Hi guys,
I'm sorry if I'm asking something that maybe as been asked a million times but I search for ages and can't find a solution.
I've got a Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 (MAC OS 10.12.6) and I use it to drive a 5.1 System where a Mix a lot of stuff.
I wanted to analyze each and every one of the 5 speakers (not the LFE) with REW but can't find a way to select INPUT and OUTPUT properly on REW (latest version).
I understood is something about Java and maybe it's just impossible to find a solution.
But maybe not. So, if you could help me I'd really appreciate
REW currently doesn't offer all the channels available for systems with more than 8 channels, it is something I'm working on though. Could you use the button on the REW soundcard preferences to generate a soundcard debug file and attach it here?
I see. But I suppose your interface should still use some sort of driver that can be accessed directly instead of using java?
Never used Mac so just guessing.
I have a similar regarding a set up with a Focusrite Liquid 56 and Windows DAW. I guess I"m just not assigning things correctly in the REW software so, perhaps someone on here might be using a Liquid 56 and making it work. In preferences I choose AISO with Safire as my output and choose speakers. On the input I choose Safire and chose channel 8 for my input microphone. (yes power on)
Now for my stupid question (be kind) Do I have to use the Mix Control window for any adjustments? Do I need to open Cubase or anothere DAW and set up channels to do this test?? I know, it's a stupid question but, I've not read where anyone has talked about DAW adjustments in any of the threads I have seen!
Initially I did a loop back test channel 1 to my output and it seemed to come up with a chart.
Also, Can I use REW with my set up as a an RTA? I have used a Berhinger 8024 ultra curve for years as an external RTA but I'd like to be able to capture the screens on the RTA for various speakers
So, any suggestions on the set up will be welcomed... again, I know some of this for folks that use the software all the time this is a pretty simple question but for some reason I"m just not finding the magic path to get the testing to work. I did just purchase another Mic, I bought the Dayton Audio EMM-6 so I could get the supplied calibration curve for this program....
Yes, REW has an RTA window you can use. It is best used together with REW's Pink PN test signal rather than random pink noise, that way you will get clean responses at the low end without having to use averaging. Here are the main settings to use for the RTA:
You might need to configure your mixer to make sure there is no monitoring active, the mic signal must not get back to the outputs.
Good Morning John, Thank you for your information on the RTA, ( I had also sent you an email with some questions a few days ago) I"m still running in to set up issues with my Focusrite... I guess I'm just not setting it up correctly, It looks like I have everything else turned off and I see the only input is my Channel 8 Mic input. I have not had time to go out and retest yesterday but when I saw someone else using the Liquid 56 I thought I"d post this. I'd really like to sure the measurements I make are correct :-) If I have the time this afternoon I'm going to try it again.
Furthermore, I might just pick up one of the USB mics and buy pass my system, it would also alow me to go to other studios and run some tests with my laptop.. but as I had mentioned what would concern me is the internal noise of the notebook. I have a Dell highend notebook, and it has the Realtek audio in it so I would like to find out what thee noise floor will be but I see there is not a need to do a loop back... but is there a way to test the Notebook noise floor and bandwidth without a mic installed? If the noise floor is low and I can get accurate measurements using a USB mic then I"d find it much easier to set up and carry around with me. I am wondering which USB mic would be best for my use.
I"m very interested in running tests on my speakers as well as I bring in new speakers to test before buying another pair I want to establish what my speakers are providing me now and how accurate they are and use that agains potential new speakers...
Sorry for all the questions, I just want to get it right so I have meaningful information going forward on my set up...
They are in the controls for the RTA window, click the cog icon top right of the graph. The RTA window is launched using the button labelled RTA to the right of the middle group of buttons at the top of the REW main window.
John, thanks so much for your reply on the RTA control panel and about the Noise floor.... I"ll probably order a USB Mic to try out of the two on this site is there a advantage of one over the other... of course I want to use it straight up and at 90 degrees for the speakers...
I have only used the cal files that come from miniDSP. @Matthew J Poes has spent some time comparing measurement mics, he might have some advice to offer. There is some discussion of mics in this thread. For room acoustic work the UMIK with miniDSP cal file should be fine though.
John, thanks for that information... I've watched my room for years with my 8024 set up and the stock ECM 8000 with out dealing with a cal file..... after reading all this it will be interesting to see how much he Cal files will show with my set ups.... My Dayton Non USB mic seemed like a great buy at $50 bucks :-) A USB mic will all the portability factor to my set up for home and using it at friends studio's. Once I get all this squared away then it's on to looking and evaluating new studio monitors, that is another rats nest to get involved with... the speakers I have today I've have been in my studio for 20+ years and for most folks they sound great... but I like new things :-)
I have used and compared both CS and factory calibrations for both the Dayton Audio and MiniDSP mics. The CS calibrations were always wildly different than factory. I no longer have a umik but still have a Dayton mic. I also now have a 1/2” professional measurement mic made by a lab mic company with a NIST traceable report of its response. This mic is very similar to what CS used to calibrate mics it sells. What I have found is that the 90 degree calibrations were still quite a bit off above 15khz but for normal use they were fine. You shouldn’t be applying correction above 15khz nor is that meaningful information for room analysis. Where it became a problem for me was using it with DIRAC. That does apply correction up that high and I found it over-compensating for the mics own rolloff.
As for which mic is better, I found the various USB mics I tried to be equally inaccurate. With a correction they give you results indistinguishable from a lab grade mic. The difference is that the lab mic is quite a bit quieter. 1/2” mics are also more directional so the nice thing about consumer grade 1/4” mics is that they are easier to use. Slight changes in a mics placement can make a big difference in the response and this is far more true of 1/2” mics. Even worse for 1” but those are typically only used when measuring distortion or where ultra low noise is needed.
I would just suggest that you be careful with the 90 degree response correction. You may want to confirm the measurements yourself to be sure they look similar. My own comparisons showed some errors. And again, if all you are doing is some room acoustic analysis and eq of the bass, it’s all fine.
I think some folks are going overboard with their precision on this stuff. For most people the improved calibration of the CS mic is if little value as is the precise absolute spl level. As long as it operates reliably the relative spl is all you care about. I’ve actually had the luxury to compare a usb mic with a CS calibration against 3 different high end measurement mics at all of them had level differences from each other at low frequencies. Which one is accurate? Who knows.
John, Wow, those speakers sure look cool.. I"ll have to do some more reading on them, I see that a couple of the shops I plan to listen to speakers in carry them so I"ll have them fire them up for a listen...
Mathew, you certainly have done a lot of research on measurement mics. You hit the nail on the head on the different mics and manufacturers.. . which one is right :-) I had a friend with the Earth Mics and he used them in his room in his room tuning..
I am probably getting much deeper than I have to ... but since I started down the rabbit hole I find the deeper I go the more questions are brought up. You may have read my past posts, and how I got in to this.. I have had the Berhinger 8024 Ultra Pro RTA EQ and the ECM 8000 mic (with out calibration) I have for years used that set up to tests a variety of speakers in the control room just to see how they tested out. I had run across REW last week and I really thought it was a great tool and I downloaded it and have struggled a little in my system set up ... I also ordered the Dayton EMM -6 and downloaded the calibration file to try it out.
I thought rather than dragging out the Berhinger every time I wanted to check out either my room or one of my friends studio so, that lead me down to looking at a USB mic... and I have been having a good conversation on them with John Mulcahy and he brought up your name and research.
I am not interested in LOUD spl's, I measure, Monitor and mix at levels in the 74 to 85db A weighted. We focus on Acoustic style projects and quite a bit of Bluegrass projects.
My current speakers are the Mackie 824 (original models from about 20 years ago) and a set of Yamaha NS40 speaker that are about the same year... Like I said, I'm interested in getting another pair of speakers for the control room and I wanted to test my room and speakers as they are now before I start to bring in other speakers to test.....
Like you said all these measurements are probably over kill.. but I love the challenge!
Thanks for any suggestions and comment you might have...
There isn’t a big difference between an EMM-6 and the Behringer other than the Dayton having better QC and coming with a calibration file. The USB mic is a little simpler to use, but given your setup, I question how much easier. If I were you I would just use the EMM-6 with one of your sound interfaces.
To learn how to use REW and understand its output, share your mdat files.
I don’t want you to get me wrong. Especially with studios, I applaud someone taking measurements. It should be a requirement. My issue is when people apply lab levels of precision to basic room measurements. The absolute accuracy of the mic or its spl level is probably not that critical.
Those monitors that John suggested are way cool. They use cardioid bass to create controlled dispersion down to a much lower frequency than is possible or an 8” driver. Normally such a speaker couldn’t do much below 800hz. With a a cardioid radiation patter the dispersion can be controlled down to the lower limits of the driver. They are also a pretty good value for the money.
I haven’t heard those but their measurements are outstanding. I have heard a pair of Genelec 8351’s. They also measure extremely well and are the most neutral sounding speakers I’ve ever heard. They may just be one of the most perfect speakers I’ve ever heard. Their only problem is that in a large mixing room they may not play loud enough for far field use (that would be true of all 8” studio monitors however). If they are in your budget, check those out. The 8351, D&D’s, and kii’s are some of the most interesting speakers on the market right now. They are as state of the art as it gets.
Good Morning Matthew, thanks for all the information... If I recall my original Berhingers came with a graph back then, but no Cal file, but with the Berhinger 8024 Ultra Pro there was not a way to import a calibration... funny, there is a setting that can be changed that Berhinger says is for different mics, but there is absolutely no information as to what it is in the manual.
After seeing some posts on REW and mentions of the Dayton Audio mic I decided to purchase it if nothing else but for the cal file. I went out in the studio yesterday and played around with my Focusrite and the Dayton Mic.... I am not sure if I am getting a correct set up or if something else is getting in to the signal path... I have everything turned off, I use only channel 8 on the Mic Input on the Focusrite and out put 1 and 2 for Left and right speakers out. when measuring I use either Output 1 or 2 left or right for the measurements. I am just not sure if that is the correct set up but I didn't spend a lot of time with it yesterday. I did enter the cal file in to the REW software to use.
In the past the only thing I was looking at is the Berhinger as an RTA, quick and simple, for a while I had it set up with one of my pairs of outputs and I'd solo a channel if I thought there was a problem in the mix just to see if I was chasing the right frequencies :-) I had never experimented with a sweep test the way REW does... so I'm in a learning curve on that and it does output a different type of graph than what an RTA would look like. I really need to sit down read the manual and recheck my paths and what I am getting.
As for the room, our studio was designed by Carl Yancher -, the first studio on California was a rebuild out in a large oversized garage, this one is built from scratch and when we first built it I had a local studio designer in to check the room out and it was right on in 2007.
I"m pretty much retired at this point, I have all the equipment and studio so I'll do 2 or 3 projects a year for fun.... I have some friends who are really in to the recording business here in Nashville and they bring projects in from time to time... One of the guys likes ProTools and the other Cubase. On the pro-tools side I use it with the RME Raydat cards hooked to a Sony DMX R100 digital console which I like because it has analog inserts for my outboard gear on the first 12 channels.... the other uses the Focusrite Liquid 56 and 2 Focusrite Octopree's with compression.... for the Cubase.... it just happens to be what these 2 guys like to use and I have completely different systems set up for each one.
-
I actually looked at Genelec 1030s and 1031's when they first came out but for some reason folks were having real issues with how the mixes translated when you would take it to another room, folks just felt they were too hyped. I found the Yamahas back in 97 from a mastering engineer that used them, he did alot of acoustic style music and I liked that "Folk" sound.. the Mackies are a bit more hyped though. I have through the years played with a wide range of speakers and seemed to always come back to where I was comfortable. Recently I"ve been looking because one of the engineers that use the studio also works in some of the biggest studios in Nashville and we talk about what others are using.. I first set a goal of $2500 for a pair and quickly found that may be a stretch so I've come up to a $5000 budget... much more than that it will be hard to justify unless these guys bring alot more clients in.
Finally, we have cut some really good projects out of the studio, lots of Bluegrass over the last 4 years with some really great studio guys so I"m comfortable with what I have but I"m always looking to upgrade if It can be had for a reasonable price. In saying that the number of folks producing "Studio Monitors" have really grown and Ive seen alot of them climb to the top and tumble down for one reason or another.... what I find is how does it sound in my room... not some showroom with a bunch of fancy lights! I use to be able to bring a set home to audition but stores are not so willing to let a pair of $5000 speakers out for evaluation. so I am trying to figure out a best approach on how to go about it. I"ve been to both Westlake Audio and Vintage King in Nashville and honestly I walk out more confused than when I first went it .... But what I find is what they pushed as the best last year are on the back shelf today and they all of a sudden have a new line to talk about that are "Price Protected" to maximize margins :-) That is what the sales guys are pushing!
Finally, I have one of the engineers that will track in our studio and take the tracks to his house to edit and mix (to save money) when he does he has a little treatment in the room and uses a pair of "Berhinger Active monitors" he spent $200 each on and I have to say the final mastered mixes blow me away... .so, there is something to think about when looking at $5000 speakers :-)
Well keep in mind I am not an engineer and I don't really know a lot about mixing in a studio. Semi-professionally I have done a bit of acoustic works with studios and helped design and build a handful of small studios as sidework. Between that and my knowledge of room acoustics, I've gotten to a point where I can help folks like yourself. I've been working with REW since it's inception in one form or another along with having used a handful of other software. I specialize in small rooms since the physics that you are dealing with are different. A lot of acousticians already have large rooms down, but actually don't understand small rooms all that well, gives me a niche.
In any case, I'm happy to help here, as is John and others. Just post your .mdat files from a REW session on the forum so we can take a look. That allows us to tell if you are capturing accurate measurements or if something is wrong.
As for Speakers, the Dutch & Dutch 8C's are extraordinary speakers. I know they are a bit outside your budget, but if you can find a used pair or a store demo pair for under $5000, you can't go wrong. As I mentioned before, they are technologically leaps and bounds ahead of other speakers on the market. When you look at the really solid work on what kinds of speakers sound best to the average person, the Dutch & Dutch meet all the right criteria. Flat anechoic response, raised and flat directivity index, tightly controlled dispersion.
Which brings us to the Genelecs. I can't speak to what you heard before, but they are a top firm developing some of the best and most advanced monitors of our day. They cost a premium for sure. Take a look at this data though and you can see why they are so good. They have some smaller models which might be cheaper, but also may not meet your needs.
The response is only valid above about 1khz in these graphs, so ignore anything strange below that point. Look at how flat and smooth the response is along with how well the response follows the listening axis response as you move off to the side. This ensures a neutral response for your mixes and also ensures that the natural acoustics of the studio remain neutral as well. Even if treated, there are always reflections in a room (unless you mix in an anechoic chamber). As such, you want those reflections to be the same as the direct sound. That is only possible if the speakers reflection response is flat/smooth and the walls themselves have a flat reflection response (in that the treatment doesn't color the sound).
Now let's look at an inexpensive and traditional monitor to see what it does:
On-axis the response is pretty flat. Not as flat as the Genelac, but it's not bad. It would still sound neutral. However, we can see that the response doesn't follow the direct sound as you move off-axis very well and the treble beams, falling at a greater rate than the rest of the response in a non-even fashion. This monitor is just not as good.
Dynaudio Xeo 3! Ok again, neutral on-axis, but it gets pretty bad fast as you get off-axis. This is actually a very typical response and a lot of monitors and home audio speakers look like this. The biggest problem with this speaker is that the response begins to look really terrible as you get off-axis. That response is reflecting off walls and combing with the direct sound in your head to color your perception of the mix.
Now, you don't need to spend $8000 or more to get monitors that have such a great response, it isn't so much about cost as it is about the engineering. The problem tends to just be that engineering costs money. It's difficult to find good monitors that don't cost a lot. The same group out of Princeton that measured these speakers also measured the cheapest speaker from Earl Geddes (now retired). I have a larger model myself for exactly this reason. His monitors need to be interpreted a little differently. Ignore the response over the first 10 degrees, the response that is red. That monitors are meant to be toed in aggressively. That wonky on-axis response is a result of a null that forms from the symetric waveguide. As you ca tell, it goes away immediately off-axis.
These are a passive speaker designed for home, but as you can see, they response is extremely smooth/flat. When you compare them to the powered monitors which have DSP processing, they aren't that far off (and in his final years building the larger models, he moved to active DSP models that had the same flattness as the Genelecs). In finished form the 10" model tested here was something like $3000 a pair I believe. Mine were $7000 a pair I believe.
Point is, look around, you might be amazed what you can find. I don't think you will find a $200 monitor that equals any of these better options. You might find something used or obscure that works well though. I still think the Genelacs are some of the best things going at any price. I would just say, if someone has trouble getting their sound to translate in other rooms, its only because their other rooms are so colored compared to the one using the Genelacs. A speaker that measures that perfectly can't sound bad (and they don't).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
