RoomFit and Housecurve

[NickC9]

I have been experimenting with RoomFit and have never really obtained a good sound unless I tweaked EQ afterwards.

So my calibration process has been:
- run a sub sync first
- then run a Roomfit correction (I use BK curve)
- fine tune EQ/PEQ to your liking or to get the measured sound curve as close to the target curve as possible

Following this gives good results, but then I thought, what would happen if I then used Housecurve to run another calibration to give me what it thinks the final PEQ filter setting should be. Housecurve performs a very similar calibration to obtain PEQ filter settings (but is easier to use and see the curve responses) then I manually copied these over to the Wiim Ultra app into the Parametric EQ settings.

The resulting sound is amazing and far better than just running RoomFit and tweaking manually.

Is this accidental or is it a case of whatever works for you?

I would be interested in your views on this. Thanks in advance...

 

[hgo58]

I have been experimenting with RoomFit and have never really obtained a good sound unless I tweaked EQ afterwards.

The purpose of RoomFit is to fix room (and speaker) issues. Not to get your preferred sound profile.

So my calibration process has been:
- run a sub sync first
- then run a Roomfit correction (I use BK curve)
- fine tune EQ/PEQ to your liking or to get the measured sound curve as close to the target curve as possible

Yes. Use EQ on top of RoomFit to get your preferred sound profile.

Following this gives good results, but then I thought, what would happen if I then used Housecurve to run another calibration to give me what it thinks the final PEQ filter setting should be. Housecurve performs a very similar calibration to obtain PEQ filter settings (but is easier to use and see the curve responses) then I manually copied these over to the Wiim Ultra app into the Parametric EQ settings.

You could also copy them to a RoomFit profile. Just edit an existing one

The resulting sound is amazing and far better than just running RoomFit and tweaking manually.

RoomFit works great for me. Just have to try several different settings to find the one that fix most room issues.

 

[slartibartfast]

The purpose of RoomFit is to fix room (and speaker) issues. Not to get your preferred sound profile.

In that case why have three different target curves?

 

[hgo58]

In that case why have three different target curves?

Because the room response may be different depending on the target and several other parameters.

 

[canard]

Because the room response may be different depending on the target.

That's not the idea...
and the question asked is fair ;-)

 

[dominikz]

The target curves in RoomFit are definitely one way to change the overall sound balance.
Sound balance will also change by using stereo vs individual channel RoomFit (i.e. individual channel will have about +3dB more bass with the same target as stereo).

So just by choosing a different target curve and RoomFit type we can get up to 6 different tonal balances, with all other settings staying the same. Consequently, for sure a choice here will be largely dictated by personal preference.

Note that there's really no such thing as a single target for "accurate" or "neutral" bass level. The amount of bass in a room will depend on several factors and there are no clear standards.
Even the preference research done by NRC and Harman found that different populations prefer very different amount of bass (even if most seem to prefer the same kinds of speakers under controlled tests).

So while I personally agree with @hgo58 that RoomFit should be used to 'calibrate' the system for a smooth response and then use EQ to tune bass level to taste, it is equally valid to just select a target curve with preferred amount of bass in RoomFit from the start.

Somewhat related to this, for non-expert users I feel the number of exposed parameters in RoomFit must be very confusing.
E.g. I'm sure that people who haven't spent years studying audio science will for sure have a hard time understanding why "flat" isn't a good target for room correction in most cases.
I also find the default RoomFit parameter values are far from optimal - e.g. upper limit of RoomFit correction range is 4kHz (!) by default.

 

[hgo58]

The target curves in RoomFit are definitely one way to change the overall sound balance.
Sound balance will also change by using stereo vs individual channel RoomFit (i.e. individual channel will have about +3dB more bass with the same target as stereo).

So just by choosing a different target curve and RoomFit type we can get up to 6 different tonal balances, with all other settings staying the same. Consequently, for sure a choice here will be largely dictated by personal preference.

Note that there's really no such thing as a single target for "accurate" or "neutral" bass level. The amount of bass in a room will depend on several factors and there are no clear standards.
Even the preference research done by NRC and Harman found that different populations prefer very different amount of bass (even if most seem to prefer the same kinds of speakers under controlled tests).

So while I personally agree with @hgo58 that RoomFit should be used to 'calibrate' the system for a smooth response and then use EQ to tune bass level to taste, it is equally valid to just select a target curve with preferred amount of bass in RoomFit from the start.

Somewhat related to this, for non-expert users I feel the number of exposed parameters in RoomFit must be very confusing.
E.g. I'm sure that people who haven't spent years studying audio science will for sure have a hard time understanding why "flat" isn't a good target for room correction in most cases.
I also find the default RoomFit parameter values are far from optimal - e.g. upper limit of RoomFit correction range is 4kHz (!) by default.

I can't find a target curve that always fits what I need anyway. So I use the flat.

Then applying EQ depending on loudness and music style.

The applied EQ may change the room response a bit but it works perfectly for me.

 

[NickC9]

The target curves in RoomFit are definitely one way to change the overall sound balance.
Sound balance will also change by using stereo vs individual channel RoomFit (i.e. individual channel will have about +3dB more bass with the same target as stereo).

So just by choosing a different target curve and RoomFit type we can get up to 6 different tonal balances, with all other settings staying the same. Consequently, for sure a choice here will be largely dictated by personal preference.

Note that there's really no such thing as a single target for "accurate" or "neutral" bass level. The amount of bass in a room will depend on several factors and there are no clear standards.
Even the preference research done by NRC and Harman found that different populations prefer very different amount of bass (even if most seem to prefer the same kinds of speakers under controlled tests).

So while I personally agree with @hgo58 that RoomFit should be used to 'calibrate' the system for a smooth response and then use EQ to tune bass level to taste, it is equally valid to just select a target curve with preferred amount of bass in RoomFit from the start.

Somewhat related to this, for non-expert users I feel the number of exposed parameters in RoomFit must be very confusing.
E.g. I'm sure that people who haven't spent years studying audio science will for sure have a hard time understanding why "flat" isn't a good target for room correction in most cases.
I also find the default RoomFit parameter values are far from optimal - e.g. upper limit of RoomFit correction range is 4kHz (!) by default.

I guess I am saying that Roomfit did not do a great job of correcting for the BK target curve. So running Housecurve again to correct the correction brought the measured curve much closer to BK and it sounded great. I here they have updated Roomfit correction and made the graphs easier to read so I will experiment more

 

[dominikz]

I guess I am saying that Roomfit did not do a great job of correcting for the BK target curve. So running Housecurve again to correct the correction brought the measured curve much closer to BK and it sounded great. I here they have updated Roomfit correction and made the graphs easier to read so I will experiment more

Note that RoomFit has quite a few configurable parameters, so the correction you get can vary quite a bit depending on how you configure it. While default RoomFit parameter values are in my opinion not optimal, I find it can usually be configured to produce pretty good results (see this example).

 

[Smartplug]

I have been experimenting with RoomFit and have never really obtained a good sound unless I tweaked EQ afterwards.

So my calibration process has been:
- run a sub sync first
- then run a Roomfit correction (I use BK curve)
- fine tune EQ/PEQ to your liking or to get the measured sound curve as close to the target curve as possible

Following this gives good results, but then I thought, what would happen if I then used Housecurve to run another calibration to give me what it thinks the final PEQ filter setting should be. Housecurve performs a very similar calibration to obtain PEQ filter settings (but is easier to use and see the curve responses) then I manually copied these over to the Wiim Ultra app into the Parametric EQ settings.

The resulting sound is amazing and far better than just running RoomFit and tweaking manually.

Is this accidental or is it a case of whatever works for you?

I would be interested in your views on this. Thanks in advance...

Roomfit is not for everyone some like the result some don’t. This where personal tweaking comes into play. The moderator doesn’t find roomfit improve sound so he doesn’t use it. It’s good there’s a choice.

 

[NickC9]

Note that RoomFit has quite a few configurable parameters, so the correction you get can vary quite a bit depending on how you configure it. While default RoomFit parameter values are in my opinion not optimal, I find it can usually be configured to produce pretty good results (see this example).

Thanks for sharing, interesting

 

[Deleted member 24058]

what me personally a bit annoys has obviously sales reasons. roomfit is powerful. indeed. but to advertise it as an 'easy one-action and forget it' solution even for people with zero prior knowledge is tricky. especially for such a usp. related to the price. ref the side long elaborates from the hobby or real life engineers in this and other forums. ymmv.

 

[Smartplug]

what me personally a bit annoys has obviously sales reasons. roomfit is powerful. indeed. but to advertise it as an 'easy one-action and forget it' solution even for people with zero prior knowledge is tricky. especially for such a usp. related to the price. ref the side long elaborates from the hobby or real life engineers in this and other forums. ymmv.

I think it would be helpful if wiim give us choice when it comes to RC like the ability to purchase a license from Dirac for those who want them. Many streamer including some of the blusound has the option to purchase.

 

[dominikz]

what me personally a bit annoys has obviously sales reasons. roomfit is powerful. indeed. but to advertise it as an 'easy one-action and forget it' solution even for people with zero prior knowledge is tricky. especially for such a usp. related to the price. ref the side long elaborates from the hobby or real life engineers in this and other forums. ymmv.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, room correction in general (not just RoomFit) is still far from being plug-and-play. To advertise it as such would be misleading, IMHO.

The difficulty is in the fact that getting good results after correction relies on optimal speaker/sub placement and integration beforehand, and even correction parameters often need to be adjusted to the specific environment.

All this has a (steep) learning curve to it. But without this kind of optimization, results will be mixed - i.e. works for some, and not for others.

 

[slartibartfast]

what me personally a bit annoys has obviously sales reasons. roomfit is powerful. indeed. but to advertise it as an 'easy one-action and forget it' solution even for people with zero prior knowledge is tricky. especially for such a usp. related to the price. ref the side long elaborates from the hobby or real life engineers in this and other forums. ymmv.

Compared to REW it is easy, as long as the settings are chosen wisely and you have a decent calibrated microphone. It takes more than a couple of attempts to find the best settings and the best target curve. Some probably try it once and give up when the results aren't perfect.

 

[canard]

More than Rew, Dirac, etc.
It's the comparison with HouseCurve, a low-cost application, often considered quite relevant and mature, that needs to be pointed out...

I'm not concerned, but even though I'm well-equipped, with sound cards and measurement microphones, for using Rew... I admit that I'm following the path of Wiin and its room correction from afar... that if I were to think of trying it (even if it might seem strange because I already have Wiim "free"...) for the sake of efficiency, I'd borrow an iPhone and use HouseCurve... and if disappointed... Wiim...and if disappointed... Rew and the necessary learning for it
;-)

(the competent person behind HouseCurve is present on asr....for a constructive dialogue, or same with amazing rew !!! Or pkane for multito...nes etc...enormous skills in upstream
And quite honestly, the lack of competent "wiim" interlocutors on these complex subjects, here, on their own forum, capable of dialogue, listening, and explaining directly... dissuades me...
(even more so when I see the efforts "free" here of some to be commended... no need to name them, I imagine...)
but just my feeling...

 

[EddNog]

More than Rew, Dirac, etc.
It's the comparison with HouseCurve, a low-cost application, often considered quite relevant and mature, that needs to be pointed out...

I'm not concerned, but even though I'm well-equipped, with sound cards and measurement microphones, for using Rew... I admit that I'm following the path of Wiin and its room correction from afar... that if I were to think of trying it (even if it might seem strange because I already have Wiim "free"...) for the sake of efficiency, I'd borrow an iPhone and use HouseCurve... and if disappointed... Wiim...and if disappointed... Rew and the necessary learning for it
;-)

(the competent person behind HouseCurve is present on asr....for a constructive dialogue, or same with incredibule rew !!! (Or pkane for multitones etc)
And quite honestly, the lack of competent "wiim" interlocutors on these complex subjects, here, on their own forum, capable of dialogue, listening, and explaining directly... dissuades me...
(even more so when I see the efforts "free" here of some to be commended... no need to name them, I imagine...)
but just my feeling...

The algorithm used in REW in a way also has been somewhat legitimized by the fact that miniDSP now offers a $30 upgrade for their miniDSP units that allows it to perform a sweep and then calculate and apply a room correction filter set in an automated manner specifically utilizing REW('s algorithm). In a way this is more of an automation of a workflow than anything, but it sure saves quite a few headaches for people who are not as heavily versed in the usage of REW itself (which is actually a very complex piece of software). For $30 you get quite decent results, and it is certainly a lot cheaper than spending the $200 on full DIRAC Live license for your miniDSP.

-Ed

 

[canard]

The algorithm used in REW in a way also has been somewhat legitimized by the fact that miniDSP now offers a $30 upgrade for their miniDSP units that allows it to perform a sweep and then calculate and apply a room correction filter set in an automated manner specifically utilizing REW('s algorithm). In a way this is more of an automation of a workflow than anything, but it sure saves quite a few headaches for people who are not as heavily versed in the usage of REW itself (which is actually a very complex piece of software). For $30 you get quite decent results, and it is certainly a lot cheaper than spending the $200 on full DIRAC Live license for your miniDSP.

-Ed

rew is a fantastic free software, quite old now, still progressing, which goes well beyond its use only in correction, even its primary use... supported by extreme skills upstream...

 

[EddNog]

rew is a fantastic free software, quite old now, still progressing, which goes well beyond its use only in correction, even its primary use... supported by extreme skills upstream...

I use it regularly, but solely for time-synchronization of my speakers with my sub, as well as checking/refining system response once crossover is set.

-Ed

 

[lvhoag]

In my opinion, after using wiim ultra for a few weeks, if you want good sound, you should use room fit to measure the room's acoustics and use the graph results as a standard. Next, I set the db and Q, Gain of roomfit to default because I prioritize EQ first, I adjust the EQ until I hear the clear sound with all the bass, mid or treble frequencies that I like, then I adjust the EQ of room fit to compensate for the frequencies where the sound has not reached the purity, vividness and sparkle, and here are some of my wiim home settings to share with you to experience!