Gear / Technical Help > Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity

Studio Monitor Measurement, Correction, and Test Tracks

(1/2) > >>

voltronic:
While my recording setup has undergone many upgrades over the past 10 years or so, I am still using the same old KRK Rokit 5 G2 monitors. I finally realized that these monitors are holding me back in post work. After reading many reviews, I now have a pair of Kali IN-5 arriving next week which should be a major upgrade.

While researching monitor recommendations on Audio Science Review, I also realized I had never tried doing any measurement and correction of my monitoring setup. I use the Audyssey room correction in my home theater receiver, so why not do this for my monitoring setup? I came across this fantastic list of resources, and started learning what to do.

First, I needed a calibrated measurement mic, so I bought a Dayton EMM-6 Measurement Microphone - You download calibration files for each individual mic, to be used during measurement. Note that they have a USB version if you don't have an interface. Many people also like the MiniDSP UMIK-1 for this.

I went by Julian Krause's video on how to use Room EQ Wizard to measure and generate correction files, and Equalizer APO to apply the correction. Be advised, there is a bit of a learning curve on this (heh) but after you have REW initially setup and you're used to the procedure, future measurements become easy. FYI, there are many other tutorials out there for these two pieces of software, but Julian's video is by far the most straightforward. I used Julian's modified-Harman house curve when generating correction.

The last piece of software I added was EACS, which lets you quickly toggle between different correction files using the Windows system tray. This is especially convenient when switching between listening on speakers and headphones. (For correcting my headphones, I use the EQ presets generated by Oratory1990, available in EAPO format here.)

Results: A definite improvement in overall clarity, especially a reduction of a mid-bass hump in my room. Next up, the new monitors!

//

The last step is to make some test recordings using a slate of test tracks played through the setup before and after correction. I made two compilations of about 15 minutes each: One "classical" and the other pop styles. You can find those compilations here, as well as my test recordings made with the KRK monitors. I'll upload recordings of the Kali IN-5 after they are done. Note that the test recordings are in version "stacks". After you start playing, click on the V1/V2 icon on the right to A/B between the different versions.

Gutbucket:
Following.

Been intending to pick up some new monitors to get back to mixing and will run correction for them once I do.  Will be curious to hear your thoughts about the IN-5 and about your measurement and correction process.

voltronic:

--- Quote from: Gutbucket on February 26, 2024, 10:21:55 AM ---Following.

Been intending to pick up some new monitors to get back to mixing and will run correction for them once I do.  Will be curious to hear your thoughts about the IN-5 and about your measurement and correction process.

--- End quote ---

You might be interested in the first link. Erin does very thorough scientific measurements. The only person out there I know of who is as through as him is Amir, the mod of ASR.

There was a bit of a debate on ASR as to if I should purchase the IN-5 or IN-8v2, with their specs and performance being so close. Long story short: The IN-8 has lower THD in the bass due to its larger woofer (as expected). Other than that, its bass response is 2 Hz lower and max SPL 2 dB higher. That's not enough difference to spend an additional $100, IMO.

Also, the measured on-axis response of the IN-5 is smoother, and it does not have the cabinet resonance measured in the IN-8.

The other thing that made me want to buy either of these is the reported low self-noise. That's one of my biggest distractions with my current monitors.

fireonshakedwnstreet:
Great stuff. Oratory1990's curves are extremely helpful.

Gutbucket:

--- Quote from: voltronic on February 26, 2024, 07:22:21 PM ---You might be interested in the first link. Erin does very thorough scientific measurements.
--- End quote ---

Yes, I've come across him, his measurements and reviews in the past and like his approach.

Thanks for that second link to the fantastic list of resources.  Good stuff there.


--- Quote ---There was a bit of a debate on ASR as to if I should purchase the IN-5 or IN-8v2, with their specs and performance being so close. Long story short: The IN-8 has lower THD in the bass due to its larger woofer (as expected). Other than that, its bass response is 2 Hz lower and max SPL 2 dB higher. That's not enough difference to spend an additional $100, IMO.

Also, the measured on-axis response of the IN-5 is smoother, and it does not have the cabinet resonance measured in the IN-8.

The other thing that made me want to buy either of these is the reported low self-noise. That's one of my biggest distractions with my current monitors.
--- End quote ---

Thanks.  Haven't really looked specifically at monitors since at least a year or so back.  Was mostly looking into the smaller Neumann monitors at that point, plus a sub, eventually two. An integrated correction system would be best for me since I will likely move the monitoring setup between different locations, making a streamlined calibration process a significant benefit. I didn't jump in at the time because stereo subwoofers were not yet supported by Neumann, although I believe they might be now, and I'm carefully thinking ahead to keep the door open to expansion from two channels back to a multichannel playback system again at some point.. although of course my own twist on it which is somewhat different than a typical cinema-centric monitoring system (in which lateral differential bass is an important feature, hence the need for "stereo" subs if I'm using relatively small monitors)

Would love to go Genelec, partly because their system control software seems to be the most robust, well developed and is already currently capable of supporting what I eventually would like to do, but that gets even more costly.

Working the puzzle..

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page