Can someone usinf beta tell me how it initially handled any previous PEQ settings you had? I currently have a very good curve using the current four available, when the six additional are added, does it retain those previous saved settings, or is it a start from scratch type update? I ask because in the past WiiM has been good about retaining settings, but they need to be because they typically add these new features without recourse. I may want to continue to tweak, but not fully re-plow already good plowed ground. Thanks.
Can someone usinf beta tell me how it initially handled any previous PEQ settings you had? I currently have a very good curve using the current four available, when the six additional are added, does it retain those previous saved settings, or is it a start from scratch type update? I ask because in the past WiiM has been good about retaining settings, but they need to be because they typically add these new features without recourse. I may want to continue to tweak, but not fully re-plow already good plowed ground. Thanks.
Mainly based in the works of Floyd E. Toole and Sean Olive, it has been found that a flat frequency response measured in a typical listening room is not perceived as natural and preferable. At the same time, a speaker that measures flat in an anechoic chamber will usually show the preferred response (slightly elevated bass and a slight downwards slope to the absolute highs), anyway.
PS:
This was "Toole in a quarter nutshell". Better look up his work incase you are interested.
And I’d still try to correct ‘naturally’ as much as possible first, so as to minimise the use of EQ.
And yes, I’d rather be pulling down peaks rather than filling in dips with EQ, especially as the latter may simply not work if it’s a room cancellation node.
Mainly based in the works of Floyd E. Toole and Sean Olive, it has been found that a flat frequency response measured in a typical listening room is not perceived as natural and preferable. At the same time, a speaker that measures flat in an anechoic chamber will usually show the preferred response (slightly elevated bass and a slight downwards slope to the absolute highs), anyway.
PS:
This was "Toole in a quarter nutshell". Better look up his work incase you are interested.
Can someone usinf beta tell me how it initially handled any previous PEQ settings you had? I currently have a very good curve using the current four available, when the six additional are added, does it retain those previous saved settings, or is it a start from scratch type update? I ask because in the past WiiM has been good about retaining settings, but they need to be because they typically add these new features without recourse. I may want to continue to tweak, but not fully re-plow already good plowed ground. Thanks.
Red line = new algorithm
White line = old algorithm (after rollback)
The two measurements are almost identical in peak and dip frequencies, and the only difference is the volume per frequency. What does this mean?
To me, there is nothing wrong with the iphone microphone, and it looks like the WiiM is not properly handling the data it receives from the microphone. Also, based on the 1kHz area, it seems that the error occurs as you go outward.
By the way, this is just curious, what kind of test sweep does a WiiM device play? Is it the same for all beta firmwares? What are the results of measuring the WiiM test sweep with other apps?
... the "Measured" transfer functions look totally off and they are totally different. I'm not talking about the "Predicted" transfer function, which is just calculated.
If these assumptions are wrong, someone please enlighten me.
I’m not sure if this is the way things happen with the RC or not, and I can’t get to test this just now, but turning on the RC turns on the EQ. If you turn off the EQ it turns off the RC. So, when you do the RC the EQ is on. Do the sweeps then use the EQ that is in place or does it bypass the EQ? If they go through the EQ then you will have to have a flat EQ selected prior to getting a valid measurement.
... the "Measured" transfer functions look totally off and they are totally different. I'm not talking about the "Predicted" transfer function, which is just calculated.
If these assumptions are wrong, someone please enlighten me.
... the "Measured" transfer functions look totally off and they are totally different. I'm not talking about the "Predicted" transfer function, which is just calculated.
If the "predicted" graph after the correction process, and the "measured" graph after EQ changes are applied, are totally different, then the correction process is definitely broken. For sure
If the "predicted" graph after the correction process, and the "measured" graph after EQ changes are applied, are totally different, then the correction process is definitely broken. For sure
To be honest the corrected wiim response looks logical but again it should not correct so aggressively in order for the curve to lie exactly on the downward line. On the other hand the measured is not looking good at all. I don't know if it is your system-speakers and/or the placement or even the measurement of wiim. I have noticed that wiim makes the measurment at higher amplitude than housecurve. You have to search for the predicted in room response of your speakers and compare it to your measurement. If it is vastly different it is your space or/and wrong measurement if it matches then it is your speakers... but you should compare at the same scale.
My measurements with the sub off. Different picture, no? Not sure what that tells me, though. Will need to dig out a longer cable if I am to experiment with sub placement.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.