dominikz
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2024
- Messages
- 742
That it might, but given that the difference in response is 1-2dB at most (and mainly above 6kHz) I expect the difference in target level should be much less than 1dB.
RoomFit Moving Mic Measurement (beta) - improvements
- Thread starter dominikz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- room correction roomfit
a dayton "cross spectrum" calibration ( your ""6khz"" down), no ?? ;-)
cal "cross" ( in rew ) ;-)
(end of cross spectrum, for those uses, general public, it was a really great offer, what a shame. :-( )
,
(on Earthworks , which normally does not provide 90-degree calibration, the drop is less pronounced but starts lower)
(The Umiks and the little Dayton USB remain great bargains suited to these uses... just be aware of their limitations depending on how you use them... ;-) )
examples to illustrate, a little, the classic situation:
cal "cross" ( in rew ) ;-)
(end of cross spectrum, for those uses, general public, it was a really great offer, what a shame. :-( )
,
(on Earthworks , which normally does not provide 90-degree calibration, the drop is less pronounced but starts lower)
(The Umiks and the little Dayton USB remain great bargains suited to these uses... just be aware of their limitations depending on how you use them... ;-) )
Attachments
Last edited:
dominikz
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2024
- Messages
- 742
Not sure I understand what you were meaning to say, but the reason for the difference in measured in-room response above 6kHz we're discussing now is not principally due to microphone calibration file, it is due to microphone orientation and the way reflections are registered by the microphone (which are not really 100% omnidirectional at all frequencies). I've explained the effect previously here.
By the way, I own two measurement microphones: a Cross-Spectrum Labs calibrated Dayton Audio EMM-6, and factory-calibrated miniDSP UMIK-1.
Their calibration files look pretty different:
But if we normalize the 90° cal file to the 0° cal file we can see the difference between the two cal files is actually identical for both mics:
This is not surprising given that the physical design of both mics is very similar, so their directional characteristic must be similar as well.
As a result, in-room measurements taken with either microphone look almost identical under the same conditions:
We should note that there are of course some take-to-take variations, especially since MMM is susceptible to environment noise (whereas sweep measurement is much less sensitive to noise - but more sensitive to placement).
So as I mentioned before, microphone orientation is not that important - it is however important to use the appropriate calibration file for the chosen microphone orientation:
- Use 0° calibration file if you point the microphone to the speakers (i.e. horizontal), and
- Use 90° calibration file if you point the microphone to the ceiling (i.e. vertical)
Of the two, vertical mic orientation (with 90° calibration file loaded) gives slightly more accurate results at the highest frequencies (compared to anechoic PIR), so if pressed that's what I'd recommend to use.
Hope this is helpful!
My point was essentially to present the calibrations of the same microphone (made quite seriously) at 0 degrees and 90 degrees...
Just to shed some light on the subject ;-)
(Under 1kHz using 0-degree calibration in 90degres use.. should be fine with omnidirectional mic)
but it wasn't addressed to you...
hihi...
;-)
Just to shed some light on the subject ;-)
(Under 1kHz using 0-degree calibration in 90degres use.. should be fine with omnidirectional mic)
but it wasn't addressed to you...
hihi...
;-)
Last edited:
slartibartfast
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2024
- Messages
- 5,534
The first sentence was addressed to him...hence the quote that follows... ;-)Who was it addressed to then? You literally quoted @dominikz
dominikz
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2024
- Messages
- 742
As expected, there's not much difference if similar configuration is used in both REW and RoomFit:
Last edited:
(off topic..
Although for my part, I am more interested in a subject (I don't use Roomfit) which was brought to my attention by an ASR member concerning DSP etc., which will certainly be clarified with our Wiim (especially if there are corrections in the bass...)
www.audiosciencereview.com
I imagine we'll have to observe it in detail on our Wiims.
;-)
)
Although for my part, I am more interested in a subject (I don't use Roomfit) which was brought to my attention by an ASR member concerning DSP etc., which will certainly be clarified with our Wiim (especially if there are corrections in the bass...)
DSP Measurements and Rising Noise Floor
In several threads related to DSP platforms I've seen requests for measurements with filters engaged. I thought it unlikely that implementing filters in a DSP would have measurable effect on noise / distortion other than the obvious change in the fundamental, however @Sokel recently mentioned...
www.audiosciencereview.com
;-)
)
Last edited:
Fletcher Munson
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2025
- Messages
- 69
So the engine behind roomfit is REW ?
dominikz
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2024
- Messages
- 742
These examples are with corrections <500Hz.
Not really on topic here, but I haven't seen any negative effect of EQ/RoomFit on N+D, here's for the WiiM Mini:(Although for my part, I am more interested in a subject (I don't use Roomfit) which was brought to my attention by an ASR member concerning DSP etc., which will certainly be clarified with our Wiim (especially if there are corrections in the bass...)
I imagine we'll have to observe it in detail on our Wiims.DSP Measurements and Rising Noise Floor
In several threads related to DSP platforms I've seen requests for measurements with filters engaged. I thought it unlikely that implementing filters in a DSP would have measurable effect on noise / distortion other than the obvious change in the fundamental, however @Sokel recently mentioned...
;-)
)
No, I doubt that.
It is just that all of these room correction tools work in a very similar way under the hood - they measure a response and then use PEQ to match the response as close as possible to a desired target.
So with similar configuration (e.g. similar correction range, target, smoothing and filter parameters) they all should produce a similar response.
REW is more powerful than RoomFit (there's much more things you can measure and configure in REW), but also more complicated to use and learn. But RoomFit allows you to get similar results in many cases, assuming appropriate configuration, while being significantly simpler to use.
slartibartfast
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2024
- Messages
- 5,534
I don't think so. He is only talking about measurements with the same microphone not the filters generated from those measurements.
Fletcher Munson
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2025
- Messages
- 69
ah ok
It seems that Wiim will now be able to focus on the "subwoofer" controls...if the mmm has become efficient
;-)
(I quickly tested it and while not entirely without impact...it does work without the disaster observed on minidsp)
Attachments
Last edited:
dominikz
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2024
- Messages
- 742
Thanks for sharing your test result. I'd say that IMD at -150dBr and TD+N at -140dBr counts as fully transparent for all practical purposes, since even the best DAC will bury the distortion components in its own noise floor.
Even the miniDSP results you shared (with N+D around -103dBr in worst case) are probably fine from audibility perspective - though I agree with you they are disappointing from an engineering standpoint.
Similar threads
- Question
- Suggestion