Roomfit results feedback

[DazST]

Hi folks,
I've been playing around with roomfit on my amp ultra and would appreciate some feedback and opinions on the two results attached.
This is a 2.1 system, and my roomfit settings were (external calibrated usb mic):
B&K target curve
Freq 20-500hz
Max gain 10db, min -12db
Max Q: 10
Non boost mode off

My room is a fairly large, open plan space with a living room opening on right to dining, kitchen etc. So stereo is in left corner with a wall (with windows, covered) all along left side, but the right side (where right main speaker is) is open to the larger space (ie no wall). Sub is placed in far left corner, with left main speaker next to it. So basically not an ideal listening room!
Anyway, the two attached screenshots are from two roomfit tests, but had quite different settings for the sub. I won't say what these were just yet as I'm keen to start with just your opinions about which of the two looks better (and if either/booth look horrible!). I'm not sure why one includes raw results and the other doesn't, sorry, but it's your thoughts on the corrected results I'm most interested in.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Wiimer]

Hi folks,
I've been playing around with roomfit on my amp ultra and would appreciate some feedback and opinions on the two results attached.
This is a 2.1 system, and my roomfit settings were (external calibrated usb mic):
B&K target curve
Freq 20-500hz
Max gain 10db, min -12db
Max Q: 10
Non boost mode off

My room is a fairly large, open plan space with a living room opening on right to dining, kitchen etc. So stereo is in left corner with a wall (with windows, covered) all along left side, but the right side (where right main speaker is) is open to the larger space (ie no wall). Sub is placed in far left corner, with left main speaker next to it. So basically not an ideal listening room!
Anyway, the two attached screenshots are from two roomfit tests, but had quite different settings for the sub. I won't say what these were just yet as I'm keen to start with just your opinions about which of the two looks better (and if either/booth look horrible!). I'm not sure why one includes raw results and the other doesn't, sorry, but it's your thoughts on the corrected results I'm most interested in.
Thanks in advance.

Hi
When RoomFit boosts frequencies between 60Hz~100Hz, it appears there may be scope for adjusting the subwoofer's phase and crossover settings. However, if you could post more detailed, members knowledgeable in this area should be able to provide appropriate advice.

 

[harkpabst]

They both look reasonably good to me.

The first one looks even better than the second one. Note that as of now (I recently proposed to change that) the scaling of the vertical axis always fully adjusts to the measured values. The first screenshot shows a horizontal resolution of maybe ~32 dB while it's ~44 dB in the second one.

OTOH, the first shot is missing the raw L and R values. This happens when you either don't enable individual channel RoomFit calibration or when you evaluate an existing RoomFit profile. As a consequence, we cannot say for sure if one channel is compensating for the other at certain frequencies.

Assuming that this is not the case, the first measurement looks extremely good to me, at least up to 500 Hz. It's impossible to tell if RoomFit can and should be used to somewhat tame the clutter between 500 Hz and 2 kHz.

 

[DazST]

Thanks guys. Both were done with individual channels, but the first screenshot was indeed an evaluation of an existing profile.
For reference, the first screenshot is with the sub crossed at 100hz, but with main speakers set to full range. The second is with a more conventional setting of 80hz cross over and mains high passed.
I thought the first looked a bit better too.
I decided to experiment with mains full because roomfit was showing a dip in mid-bass from the right channel, which I presumed was because that speaker is on the open side of the space. My standmount speakers (Q acoustics 3030i) have reasonable bass so I wondered if having them play full would help to address that (even though it's normally recommended to high pass them). They also sounded good to my ears full range.
What else do you think I could try to improve the result?

 

[harkpabst]

I think there's little left to recommend purely based on these RoomFit measurements.

In the end there are still a lot of things that these simple measures cannot tell us. Is the response still smooth when you're not exactly in the sweet spot? What would be the effect of just changing the crossover frequency as the only variable? How do the 3030i play at elevated levels high pass filtered vs. full range?

The 3030i might have good bass extension. Q Acoustics don't provide meaningful numbers, but external sources imply a near field response down to <= 70 Hz (possibly leaving out the bass reflex portion of the response?) and an in-room response that might even reach down to 30 Hz (heavily smoothed, not directly comparable between different rooms). But they are still rather small bookshelfs and the mid-woofer is playing all the way up to 2.4 kHz. In my experience speakers of this size often do benefit from high pass filtering due to less mechanical and thermal load, less saturation of iron core coils in the passive crossover, and maybe most importantly reduced cone excursion. Your average listening levels and the dynamic range of the music you hear will play a role here.

What gives you in your setup the bigger benefit? Smoothing out the bass response by running the speakers full range? Or reducing distortion by offloading bass duties to the subwoofer alone? You have to listen and decide for yourself.

 

[DazST]

Thanks mate, that's really helpful. I'll do some more experimenting and listening to see what the best possible configuration is. I'm also considering getting some bigger floorstanders instead if I find any black friday bargains (perhaps the 3050i).