[HN Gopher] DIY Digital Room Correction with Linux
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       DIY Digital Room Correction with Linux
        
       Author : pcr910303
       Score  : 63 points
       Date   : 2022-10-02 06:35 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (th0ma5w.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (th0ma5w.github.io)
        
       | scarecrowbob wrote:
       | It's fun stuff to mess with, but one difficulty is that you can't
       | really affect time-domain issues by modifying output frequencies.
       | 
       | That is, there are likely both issues induced by the phase
       | response of the speakers themselves as well as issues introduced
       | by reflections in the room which will cause uneven frequency
       | responses in these measurements. These issues are inherent in
       | speaker systems and acoustic spaces.
       | 
       | If you have a really resonant frequency in a room, notching that
       | frequency can help, but then you're compromising that signal; a
       | more typical solution is to address reflectivity in the space.
       | 
       | And I hate to be a snob about mics, but yee, I do not like that
       | specific mic-- of the many dozens of mics I have used it's
       | memorably bad. And you don't need an expensive mic to do these
       | measurements; there are a lot of ~$60 omni-directional
       | measurement mics that work fine, as their low/mid frequency
       | response is good enough for these tasks.
       | 
       | So all in all: hooray for folks experimenting... once you start
       | playing with frequency modification, start investigating phase
       | response and modal reflections in rooms, as they are super
       | interesting.
       | 
       | Like, if you want to hear something really neat, put on a
       | recording of a 120hz sine in a very reflective room, and you can
       | walk around and hear the nulls and additions. And then you can
       | find different frequencies and start to come to terms with the
       | complexity there. Quite a fun exercise.
        
         | bob1029 wrote:
         | > It's fun stuff to mess with, but one difficulty is that you
         | can't really affect time-domain issues by modifying output
         | frequencies.
         | 
         | PEQ can take you a surprising distance. Many perceivable issues
         | can be substantially reduced by attenuating signal at
         | problematic resonant frequencies. At no point ever (IMO) should
         | PEQ be used to _boost_ the level of any frequency to make it
         | more audible.
         | 
         | FIR filters are where you can fix time-domain issues. The only
         | problem is that, depending on the amount of filtering required,
         | you may add quite a bit of latency to the signal. IIR filters
         | (e.g. for your crossovers and such) are typically much lower
         | latency approach. IIRC FIR filtering will also allow for you to
         | correct for phase issues.
         | 
         | At the end of the day, the room and its treatments are the most
         | important part of the equation. The number of LFE radiators and
         | their positions are probably #2. Everything else you can easily
         | fix in software.
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | > And I hate to be a snob about mics
         | 
         | I wonder if you just need a mic with a calibration file?
         | 
         | this one is less than $25:
         | 
         | https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00ADR2B84
         | 
         | and you can use the serial number to download a specific
         | calibration file
        
       | yamtaddle wrote:
       | The biggest problem with home theater setups with surround sound,
       | IME, is that no matter what you do most of the seats will get
       | _very_ uneven sound (typically, one or more surround speakers
       | being much louder than the others). The only fix is to have a
       | larger space so the effective  "sweet spot" covers more of your
       | seating (think: an large-aisle-width space around a 3x2 seat
       | configuration) but at that point you're looking at sacrificing a
       | mid-sized living room worth of square footage for those 6 total
       | viewing seats (and even more, if you scale up from there).
       | 
       | [EDIT] In case it's not clear, the core problem is that for some
       | seats, without a large buffer between the seating area and the
       | speakers, the nearest surround speaker will be like 5-10% as far
       | away as the farthest one. No amount of room-correction can help
       | much for _most_ of the seats in such an arrangement. All you can
       | do is use a larger space so you can put the speakers farther away
       | without changing the size of the seating area (so, add empty
       | buffer space around the seating area) so the difference in
       | relative distance between the farthest and nearest surround
       | speakers is smaller.
        
       | JohnBooty wrote:
       | It _cannot_ be understated how much better even modest /mediocre
       | speakers can sound when their in-room response is corrected via
       | DSP.
       | 
       | (This is essentially why a lot of consumer electronics sound
       | surprisingly good these days: onboard DSP is cheap and easy to
       | implement. What a blessing!)
       | 
       | Conversely, even "high end" speakers can sound bad if not dialed
       | in correctly, especially if your room is rectangular and there
       | are a lot of reflections.
        
       | m463 wrote:
       | > That seems like a reasonable thing to do, but there is a lot of
       | pseudoscience in the audio world that will get you to buy
       | platinum tipped styluses for depressing buttons on your remote.
       | 
       | I think there are a LOT of these. I wish I knew when "reasonable"
       | or "plausible" pan out.
        
         | tuatoru wrote:
         | Room EQ Wizard is your friend.
        
       | eating555 wrote:
       | Good to see the detailed write-up! Many others are just a brief
       | guide to make you buy their service or product.
        
       | edude03 wrote:
       | I've been interested in this topic recently, I hate my AVR, but
       | there isn't a better alternative. I've been hoping instead of an
       | AVR I could pipe HDMI into my PC and run DIRAC there, but I've
       | yet to find a capture card that can capture DTS/Atmos etc, so it
       | hasn't been fruitful
        
       | bob1029 wrote:
       | I used to run an outboard FIR filter for my subwoofer with
       | weights calculated (in part) using REW. I can't recall the actual
       | DSP hardware model, but it was a pretty amazing effect when you
       | toggled it on/off.
       | 
       | Today, I just have a miniDSP that does basic crossover duty. I
       | haven't bothered to do any parametric EQ or more advanced
       | filtering in my new office yet. The passive acoustic treatments
       | have done such wonders that I probably can't be now.
       | 
       | I don't really like running anything above 80Hz through digital
       | filters that I have constructed myself. I've had some success in
       | a few areas, but you can instantly tell something isn't quite
       | right with certain content.
        
         | MartijnBraam wrote:
         | I too did this exact thing with hardware instead of doing it in
         | Linux. I used an t.racks DSP 4x4 Mini to apply my REW-measured
         | room correction between my sound card and amp, also use it to
         | generate the split for my subwoofer.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-05 23:00 UTC)