ARTICLE: What is RoomPerfect Room Correction Software?

larkone

Distinguished Member
^ Will not be as good as my beeswax coated acoustically aligned cushions.
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
IWC Dopplel said:
The performance of your system- dynamics, resolution, scale, tonal accuracy etc, etc have nothing or at least very little to do with EQ/DSP.
That is not correct, EQ/DSP can influence these things. You can also control off-axis response, shift the soundfield up/down, left right and so on. It depends on your speakers how far you can go. If your speaker is a laser beam when it comes to dispersion, no amount of EQ/DSP is going to fix that.

If you are able to spend time with toe of your speakers and they are in a reasonable position, I dont think the problem is big enough to need DSP, I agree some speaker have digital crossovers and are active but very few, 1% ? Other than some Meridian I haven't liked them either ! But DSP cant IMO improve dynamics other than avoid phase issues, wont improve tonal accuracy unless there is a significant room aberration which would be better to fix and very doable above 200 Hz, and this would remove it at source, not alter digitally. Other than boosting frequencies to highlight information no resolution by definition can be recreated, You might argue any DAC may do something akin to this, but thats not EQ/DSP. I totally get the solving (or at least improving) unsolvable problems - bass, uneven frequency responses etc. But I still feel less is more with any additional processing
 

larkone

Distinguished Member
Are your 'feelings' based on any real experience of, in this case, RoomPerfect or any other room correction system or are they just personal 'feelings'?
 

StephanG

Active Member
If you are able to spend time with toe of your speakers and they are in a reasonable position, I dont think the problem is big enough to need DSP, I agree some speaker have digital crossovers and are active but very few, 1% ?
Plenty of speakers out there with DSP and digital crossovers. They are much more common for high-end speakers (not necessarily price) and in the professional world. This isn't limited to DSP in the speaker as Merridian does it, it can also be an external box such as JBL, Wisdom and others.

But DSP cant IMO improve dynamics other than avoid phase issues, wont improve tonal accuracy unless there is a significant room aberration which would be better to fix and very doable above 200 Hz, and this would remove it at source, not alter digitally.
DSP can correct/control many things such as dialog integrity, better positioning of objects, soundstage, etc. In the end you always have to look at the whole chain. Applying DSP settings in an external box, be it in a audio processor with decoding capabilities such as Lyngdorf, Trinnov and others or additional processors in the chain, for example Lake LM44, the end result is always a combination of all filters/settings applied... from the input right up to the driver in a speaker.

And each of these parameter can influence others. Do a quick search for JBL's M2 speaker, which usually requires an external DSP. The crossover point is known, yet when people did this in the Trinnov/Storm, it turned out it's not that easy. It's the combination of many filters influencing each other that allows it to perform as expected. If you look at other options such as Alcons, which do come with a passive crossover (for some models), you still need the DSP in the Sentinel amps to make them work as intended.

I'm not saying passive speakers can't work, just that DSP can fine-tune things further and that's not just off-axis response, it can also be things like listening distance. Some speakers just work better with a certain amount of distance to the listener, some Wisdom models for example or some line sources in general.

EDIT: There's usually no such setting as "off-axis response" or "soundfield elevation" (except Meridian and maybe few others) in a DSP, you have to define filters manually, so this isn't really a end-user solution to control these parameters. Best to look at the filter replication for JBL M2 for Trinnov/Storm, lots of info there.

The idea of DSP is always tempting because it allows to build very small speakers and correct issues with a DSP that can't otherwise be corrected. Look at the small Genelec The Ones, where it's simply not possible to build a 3-way speaker of that size with such performance in such a small form factor. Or even better, look at JBL M2 highly DSPed solution and the size. You can get away without a DSP, but then, for similar performance, you end up with the size of a QSC speaker.

In addition, most manufacturers rush out their products in a "good enough" version, because marketing wants them to ship. A DSP allows to make it "perfect" later without changing parts. Other manufacturers come up with Mk2, 3, ...

Of course this all works only to a specific degree, in the end the physical hardware is the limit.
 

anjan

Active Member
I have used a few room correction solutions over the years - RoomPerfect, GLM, ARC, Dirac. My experience is:
  • RoomPerfect and GLM are easiest to use. GLM is more scalable. RoomPerfect manages bass better (GLM does not match levels). Both yield excellent results
  • Dirac was a pain to use. But I suspect that for knowledgeable people (who understand acoustics and use REW), it may deliver better results than RoomPerfect
  • ARC is simple to use and works well too. My AVR (MRX1120) doesn't have independent sub output so I don't know how good it is at bass Mx for AV units that do allow that

They're all pretty good these days
 

Rob Sinden

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
It’s always good to get user feedback but to suggest all the system are pretty good and RoomPerfect is like GLM and that Dirac may be better is completely incorrect.

I’m very glad this Forum will soon be doing in depth articles on other correction systems to shine a light on the differences between how they work and the results they produce.
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
It really would be good to have a direct comparison of systems. Putting Trinnov, Lyngdorf and Storm side by side would be great. It will be the preamp, processor and correction that would be compared but that’s fine as that’s what you’re buying
 

larkone

Distinguished Member
It really would be good to have a direct comparison of systems. Putting Trinnov, Lyngdorf and Storm side by side would be great. It will be the preamp, processor and correction that would be compared but that’s fine as that’s what you’re buying
As I mentioned before how can you compare the different systems when there is an element of manual setup in some systems - who or how do you determine they have been adjusted to best effect to give a balanced comparison?
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
As I mentioned before how can you compare the different systems when there is an element of manual setup in some systems - who or how do you determine they have been adjusted to best effect to give a balanced comparison?

this is the difficult part......but then again, reading the Lyngdorf thread it now appears people are getting different results each time they do a calibration?!?
 
Last edited:

larkone

Distinguished Member
That surely will also happen with all systems because the brain is very poor at remembering exactly what an acoustic signature sounded like last time and at that point you cannot do an blind A/B/X comparison.
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
I’ve listened to the Storm on several occasions, the Trinnov several times and the same for the Lyngdorf obviously I had the Acurus ACT4

The final decision should be made at home but as we all know this is not always easy to do I spent over 12m waiting for a Storm demo or Lyngdorf it never happened as I’m now committed to moving this will have to wait

I do however think that listening to systems in different places gives you perspective and comparisons especially if you play your own test discs

Trying to compare just the room correction and nothing else at the same time is pointless in many ways if I loved the DACS in the Trinnov the preamp circuitry and the correction in the Lyngdorf I’m not sure how I would establish that and how I would benefit

If there was a way of swapping quickly enough between the top processors after they have been set up that would provide a great comparison day which would include the benefits of the different room correction

with 2 channel it’s much easier I’ve A-B’d over 10 preamps in my existing set up and probably more DACs at home, it’s not that easy with a processor I needed to make 13 cables when I changed to the Acurus and I made another 6 when I was hoping to demo the Storm

I also believe that as you are buying three things with a processor (pre amp, DAC and DSP/correction) that’s essentially what you are and should compare

I’ve wanted a true non HDMI digital out to allow the audio run separate DACs Allowing you to upgrade this stage without binning the entire processor or paying for a crazy priced upgrade that you can’t A-B
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
That surely will also happen with all systems because the brain is very poor at remembering exactly what an acoustic signature sounded like last time and at that point you cannot do an blind A/B/X comparison.

I get identical results every time with my trinnov (you can drill down on all aspects of the calibration to confirm without even listening). Better mic will play a part no doubt.

I’m not having a dig, but the point being, if RP is that good, why does it give different results from different calibrations? I experienced the same when I had an MP50.

Im not saying they produce bad calibrations, but they should be consistent. This is where the random mic positions will give different results I’m guessing.
 
Last edited:

Rock Danger

Distinguished Member
this is the difficult part......but then again, reading the Lyngdorf thread it now appears people are getting different results each time they do a calibration?!?

Since they can't do the exact same calibration twice it is possible. This has never been a new thing, but if you follow the set up rules closely then it's not a hit or miss scenario. You will get a consistent level of correction.

I’m not having a dig, but the point being, if RP is that good, why does it give different results from different calibrations? I experienced the same when I had an MP50.

Because it has an open state. It's designed to halt at 95% as most of the work, if not all is done - you can go on to do more and it may alter the results, albeit very slightly. From all the REW measurements I did with it, the only real change came with different sub delays and speaker positions.

I've found that the perceived differences in these runs inconclusive. It's actually much more likely (where the number of measurements are the same) that it's a mere product of someone's imagination. A user recently upgraded his firmware, loaded the same calibration file and believes he has a better sound and not sure why and even acknowledges it may be in his head. The only way he could know is with very detailed before and after measurements, which he doesn't have.


Im not saying they produce bad calibrations, but they should be consistent. This is where the random mic positions will give different results I’m guessing.


Think about it like this, if they were so different and pot luck based then you'd have credible and many reports about it. @arisholm defined room knowledge percentage effects based on the white paper and as a serial tweaker has never ended up chasing his tail on a percentage based calibration, nor have I. I think it's around 8 or 9 different mic positions and I'm done, that seems to come out 97/98% in my room.


When you give someone a percentage base and part of the story, then you get a game of Room Perfect telephone which I explain in that thread, along with why humans have unreliable hearing and how their perception of audio can change in a short period of time and for an undetermined length of time.

The way 'trained' listeners or musicians / engineers work to keep things moderately consistent is they listen for certain cues in tracks and alter those cues, they don't alter a whole track in real time, it's more of a stitch together job. The actual raw recordings of the instruments will be the same when the mic positions are - this would be the pre eq state. (your room measured without correction)

If there was a way of swapping quickly enough between the top processors after they have been set up that would provide a great comparison day which would include the benefits of the different room correction

It's possible but requires a lot of patch bays - then you have people arguing about how the patch bays are affecting the audio (even tho every studio in the world uses them)

Room Perfect does indeed yield very good consistent results, there's overwhelming testimony for it, with 2ch and multi channel. I haven't come across such testimony for movies and music on this forum, which has a large sample size.

There's also the:

'well it's good if you just want to do an easy set up and it'll be good, but if you really want the best then you need to use this other room correction'

This is absolute cobblers. The end result of the system sound should be the deciding factor, not the journey. If you want to make a Lyngdorf set up more complex, just open the voicing tool. You can make substantial changes there and noodle away all day. I haven't personally yet heard any system where the amount of 'things' it had was a correlation to how good it sounded and I'm including the Accurus with PEQ only in this.

Am I interested in this comparison test?... not really. I find it easier to listen to the systems multiple times with similar source material, that's all I really need. It's not all just room correction either. It's not hard to tell the difference between my system and a Steinway Lyngdorf one, which is quite stark - so deployment must be considered too.
 
Last edited:

RickyDeg

Well-known Member
I'm hoping to get an MP-40 for testing.

Hope someone can help with an odd question 🙃

My listening area is part of an open layout towards the dining area / kitchen. Not all that unusual I suppose. Meaning there is no immediate wall behind the rear surround speakers. Both areas taken into account is of a rectangular shape where the listening area takes up about 50% of the total space.

In order to get the most out of RoomPerfect what would be the recommended procedure for the random part of the microphone placement in this particular case? Like... how far back towards the dining area / kitchen should I measure? Or should I remain with the microphone within the listening area of the speakers themselves only?

Any input is much appreciated! 🙂
 

Steve356

Distinguished Member
I'm hoping to get an MP-40 for testing.

Hope someone can help with an odd question 🙃

My listening area is part of an open layout towards the dining area / kitchen. Not all that unusual I suppose. Meaning there is no immediate wall behind the rear surround speakers. Both areas taken into account is of a rectangular shape where the listening area takes up about 50% of the total space.

In order to get the most out of RoomPerfect what would be the recommended procedure for the random part of the microphone placement in this particular case? Like... how far back towards the dining area / kitchen should I measure? Or should I remain with the microphone within the listening area of the speakers themselves only?

Any input is much appreciated! 🙂

You would be better asking this in the MP40 or main Lyngdorf thread in the Processors section.
 

Rob Sinden

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
With RoomPerfect you need to take room measurements mostly around the seating area but with the mic at different heights, firing in different directions. You should always have a clear line of site from the mic to the front speakers. Keep the mic 50cm away from walls, floor and the ceiling and all the speakers. Keep it at least 2m from the front speakers.

I have had clients measure behind their speakers and in all sorts of strange places which has led to poor results from RoomPerfect. If in doubt do a rough sketch of the room and show where the mic will be placed and I’m happy to give my suggestions.

I have never had a bad result with RoomPerfect if you follow these guidelines. If you have, something has been done incorrectly, so please get in touch.
 

Rock Danger

Distinguished Member
It's like a finely crafted soup, drank from a Pyrex measuring jug.
 

RickyDeg

Well-known Member
With RoomPerfect you need to take room measurements mostly around the seating area but with the mic at different heights, firing in different directions. You should always have a clear line of site from the mic to the front speakers. Keep the mic 50cm away from walls, floor and the ceiling and all the speakers. Keep it at least 2m from the front speakers.

I have had clients measure behind their speakers and in all sorts of strange places which has led to poor results from RoomPerfect. If in doubt do a rough sketch of the room and show where the mic will be placed and I’m happy to give my suggestions.

I have never had a bad result with RoomPerfect if you follow these guidelines. If you have, something has been done incorrectly, so please get in touch.

Thanks Rob! :clap: Your tips are appreciated. Today I read the manual all the way through and some good directions are of course given so I hope it'll be ok. I actually downloaded it weeks ago but forgot about it. I had gotten this weird impression that RoomPerfect wanted a complete read-out of the entire room, more or less, and since mine continues beyond the surround speakers I for some dumb reason thought this had to be taken into account on some level. I was wrong.

Having a small and pretty narrow listening space does somewhat limit the microphone placements when being recommended to keep a certain distance from each speaker yet at the same time also keep a preferred distance between each measuring point. I'll see how I get on once I get the MP-40 home.

I'll gladly pop back later with more details (incl a drawing and photo of the room) :)
 

Russ_64

Well-known Member
Question for all you learned people here, I have been reading up in this and the Audyssey thread and I am confused! I use RP on 2170 for Front L&R and Sub. Should I turn Audyssey off on the SR7013 (it does Center, Surrounds and Atmos speakers) or just select L/R Bypass option? Do the two EQ systems play nice together or can they conflict?
 

larkone

Distinguished Member
Question for all you learned people here, I have been reading up in this and the Audyssey thread and I am confused! I use RP on 2170 for Front L&R and Sub. Should I turn Audyssey off on the SR7013 (it does Center, Surrounds and Atmos speakers) or just select L/R Bypass option? Do the two EQ systems play nice together or can they conflict?
What are your ears telling you?
 

Russ_64

Well-known Member
I will be doing the "what are your ears telling you" test on weekend. Just trying to figure out the best way (if there is one).

I have seen some that say:
  • Marantz pre-outs are all hot so no need to change Amp Assign / Fronts set to Large and No Sub.
  • Change Amp Assign to 11.1 and set Pre-outs to Fronts (turns off internal amps / reassigns them to heights)
  • Set Audyssey to L/R Bypass (it is already set as No Sub)
  • Turn off Audyssey (as it can cause phase issues with RP already active for Fronts and Sub).

I am curently doing the first option but will be testing the others to see what sounds right.
 

Rob Sinden

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
Fix Your HiFi’s Imaging with RoomPerfect

I had a comment yesterday about a client who was new to RoomPerfect and surprised amazed how it had transformed the imaging of his stereo.

If you measure as accurately as possible (ideally with a laser guide) from you main listening position to each speaker, most people will see they are a slightly different distance from you which will ruin the imaging of your system.

We are incredibly good at detecting tiny differences in arrival time and volume level because it’s how we detect where a sound is coming from. Unless these differences are corrected you won’t get the correct balance and imaging from your system.

When you run RoomPerfect, it will correct this.

If you want to know just how incredible your hearing is to the tiniest difference in arrival time, check this out from a real audio expert Can You Hear 1/10,000th of a Second? - YouTube
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung TV Launch & QN95A Neo QLED Review, plus Film & TV news & Reviews
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Tidal streaming service acquired by Twitter/Square's Jack Dorsey
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix adds support for reduced theatrical release window
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Paradigm launches Founder speaker series
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 3rd March 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Music revenue in U.S. sees vinyl sales overtake CD
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom