# Examples of good full range measurements



## Gusss (Feb 7, 2015)

Could anyone post some examples of full range measurements of good rooms (frequency response and waterfall) maybe with 1/6 th smoothing just so we have an idea of what to aim for. Thanks.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Here are a couple of examples from Talley’s thread. I’ve also included one smoothed at 1/3-octave, which I think gives a better representation of what response actually sounds like.

Here’s another good thread about full-range response and EQ:

Spridle’s Experiment

I wouldn’t be too concerned about waterfalls. They’re only good below ~300 Hz to show low frequency decay times. There isn’t much you can do about low frequency ringing anyway, unless you intend to install lots of bass traps.
















​
Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Gusss (Feb 7, 2015)

Wow thanks - thats almost plus or minus 3db - very impressive in fact stupendous and way better than many mastering studios . This is obviously one of the best - any more that are that are merely good within the reach of mere mortals ? I am treating a studio so I have lots of absorption, bass traps , reflection points etc . I have a very low decay time but I quite like the room reasonably dead for mixing.I think the best I had was +/- 4 db but then you move something to correct one speaker and then it cocks the other one up ! It's an OCD sufferers nightmare  I realise hifi listening is a different application to pro audio but actually listening tests have shown people prefer a flat response and its increasingly popular in studio design now (it used to be a roll off). My mixes translate pretty well so thats the main thing. The computers offline in my studio but when I get round to it Ill post my studio graphs and face the music  I did post a similar thing at gearslutz without much response so far so I though I'd try here ....


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Gusss said:


> Wow thanks - thats almost plus or minus 3db - very impressive in fact stupendous and way better than many mastering studios . This is obviously one of the best - any more that are that are merely good within the reach of mere mortals ? I am treating a studio so I have lots of absorption, bass traps , reflection points etc . I have a very low decay time but I quite like the room reasonably dead for mixing.I think the best I had was +/- 4 db but then you move something to correct one speaker and then it cocks the other one up ! It's an OCD sufferers nightmare  I realise hifi listening is a different application to pro audio but actually listening tests have shown people prefer a flat response and its increasingly popular in studio design now (it used to be a roll off). My mixes translate pretty well so thats the main thing. The computers offline in my studio but when I get round to it Ill post my studio graphs and face the music  I did post a similar thing at gearslutz without much response so far so I though I'd try here ....


Realizing that a studio is a bit more critical than a home listening room, I totally agree with Wayne P.'s philosophy that a system / room can measure flat and sound not-so-good. I encourage you to drop the ambitious "-" numbers from your flatness goals, for narrower dips and especially for notches. You will chase them forever with little or no audible gain. Look at your curves with different smoothing amounts, using the C-S-number shortcut keys for quick changes. If your curve is flat +/- 1 to 2 dB with 1-oct smoothing, flat +3/-3 with 1/3-oct smoothing for broader tendencies and +3/-6 for little jigs and jogs, flat +4/-5 with 1/6-oct smoothing for broader tendencies and +6/-10 for narrow bumps and notches --- you will be in fantastic shape. You can get better than that for sure, but imaging and soundstage often suffer.


----------



## Gusss (Feb 7, 2015)

AudiocRaver said:


> Realizing that a studio is a bit more critical than a home listening room, I totally agree with Wayne P.'s philosophy that a system / room can measure flat and sound not-so-good. I encourage you to drop the ambitious "-" numbers from your flatness goals, for narrower dips and especially for notches. You will chase them foreve
> 
> r with little or no audible gain. Look at your curves with different smoothing amounts, using the C-S-number shortcut keys for quick changes. If your curve is flat +/- 1 to 2 dB with 1-oct smoothing, flat +3/-3 with 1/3-oct smoothing for broader tendencies and +3/-6 for little jigs and jogs, flat +4/-5 with 1/6-oct smoothing for broader tendencies and +6/-10 for narrow bumps and notches --- you will be in fantastic shape. You can get better than that for sure, but imaging and soundstage often suffer.



Great info thanks. Only yesterday I was reading that what we hear us actually an interpolation of the peaks . That would be a pretty useful feature of rew actually - a kind of "what you actually perceive" line though obviously it would vary from ear to ear. So not just flat buy clear -anything else apart from the decay time of the frequency bands I should be looking at (watrrfall) ?


----------



## Audionut11 (Sep 23, 2013)

Jim over at GearSlutz has a very nice room.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/817205-my-listening-room.html


----------

