That can lead to strange results when measuring at one position. I also think it is not the right way to make such fine corrections above Schroeder. I dont know why they not use a FDW of like 10 ms or so to correct above that. My impression was that is only using broader filters above a certain frequency. Dirac is imo on the aggressive side of corrections. An because of that there should always be used many measurement points when doing corrections above 500Hz so that this fine corrections will be smoothed out.
In REW you can easily a FDW to a far field measurement. The Trinnov lets you see which correction curve applied so you can see what it is doing there. It is also taking into account a FDW and you can force it to only make broad corrections above a frequency you can chose. It would also be interesting what Audyssey does.
I've done comparisons using a single point Dirac measurement vs multiple positions. In some cases it made a difference and in others, not so much.
I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but I always assumed some of the weirdness in the Dirac MLP measurements I would take is because it’s correcting for more than just that position. Because it’s correcting for more than ONLY the MLP, there are some tradeoffs. This does make me more curious about how the Magic Beans method would sound in comparison.
The main issue I have with most auto-room correction is they only base their corrections on MLP measurements which can't be separated out from the nearfield direct response from the speakers. Our ears can do it, but a mic and software cannot. There might be a way if we used 2 mics, but that's beyond this video.
Good stuff Joe, much needed video showing comparisons with Dirac. I think the popular question now is, why do we care so much about the NF response when we listen at the MLP? Is there any science around that? Maybe you can cover in your next video.
I am planning to cover that in a follow-up video. I have it planned out that I will release these videos in a way that is digestible for most people.
I mentioned in video part 1 of 2 that the nearfield direct sound arrives at our ears at MLP first, and that initial sound informs us what the sound characteristics are prior to the later reflections. At the end of this video, I mentioned that reality is our reference. That's the topic of the next video showing why NF is so important.
Hi, greetings from Germany. Is it possible to adjust the target curve? E.g i want more bass or less or a higher slope in the high frequency area? So basically as possible with Dirac, audessy etc?
You can adjust the target curves in Audyssey MultEQ-X by adding another adjustment curve or in Dirac by manually adjusting the points. In most cases, it's better to use bass and treble tone controls.
Does Magic Beans "just" create target curves, or does it also create correction filters?
It's capable of doing both. It depends on what you're exporting to and what the device requires.
Hi Joe, Got a question about magic beam. So currently I have my LCR in Baffle Wall and behind the AT screen. Can I use magic beam?
Yes, you sure can. It will help restore some of the high frequencies of the speakers behind the AT screen.
@@joentell Thanks! Do I need bring out the speaker or just leave in baffle wall? Should I measure with AT screen on or take it off？
Test it as is with the screen for both the nearfield and farfield measurements
In Home Theater, do all small speakers overload the sub? How does bass management work when you use it on small?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
@@joentell İŞ THIS RIGHT ?
Without any bass management, you get a much better sense of scale, power and precision in the bass region. The other reason is that it frees up the subwoofer to just handle that important '.1' channel on multichannel sound tracks. Free from the responsibility of bass redirection, the subwoofer also gains more head room and precision.
@@amigosdohometheater5140 I don't agree with statement at all. Unless you are using giant speakers capable of full-range output down to 20Hz, you should be using bass management. With the subs set properly, it should be a seamless blend with your main speakers and add MORE sense of scale. Any decent subwoofer should be able to handle the bass managed portion as well as the .1 LFE content.
Is there a discussion thread for True Target on avsforum? I could not seem to find one which seems odd since I would have expected one by now.
Not yet. Let me know if you decide to make one and I'll try to chime in to answer questions.
I had an A-ha moment when watching your video. You can EQ the highs with certain accuracy but EQing the lows only changes what comes out of the speakers…it does not EQ the room!
We can only really EQ the sound coming from the speakers. The room doesn't have an input. ;-)
@@joentell hi, do you mean we are eq the speakers the way they are sound in a specfic room, so its does address the room factor?
@@upitshak The research has shown that our binaural hearing and brain address the room factor for the higher frequencies. Bass is smoothed and resonances are removed.
@joentell So if i run Dirac. I should really leave it as is with the results and not import a 6, 8, or 10 db Harman target boost over the results. Will the be really inaccurate after importing?
I can't answer that without having more measurements. It can sound better or it can make it worse. Every room is different and there are other variables. The whole point of this video series is there's no one-size-fits-all target curve. You have to go by the measurements like the MB app does.
@@joentell side note maybe worth mentioning, have you heard of issues with Dirac live, MacBook with usbC and umik1 having issues during calibration recently? Problems with the master volume and mic gain controls. Or allowing to take proper measurements or getting a prompt that phase will not be corrected do to erroneous readings. Found a few threads where there no current fix. @joentell
@@UnitedRedDevil13 I haven't seen that myself
So looking at the index of the speaker can it be corrected in the mid to lower frequencies at all
Below the transition region, it gets a bit more tricky. Sometimes a left speaker will have issues that the right doesn't. When using multiple subs, you can idealize the response a bit more.
@@joentell is it because left speakers are usually near a wall
Regardless of the contributions, whether and why this method works, whether someone saves $250, it's definitely a transfer of knowledge from an expert, Joe, to an enthusiast, it's me. After all these years of experimenting with REW, etc. I can say: I now have a home cinema.😀🙃
Someone can do much of this manually in REW. It's just when you have to do 11-16 speakers where it gets very tedious and there's lots of room for error. This is how I used to do it before. The app can do the same thing in under 20 minutes with no mistakes.
Holding the mic with hand while taking measurements and also moving the mic while taking the measurement? I am not too sure about that.
I am very confused! Do you believe that people are creating their room curves based off anechoic or Klippel data? Because if you believe this, I think that you are off the mark by country mile. people are making their room curves from measurements taken at the listening position, I don’t understand how taking them Nearfield helps at all. It doesn’t matter what the speaker is doing Nearfield it matters what is happening where your ears are in the listening position.
You keep comparing your method to Anechoic measurements or Klipple measurements but nobody is doing this. We only use these to get an approximation of how the speakers will act in most rooms. They’re pretty accurate too. We’re not making target curves from this though.
There’s also what looks like zero treatment in that room. Reflections galore that are gonna really mess up the sound and your measurements. Doing this backward my friend….
It's ok to be confused. I believe that people mostly use generic target curves based on a poll I did recently. They are only relying on corrections based on measurements taken at the listening position. I think that is the mistake. Not relying on nearfield measurements shows limited understanding of acoustic and psychoacoustic theory. But that's understandable. Not everyone wants to read books and AES papers on the topic. That's why I created an app that just gives the correct answer.
I will show in another video why nearfield is more important than you seem to think. I touch on it briefly in Part 1 of 2 of my target curve videos.
We're judging my room now? I think you would be surprised to see my RT60 measurements. This is a 20x20x9ft space with lots of "diffusion" all around. 🤣
@joentell the nearfield video would be awesome. I'm a newbie and I'm still super confused even after absorbing a lot of your content. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually but some more help would be great!
@@joentell always eager to learn more so will be watching your upcoming videos. Yes, lots of quadratic diffusion going on ;)
Do you have any links to papers done about the near-field measurements?
I would imagine you just leave the above the Schroeder frequency alone accept for broad changes you might want to make and then eq the room dependent low end below the Schroeder and then you’re good. Find the sound you prefer to eq to that.
in most people's room(s) bass and nulls are the biggest problem to tackle. This is why measurements is great and all but fixing the bass and nulls is a whole different story.
You should have had a seminar/demonstration at 2024 MWAVE next month. A lot of industry experts will be there and it would be nice to get some secondary perspectives. I admit to being very skeptical myself. Much of what you are describing doesn’t make sense to me.
I previously offered to enter a blind comparison shootout against other room correction software where attendees would vote and the results would be made public. The idea was shot down because they thought the results towards other brands might not be satisfactory if theirs didn't come out on top. I was willing to take the chance because I believe in my product. I don't ever expect to ask again.
@@joentell doesn’t need to be a blind shootout. I can understand the hesitation by some companies. Many things can skew the results if it’s not done properly.
A demonstration would have been enough, with some industry experts and knowledgeable enthusiasts in attendance. I’m curious myself, but I would need to see some validation from people in the industry/hobby that I trust before dropping that kind of money. Just saying.
Wow, two hundred and thirty 400 hundred dollars for an app that google good design, input it in Play Store for free or just charge 2030 bucks. Seriously, you're using your phone speakers? I have a high in Android and I still wouldn't trust it without buying an actual mic in a laptop. This is a ridiculous price that's price gouging, and if you really gave a s*** about your viewers, you wouldn't charge all that money. Yeah, I stopped this video as soon as I looked into your app and what it cost that is ridiculous.You know, the free apps that are probably just as good, but you wouldn't want anybody to know that because they take out of your pocket that you obviously have more money than the rest of us.That work factory jobs full time, right
I worked over 2 years developing this app, and you want it for free? I need to earn a living also! There are lots of things that I would like that are out of my budget, but I don't complain about the price, especially if it's not something I need. Do you really NEED a calibration app? No. Anyway, you claim there are free apps that do the same thing. You can go for those, but I can tell you right now they don't do the same thing. I've posted on AVS Forum how to achieve similar results using REW (free) but the trade-off is it will take hours. That's what I used to do and why I created the app in the first place. And FYI, I do care about my viewers, but I also care about feeding my family and having a roof over our heads. I've been broke before. Don't talk to me about that.
Snake oil
Go ahead and explain why! I'll wait.
Definitely not snake oil, I purchased the software and have used it on my 13.2 SVS setup and it works as intended. This software has honestly transformed my system and this is after spending countless hours in REW and buying thousands in room acoustic’s. As a home theater enthusiast I am happy we have people in our community such as Joe that are creating useful tools.
Thank you. I appreciate you standing up for what we're doing with MB! There's nothing better than hearing from people who have used it to improve the sound of their systems.
I can't wait for @SnoDawg to drop some knowledge about acoustics, psychoacoustics, and DSP. LOL.
Absolutely, MB is incredible. Im still shocked when I now hear my system compared to where it was before MB. To even have my friends and family that are not home theater enthusiasts tell me how much better it sounds is crazy to me. I can’t wait for more people to experience MB.
Would you care to elaborate why you think is snake oil.
Did you just seriously measure in 0° for the listening position for REW? That's a no, no! Do it in 90°. You should know this and throw that data you just used out. This whole video is now null and void because of that one crucial error.
I have a feeling you might not understand why they recommend a 90° position for MLP measurements. It's relevant for single point measurements where they expect sounds coming from speakers placed in various locations and they don't want a speaker placed behind the mic to be to the rear of the mic. Even though the mic is supposed to be omni-directional, it still has a different response off-axis which is why they provide a 90° calibration profile. This is not relevant for moving mic measurements where we can just point the mic to the speaker being measured. So, please inform yourself before claiming that what I'm doing is "null and void."
@@joentell likewise. I don't think you fully understand either. And you label yourself as a "professional". So let's agree to disagree.
@@dicmccoy I explained the reason specifically. Do you have a response to that?
@@joentell actually no you didn't. Your reason is for ht people where speaker are placed all around the room. You want to correct for all the interactions with the room hence why Dirac uses 90°. You want to see what the speakers and room are both doing. This is also how you hear with your ears. 0° is for taking part of the room out of the equation and should never be used when measuring in a main listening position. And you're supposed to be the "professional"? 🤣 You do you know that you're just an average guy like us uploading videos and giving people misinformation like many of you RUclipsrs.
@@dicmccoy you're the one providing misinformation. I have no idea where you got the idea that the 90° angle is for capturing all of the sounds and 0° does not. I've read an AES paper specifically about the off-axis angles of a calibration mic and how it affects calibration. Please, stop making things up.