Is this (eq) on the mix or the monitors?

What I heard as too strong in your mix is inside that zone between 40 and 300 that's low in that response curve, probably right around 150. If I could download an audio file to examine I could be more certain what frequency sounds too prominent.

kmetal, post: 450027, member: 37533 wrote: Is this (eq) on the mix or the monitors?

It's the room measurement

kmetal, post: 450014, member: 37533 wrote: basically the way I see it is if the speakers are in the best place, they'll center you in the best place to hear them, then treat/eq till it's good as it gets. That's at least how I see it.

Thank you, Kyle!
If all else fails and there's trouble area in the room response that just isn't going away with treatment, how do you implement Eq outside of what's available on the monitors themselves?

audiokid Talked about raising his speakers to help tune his room response, curious how you did that?

ChrisH, post: 450039, member: 43833 wrote: Thank you, Kyle!
If all else fails and there's trouble area in the room response that just isn't going away with treatment, how do you implement Eq outside of what's available on the monitors themselves?

audiokid Talked about raising his speakers to help tune his room response, curious how you did that?

Basically cuts only and in as few bands and Dbs as possible. Basically the room mode is one fundemtal and it's harmonics being excited. Like 40hz and 400hz are both peak areas in the graph. The only monitors I've used w eq was on the mains at normandy, and it took a while to get right. Eventually even I felt it was an improvement, but even then not without compromise. We had a klark technic stereo graphic eq. Very transparent.

You probably could flatten the peaks and valleys w some tuned broadband bass traps like some corner resonators, to help maintain life if your happy w the mid/high absorbsion/life. The advantage to trapping vs eq is trapping helps alleviate the nulls, and widen the sweetspot, eq makes these worse. That's just the comprise of eqing in better response. Seems like you understand this chrisH, I'm just tossing it out there in general.

Update:

I now have 13 broadband traps in my room but there is still room for 8 more on the ceiling that I already have the materials to build them. The current traps are in all vertical corners, above mix position, and the rear wall horizontal ceiling cornerds.
Just sort of checking in to get some feedback.
Attatched a graphs showing before and after implements the broadband absorbers.
(Green = Pre, Gold = Post) (No smoothing on either)
Second attatchment is zoomed in on the current low end response, one with 1/12 smoothing and one without.
Also attatched the current waterfall graph, as you can see my culptrits at 75hz, 41hz, & 25hz.
Looks like it's time to build some actuall bass traps.

Attached files

Looks like some major improvements overall! Those low traps should clean up the decay time in the subs, and smooth out their higher harmonics a bit more. Your room is shaping up quite well, congrats!

kmetal, post: 451114, member: 37533 wrote: Those low traps should clean up the decay time in the subs, and smooth out their higher harmonics a bit more. /QUOTE]

Thank you, Kyle! I'm excited about it.
Are you referring to the 8 additional broadband absorbers that will be added to ceiling or Helmholtz resonator/absorbers ?

ChrisH, post: 451115, member: 43833 wrote: Thank you, Kyle! I'm excited about it.
Are you referring to the 8 additional broadband absorbers that will be added to ceiling or Helmholtz resonator/absorbers ?

I was referring to something like a helmholtz or any sort of dedicated bass treatment. Depending on how their mounted the broadband stuff can dip as deep or deeper than 200hz. The fundamental modes are where biggest issue is at this point.

Have you tried mixing anything yet?

I have not tried mixing yet