Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000 (Read 79083 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #250
I have just started using the MathAudio RoomEQ plugin for Foobar on my PC, output going to Dx3Pro via USB. As the output level going to the DX3Pro is now significantly lower, I am wondering if it is OK to increase the signal to the DAC by upping the Preamp gain in the Foobar settings? The screenshot below shows Foobars VU meters playing at a very low level now. Should I just up the preamp settings such that the VU meters are at a more normal level. (Prior to the use of the MathAudio plugin, I had the preamp settings at - 6db as I read somewhere that this is best to avoid any chance of clipping.) Unfortunately my knowledge of digital clipping/gain matching between Foobar and DAC is minimal (at best!)...
Anyway, any help or advice would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Ideally, you should set all Foobar's gain/volume controls to 0 dB. After that adjust the position of the "Room EQ gain" slider in accordance with the instruction (see step 15 at https://mathaudio.com/room-eq.htm ). Use the volume knob of your audio amplifier to adjust the comfortable volume. All digital volume controls on your PC reduce the signal-to-noise ratio, so it is better to not use them at all (set all of them to 0 dB).

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #251
Great, many thanks for your help. Have been reading up on digital volum, gain matching etc, so think I now have a clearer picture of what is going on. One thing that I am still wondering: presumably if I leave Foobars Preamp gain at 0, as opposed to the -6db previously, even if some tracks are over compressed/too high (gain wise), any digital clipping that may occur will only cause a lack of fidelity ie there is no chance of damage to tweeters, as with analogue clipping in an amplifier? (Not too fussed about a few badly mastered/levelled tracks sounding rough but definitely not keen on any risk to speakers!)
Also, thank you so much for a truly awesome product. I am what I like to call a "budget audiophile" and given all I needed to buy was a second hand UMIK-1, RoomEQ is by far the best improvement to my system in the last ten years. Took me a couple of tries to get my twin subs and Tannoy V12s dialed in, volume-wise, but I have to say that the improvement in clarity is fantastic. Also, thankfully my amplifier, a Lazarus H-1A has plenty of headroom to run it. Reckon my system is now the best I've heard... And all for well under £1k.

Thank you! 👍

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #252
Great, many thanks for your help. Have been reading up on digital volum, gain matching etc, so think I now have a clearer picture of what is going on. One thing that I am still wondering: presumably if I leave Foobars Preamp gain at 0, as opposed to the -6db previously, even if some tracks are over compressed/too high (gain wise), any digital clipping that may occur will only cause a lack of fidelity ie there is no chance of damage to tweeters, as with analogue clipping in an amplifier? (Not too fussed about a few badly mastered/levelled tracks sounding rough but definitely not keen on any risk to speakers!)
Also, thank you so much for a truly awesome product. I am what I like to call a "budget audiophile" and given all I needed to buy was a second hand UMIK-1, RoomEQ is by far the best improvement to my system in the last ten years. Took me a couple of tries to get my twin subs and Tannoy V12s dialed in, volume-wise, but I have to say that the improvement in clarity is fantastic. Also, thankfully my amplifier, a Lazarus H-1A has plenty of headroom to run it. Reckon my system is now the best I've heard... And all for well under £1k.

Thank you! 👍
If you adjust  the "Room EQ gain" slider in accordance with the instruction, digital clipping will not happen.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #253
Fantastic. Thanks for your help. Had read several conflicting posts on various sites re digital gain/clipping... Your advice (and revisiting step 15) has made it much clearer...and simpler.
Many thanks again. 👍

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #254
Loving the improvement in clarity using RoomEQ generally but now thinking adding a third sub as I have a BK XXLS400 that I use with my AVR as it goes deeper than the two 10" subs that I use for stereo which don't reach much below 40Hz. I would be placing the Bk between the two 10" subs (which have both left and right main speakers on top of them.) Just wondering what I should set the BK crossover at prior to measuring with RoomEQ. I would like to make sure that the BKs location is not audibly noticeable, so wondered if setting it's crossover somewhere between 40 and 80Hz might be best? Anyway, thanks again. Any advice most appreciated.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #255
Use Room EQ to measure the frequency response of your room with a few different settings of your sub. Compare the resultant "unprocessed" frequency responses. The best setting of your sub corresponds to the flatter "unprocessed" frequency response.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #256
Thanks. Settled on a 40Hz crossover for the central BK sub as there was no real gain from having it any higher. Am I right in thinking that the phase setting is irrelevant as RoomEQ accounts for phase differences? It has a dial from 0-180 and I just left it in the middle of the range. Am loving the introduction of deep bass without the integration faff prior to MathAudio. Thanks again! 👍 X

 

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #257
Thanks. Settled on a 40Hz crossover for the central BK sub as there was no real gain from having it any higher. Am I right in thinking that the phase setting is irrelevant as RoomEQ accounts for phase differences? It has a dial from 0-180 and I just left it in the middle of the range. Am loving the introduction of deep bass without the integration faff prior to MathAudio. Thanks again! 👍
The correct phase setting can improve the "unprocessed" frequency response near the cut-off frequency, so you may want to make a few measurements with different phase settings and choose the phase setting which corresponds to the best "unprocessed" frequency response.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #258
Thanks. After a bit more tweaking of levels, crossovers and phase settings I have arrived at the RoomEQ setup shown in the screenshot below. Presumably it is best to try to keep the lowering of the slider to a minimum (to maximise SNR)? Not quite sure what the best compromise is as, if RoomEQ is set to normal resolution, the slider can generally be set much higher. Presumably this compromise of SNR vs response flatness, is really down to personal preference and audio hardware capabilities? Reckon will spend the weekend playing with settings and see what I prefer. Many thanks for all of your help.

X

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #259
Thanks. After a bit more tweaking of levels, crossovers and phase settings I have arrived at the RoomEQ setup shown in the screenshot below. Presumably it is best to try to keep the lowering of the slider to a minimum (to maximise SNR)? Not quite sure what the best compromise is as, if RoomEQ is set to normal resolution, the slider can generally be set much higher. Presumably this compromise of SNR vs response flatness, is really down to personal preference and audio hardware capabilities? Reckon will spend the weekend playing with settings and see what I prefer. Many thanks for all of your help.
Your "unprocessed" frequency response became much better than the previous one. Yes, the best position of the vertical slider depends on the audio hardware capabilities. If you move the vertical slider down, you improve the frequency response. If you move the vertical slider up, you reduce the amplitude of the speaker diaphragm movement (too large amplitude results in non-linear distortion if your speakers are not powerful enough). The best position of the vertical slider corresponds to the maximum 'fidelity' and 'transparency' of the sound. Try a few positions of the vertical slider to find the best one. See steps 10 and 11 at https://mathaudio.com/room-eq.htm  for more details.

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #260
Thanks. This is pretty what I thought. I would like to think that my main speakers will be okay as they are actually made for high power/PA applications and therefore made to handle high excursion. I am actually more concerned for the two small subs underneath them as they are relatively low power and made hi-fi/home audio use....Anyway, have been testing at fairly high volume (due to my neighbours still being stuck in Holland post Covid). Anyway, absolutely loving the sound with a bottle of wine... and no sign of driver over excursion as yet. Many thanks. 👍

Re: MathAudio Room EQ for Foobar2000

Reply #261
... Quick update... Settled on the -15db slider setting as it seems like a good compromise and still gives me a frequency response down to 20Hz. Minor tweaking of the BK sub phase has tightened up the bass too. Quite a stunning difference pre and post MathAudio...
Many thanks for your help and an amazing piece of software.
My shout for beers if any of you are in Edinburgh any time.
Nice one. 👍