# NeptuneEQ result graphs



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

I have been very pleased by the results that I have obtained with the NeptuneEQ. The sound quality improvement in my room has been anything but subtle. I have been changing my equipment as well as treating my room since I received my EQ system in November. Here are my latest measurements with the EQ set at flat.

The two zipped files show the actual curves. Looking at the RT60, is my room too dampened? Under 500Hz the RT60 is quite low.


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

For comparison sake, here are the curves with the NeptuneEQ bypassed.


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

The improvements made by the NeptuneEQ include a much more "holographic" sound field. Voices appear to come from the characters on my screen instead of from the center channel below the screen. There is a pleasing richness to the sound. This has been the greatest bang for the buck that I have found in HT.


----------



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

Can you post any jpg response graphs of your measurements?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

Wayne,

I have tried to capture the image but I'm not a Windows type of guy. It took me 45 min. to get the zipped images that opened on my wife's laptop but now I can't open them on another computer. The XTZ program allows a screen dump but you can't choose the file type. Is there a way under windows external to the program running to capture the screen image? This is quite frustrating....


----------



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

You can go to our Downloads page and download an Excel workbook (see the bottom of the post), where you can plug in your values and generate a graph. If you're not using one of the Radio Shack SPL meters mentioned, you'll need to subtract the compensation adjusments below 40 Hz.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## JohnM (Apr 11, 2006)

You can capture the active window to the clipboard using Alt+print screen (key sometimes labelled Prt Sc or similar). Then open the Windows Paint application (usually in the Accessories group), paste the image there (Ctrl+V) then save it as a jpeg (File -> Save As and select the file type from the file dialog). You can also open the XTZ screen dump using Paint and save it as a JPEG that way. The image can also be resized within Paint.


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

Thanks John! Much easier way to do this. Perhaps your method should be a sticky?

1. NeptuneEQ 2. Bypassed 3. Waterfall/RT60

What do y'all think?


----------



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

Looks like Neptune did indeed make a difference. You didn't use Neptune (or graph) full range?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

The third graph displays full range. The Neptune does full range EQ. XTZ does not display full range the same way.

Thoughts on the decay waterfall?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## neptuneEQ (Dec 22, 2008)

Hi Dave,

Thank you so much for posting that data here!

You have hit on a very important topic: That of acoustic treatment vs electronic equalization. The neptuneEQ, the Audyssey and all of the others can and will make vast improvements in the sound quality of any room, vs unequalized. There is a Hollywood sound editor who is evaluating our product (against the Audyssey) for a writeup in the editor's guild magazine, and he recently (this last weekend) ran a neptuneEQ demo in a professional recording studio. The result was a bare minimum of equalization, but of course, some (and a proportional improvement in sound quality), which goes to show that even the best engineered rooms with the best loudspeakers can benefit from automatic room correction.

No electronic device can improve RT-60 times. That is entirely in the realm of acoustic treatment. Similarly, no room correction can eliminate frequency response aberrations, unless you have your walls and ceiling removed. That said, electronic room correction can mask reverberation problems by reducing the excitement in resonant bands, and acoustic treatment can improve response errors by reducing those resonances.

Your RT-60 decay times look pretty good. You have done a good job treating your room IMO. Treating the lower frequencies is much more difficult than the higher frequencies, but you don't seem to have any problem down low (in the measurement area). One nice thing about automatic room correction is that it can be added to any room at any time. If acoustic treatment is going to be performed at a later date, real improvements can be realized right away, then after treatment, the equalization can easily be repeated for optimal improvements afterward.

I'm very pleased to hear, as you have told me earlier, that your neptuneEQ has made your sound much better! I see you had a rather huge hole in your bass response's upper region which has been filled in nicely. Like my system (which had a similar problem), I imagine the sound is much more full.

It does appear that (in the measurement shown) that you have a bit of high frequency rolloff. While the goal of a good room EQ is a flat starting point, wild EQ is not desirable, so special algorithms are incorporated in the neptuneEQ to retain the natural sound of the loudspeaker. Are these direct radiating speakers, and were you on axis during that measurement?

Ken


----------



## DaveN (Oct 6, 2009)

The speakers are direct radiating but you have pointed out something that bears experimentation. I may not have my speakers toed in enough and thus my highs are rolling off. I had been working under the, perhaps false, assumption that I would get better soundstage by not toeing in too much with the center channel filling in.

When I get the time I will experiment with my L/R speaker positioning. This is where I really love the NeptuneEQ. I can adjust the speakers, re-EQ, and re-measure within 10 minutes unlike some other systems out there.


----------

