KEF LS60 Room Correction Showdown: REW MMM vs. Wiim Ultra—A Data-Driven Analysis

Dako

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2024
Messages
40

1. Introduction and Background​

Room acoustics play a pivotal role in perceived audio quality in home listening environments. Of particular importance are resonant frequencies—or room modes—that commonly arise in rectangular rooms. These modes often lead to significant boosts or cuts in specific frequency bands, especially in the low-frequency region. Effective room correction aims to minimize the impact of these modal peaks and dips to provide a flatter, more accurate frequency response.

The following equipment was used:

  • Speakers: KEF LS60
  • Streamer: Wiim Ultra (with coaxial output to KEF LS60)
  • Subwoofer: KEF KF92 (crossover at 60 Hz)
  • Microphone: Umik-1 (USB measurement microphone)
The listening room is rectangular, and based on previous tests and known theoretical properties of such rooms, primary room modes appear at approximately 25 Hz and 60 Hz. In practice, a strong peak of about +8 dB occurs around 60 Hz, primarily from subwoofer excitation. Since subwoofer placement options are limited, employing parametric equalization (PEQ) or an effective room correction system is essential for reducing excessive bass buildup.


2. Methods​

2.1 Measurement Protocol (REW MMM)​

Measurements were performed using the Moving Microphone Method (MMM) in REW (Room EQ Wizard). MMM involves continuously moving the microphone within the listening area while generating test signals to capture an averaged response that accounts for spatial variations in the room. This approach is known to provide more robust correction data, particularly at lower frequencies where room modes dominate. For details on the MMM technique, see AudioScienceReview Forum reference. Smoothing VAR.

2.2 Correction Strategies​

  1. Uncorrected (Blue Curve)
    Represents the baseline measurement of the KEF LS60 and KF92 subwoofer without any equalization or room correction.
  2. REW MMM Correction (Green Curve)
    A correction filter was derived in REW, targeting frequencies below 300 Hz to address major room modes. This filter was then applied to the system to tame peaks at ~24 Hz, ~60 Hz, and between 100–200 Hz.
  3. Wiim Room Correction (Purple Curve)
    Wiim Ultra’s built-in room correction was used with an iPhone 13 as the measurement device. For testing purpose I selected a correction range of 20–20,000 Hz. This contrasts with the more typical approach of only correcting frequencies below ~300–400 Hz.

2.3 Target Curve and Subwoofer Integration​

Harman target curve was adopted, which slightly boosts low frequencies while remaining relatively flat through the midrange and treble. The subwoofer crossover was set at 60 Hz to integrate with the KEF LS60 main speakers.


3. Results and Discussion​

3.1 Uncorrected Response (Blue Curve)​

The blue curve (Figure 1) reveals substantial peaks near 24 Hz and 60 Hz, along with additional irregularities between 100 and 200 Hz. Subjectively, these peaks produce a “boomy” or “heavy” bass characteristic. The 60 Hz peak is particularly problematic, causing bass overhang and masking details in the upper bass region.
Screenshot 2025-01-04 at 15.40.53.png

3.2 REW MMM Correction (Green Curve)​

The green curve (Figure 2) demonstrates a significantly more even response below 300 Hz once corrections are applied. By attenuating the 24 Hz, 60 Hz and around 100 to 200 hz peaks, the overall bass character improves. Subjective listening confirmed a reduction in boominess and an increased sense of clarity, allowing the KEF LS60’s inherent qualities to come through.
Screenshot 2025-01-04 at 15.42.00.png

3.3 Wiim Room Correction (Purple Curve)​

The purple curve (Figure 3) shows the outcome of Wiim Ultra’s auto-correction feature. Contrary to expectation, the system boosted frequencies between 20 and 70 Hz rather than attenuating them, exacerbating the existing room modes. It also introduced noticeable changes around 1 kHz and a high-frequency lift of approximately +4 dB. Subjectively, this yielded an overly bass-heavy and excessively bright tonality, diverging considerably from standard room correction targets. It appears that Wiim’s current algorithm attempts a full-range correction but may lack sufficient resolution or measurement precision to accurately handle complex room interactions.
Screenshot 2025-01-04 at 15.43.00.png

4. Conclusions​

4.1 Effectiveness of Methods​

  • REW MMM-based Correction: Offers a more controlled low-frequency response, aligning closely with recognized best practices for room correction (targeting problematic modes below ~300 Hz).
  • Wiim Ultra Correction: Full-range correction in its current form seems suboptimal, particularly in challenging low-frequency environments. The resulting boosts and treble enhancements suggest it is neither designed nor optimized for precise sub-300 Hz corrections in typical rooms.

4.2 Recommendations​

  1. Limited Frequency Range Correction: Focus correction efforts between roughly 40 Hz and 300–400 Hz to mitigate the most problematic modes without over-processing mid and high frequencies.
  2. Refinement of Wiim Algorithm: Future firmware updates or user-selectable target curves could improve Wiim’s utility as a room correction solution. Until then, using a dedicated EQ tool (like REW-generated filters) may yield more accurate and predictable results.
  3. Verification Through Multiple Measurements: Continue using techniques such as MMM to capture representative spatial responses. This approach helps prevent over-correction or erroneous boosts in response to single-point measurements.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9238.PNG
    IMG_9238.PNG
    153.6 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_9237.PNG
    IMG_9237.PNG
    185.6 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Upvote 0
What kind of speakers are you using, and do they have Sub?

For example, if you have a small bookshelf and no Sub, the RC may tend to boost the low frequencies to an appropriate level.
I have a pair of NHT C3, Sonus Faber Lumina II, JBL and Canton. All bookshelf speaker but (some) quite powerful on bass. I always thought that trying to correct dips is a dead end road, so I would be surprised if RC was tryibg to do that.
 
I have a pair of NHT C3, Sonus Faber Lumina II, JBL and Canton. All bookshelf speaker but (some) quite powerful on bass.
Thanks for letting me know 🙂.
I always thought that trying to correct dips is a dead end road, so I would be surprised if RC was tryibg to do that.
Yes, the current RC attempts to correct uncorrectable dips. I believe manual adjustments are required.

The RC is re-measured after correction, but it might be nice to add a function that automatically readjusts based on the results of the re-measurement.

Also, I personally would like the ability to customize the target curve.
 
Thanks for trying to help, slartibartfast, but I've been through this discussion quite a few times on this forum, and I don't think it's the mic(s). Otherwise, different mics should give at least slightly different results, no?
I know when I used an iMM6 plugged into my Pixel 3A headphone socket the roll off at low frequencies caused the room correction to boost the bass far too much. So which mics did you try and how were they connected to your phone?
 
Thanks for letting me know 🙂.

Yes, the current RC attempts to correct uncorrectable dips. I believe manual adjustments are required.

The RC is re-measured after correction, but it might be nice to add a function that automatically readjusts based on the results of the re-measurement.

Also, I personally would like the ability to customize the target curve.
It would also be nice if that measurement after correction could be run at any time. Then it could be used to check the response with manually entered PEQ filters.
 
Do we know the low frequency range/rolloff f of the various telephones? It seems to me that the «funniest» RC behavior happens below 40 Hz.
With phone mics or external mics? Even with external mics like the iMM6-C the low frequency rolls off noticeably without a calibration file. Someone posted the calibration file showing the roll off.
 
I have a pair of NHT C3, Sonus Faber Lumina II, JBL and Canton. All bookshelf speaker but (some) quite powerful on bass. I always thought that trying to correct dips is a dead end road, so I would be surprised if RC was tryibg to do that.
Sure it tries to correct it! RC is not aware of your speakers. So if you say „correct from 20Hz to 400Hz“, RC measures what response it gets and tries to correct it.
If your speakers go down to e.g. 45Hz, you should not go lower with your RC settings. Keep in mind there is usually a -3dB or even -6dB „gap“…
Sometimes the room and the speaker placement itself can help to go a bit lower…
 
Thanks. Yes, a cal file is needed.
As for internal microphones I’ve never seen any measurements of the iPhone’s. This iPhone 15 sounds pretty good though:
(The trick is to have the automatic dynamic range fixed before the music starts, e.g. by applause.)
 
Faber acoustical published measurement results for the iPhone 16 Pro: click
Remains the question if something like this response curve is "baked in" in the RC software when one uses an iPhone.....
This is interesting, if WiiM RC don’t compensate for that my result is explainable and my recommendation limit the range between 40 hz to 300 hz is accurate. I’ll do some more testing this afternoon.
 
This is interesting, if WiiM RC don’t compensate for that my result is explainable and my recommendation limit the range between 40 hz to 300 hz is accurate. I’ll do some more testing this afternoon.
You can compare WiiM RC to Housecurve if you have that.
 
Do we know the low frequency range/rolloff f of the various telephones? It seems to me that the «funniest» RC behavior happens below 40 Hz.
I compared my USB UMIK-1 to an iMM6 both connected to a Pixel 3A. The UMIK-1 is the green curve, iMM6 is the red curve. I will try the iMM6 with an old Samsung S5 to compare later but the iMM6 is unusable when plugged into the headphone socket of the Pixel 3A.

imm6_vs_umik1.jpg
 
I decided to test how different room-correction methods behave when limited to the 40–300 Hz range. Specifically, I compared Wiim RC (turquoise), HouseCurve (red), and REW MMM (yellow). For reference, the blue line represents a Harman-style target curve.

  1. Wiim RC (Turquoise)
    Even with the frequency range restricted to 40–300 Hz, Wiim RC still shows a considerable boost in the bass region—at times almost 10 dB higher than the target. While it does not push quite as aggressively at the very lowest frequencies (as it did in full-range mode), the overall low-frequency level remains notably above the Harman target. This indicates that Wiim’s algorithm is still aggressively trying to “fill in” perceived dips or otherwise compensate for the measurement data, resulting in a bass response that many listeners may find excessive.
  2. HouseCurve (Red)
    The HouseCurve app, measured with an iPhone, yields a response that’s generally smoother in the sub-300 Hz range than the full-range Wiim RC. It does a decent job of pulling down prominent peaks, though some mid-bass fluctuations remain.
  3. REW MMM (Yellow)
    The MMM approach in REW continues to deliver a balanced low-frequency response. By capturing spatial averages, it tends to avoid over-corrections at single measurement points. Compared to the Harman target (blue), REW MMM is arguably the closest match of the three methods in the 40–300 Hz band.
Screenshot 2025-01-05 at 14.55.11.png

In summary, limiting correction to the 40–300 Hz range helps avoid the extreme low-end boosts seen in prior full-range measurements. However, Wiim RC is still adding significant bass—up to nearly 10 dB above the target in some areas—making the system sound bass-heavy. HouseCurve appears more conservative and user-friendly, while REW MMM maintains its reputation for precision by delivering a tight, balanced low end without large deviations.
 
I decided to test how different room-correction methods behave when limited to the 40–300 Hz range. Specifically, I compared Wiim RC (turquoise), HouseCurve (red), and REW MMM (yellow). For reference, the blue line represents a Harman-style target curve.

  1. Wiim RC (Turquoise)
    Even with the frequency range restricted to 40–300 Hz, Wiim RC still shows a considerable boost in the bass region—at times almost 10 dB higher than the target. While it does not push quite as aggressively at the very lowest frequencies (as it did in full-range mode), the overall low-frequency level remains notably above the Harman target. This indicates that Wiim’s algorithm is still aggressively trying to “fill in” perceived dips or otherwise compensate for the measurement data, resulting in a bass response that many listeners may find excessive.
  2. HouseCurve (Red)
    The HouseCurve app, measured with an iPhone, yields a response that’s generally smoother in the sub-300 Hz range than the full-range Wiim RC. It does a decent job of pulling down prominent peaks, though some mid-bass fluctuations remain.
  3. REW MMM (Yellow)
    The MMM approach in REW continues to deliver a balanced low-frequency response. By capturing spatial averages, it tends to avoid over-corrections at single measurement points. Compared to the Harman target (blue), REW MMM is arguably the closest match of the three methods in the 40–300 Hz band.
View attachment 15883

In summary, limiting correction to the 40–300 Hz range helps avoid the extreme low-end boosts seen in prior full-range measurements. However, Wiim RC is still adding significant bass—up to nearly 10 dB above the target in some areas—making the system sound bass-heavy. HouseCurve appears more conservative and user-friendly, while REW MMM maintains its reputation for precision by delivering a tight, balanced low end without large deviations.
Looks like Wiim RC doesn't have the iPhone calibration baked in. I thought it was. Any thoughts @WiiM Support @WiiM Team @RyanWithWiim ?
 
I decided to test how different room-correction methods behave when limited to the 40–300 Hz range. Specifically, I compared Wiim RC (turquoise), HouseCurve (red), and REW MMM (yellow). For reference, the blue line represents a Harman-style target curve.

  1. Wiim RC (Turquoise)
    Even with the frequency range restricted to 40–300 Hz, Wiim RC still shows a considerable boost in the bass region—at times almost 10 dB higher than the target. While it does not push quite as aggressively at the very lowest frequencies (as it did in full-range mode), the overall low-frequency level remains notably above the Harman target. This indicates that Wiim’s algorithm is still aggressively trying to “fill in” perceived dips or otherwise compensate for the measurement data, resulting in a bass response that many listeners may find excessive.
  2. HouseCurve (Red)
    The HouseCurve app, measured with an iPhone, yields a response that’s generally smoother in the sub-300 Hz range than the full-range Wiim RC. It does a decent job of pulling down prominent peaks, though some mid-bass fluctuations remain.
  3. REW MMM (Yellow)
    The MMM approach in REW continues to deliver a balanced low-frequency response. By capturing spatial averages, it tends to avoid over-corrections at single measurement points. Compared to the Harman target (blue), REW MMM is arguably the closest match of the three methods in the 40–300 Hz band.
View attachment 15883

In summary, limiting correction to the 40–300 Hz range helps avoid the extreme low-end boosts seen in prior full-range measurements. However, Wiim RC is still adding significant bass—up to nearly 10 dB above the target in some areas—making the system sound bass-heavy. HouseCurve appears more conservative and user-friendly, while REW MMM maintains its reputation for precision by delivering a tight, balanced low end without large deviations.

Was this done with iPhone mic?
I cannot confirm that this is happening in my place. Also I did not hear of this behavior before. What other factors could it be?
 
I thought you would have used the UMIK-1 as an external mic for the WiiM RC.
Same, you should not compare the two without using the same microphone 🎤 for the measurements.
Now you have an unknown parameter that affects the measurment so you can not conclude errors in wiim rc algorithm.
 
Same, you should not compare the two without using the same microphone 🎤 for the measurements.
Now you have an unknown parameter that affects the measurment so you can not conclude errors in wiim rc algorithm.
Well, I agree that using a dedicated measurement microphone is ideal. However, in this scenario I wanted to highlight potential drawbacks for the average user—who most likely doesn’t own a specialized measurement mic—of performing full-range room correction with an iPhone. As shown, it made my otherwise neutral speaker sound less neutral, which underscores why caution is necessary for casual users. In my case, I’m using an iPhone 13 with a Lightning port, so I can’t directly connect a Umik-1 without an adapter.

I don’t believe the issue is with the Wiim RC algorithm itself, but rather that it doesn’t compensate for the built-in iPhone microphone’s natural roll-off at low frequencies. In my original post, I noted:

Wiim Room Correction (Purple Curve)
Wiim Ultra’s built-in room correction was used with an iPhone 13 as the measurement device. For testing purposes, I selected a full-range correction of 20–20,000 Hz—unlike the more typical approach of correcting only up to ~300–400 Hz.
This example demonstrates how using the iPhone’s mic without a proper calibration profile can cause the software to over- or under-correct certain frequency ranges.
 
Back
Top