Can you correct nulls with acoustic treatments.


I have Magnepan 1.6's. After hearing a musical clarity I really liked in a listening session at someone else's house, I broke down and bought a Rat Shack SPL meter and dowloaded some test files. I wanted to see if it was the acoustics or the type of speakers and system that made the difference.

A brief testing showed a 65 to 80 hz., 5 or 6 db. bump (the drywall bump?) that I had expected. What I didn't expect was 10 to 15 hz. wide nulls (-10,-15,even -20 db.) at several other frequencies.

I tried moving speaker positioning and the frequency of the nulls moved but the pattern was basically the same.

Acoustic treatment to tame + nodes seems intuitive. Can you treat nulls or is this a different problem?

Would really appreciate your thoughts.

Jim S.

stilljd
Stilljd,

I am glad this helped. It is an idea straight from recording engineer Bob Katz and his book on Mastering.

The single biggest benefit is that this track gives you a clear idea of just how room modes affect real music.
I have discovered a new way for the CIA/FBI/DOD to coerce information from suspects. Make tham listen to test tones all day! Doing room measurements manually with a CD and RS SPL meter is agonizing and time consuming.

Jim S.
I said I would try follow-up with the setbacks and breakthroughs. I do not know how to post the graphs in this format so I will just try to accurately describe the highlights and observations.

I spent 2 days measuring under the most controlled circumstances I could manage. Focusing on speaker position, this is what I found.

Started at my established listening position. Speaker centerlines - 50" from back wall, 83.5" apart, 36.5 from angled (45deg) sidewalls, and 115" from listening postion. Speakers were tilted back 4 degrees (guess, one washer in the bottom of the stand mount, will measure exactly later).

I will descibe the sequential set up for 7 different test runs with the Real Traps Test CD, because the measured results changed very little.

#0.. Baseline
#1.. Changed tilt to upright.
#2.. moved speakers straight back 6".
#3.. moved speakers forward 12".
#4.. moved speakers toward each other 6" each.
#5.. moved speakers back 6".

When I sat down and graphed the numbers...

Steady rise from 53db @ 32hz. to 63bd @ 38hz
6db drop @ 42hz. rising steadily to 76db @ 55hz.
9db dip @64hz rising to 77db @ 70hz.
Drops to 67db @ 86hz.
Rises to a steady 69bd @ 90hz. to 118hz.
Starts to dip steadily @ 118hz. to 53db @ 138hz.
Broad null for 10hz.
Rises steadily to 67db @ 172hz.

Things get real eratic at this point with wide 2,3,4hz wide swings down to < 50db and back up. Does seem to be another deep (<50db) broad null at 230hz. to 270hz.

In general terms, and to my untrained eyes, I have a big boost from 45hz to 82hz with a little dip thrown in the middle of that, another small dip @ 85hz, and 2 serious nulls @ 135hz to 175hz and 230hz. to 300hz.

Experimenting a little more

#6.. Opened laundry room door, checking for suckout.
Virtually no change. (big surprise).

#7.. Pulled single speaker out into middle of room (13' from back wall, facing into open area) and measured @ 2' with mono source. (closed LR door)
Same pattern of boosts and nulls, just a little less dynamic. Who would have thought? The tones really started to audibly oscillate @ 105hz through 135hz. Reinforcement/filtering, who knows?

Really surprised me how little the pattern changed through all 8 tests. I took the time to listen to familiar music in-between each test run and the position changes were easily perceptable.

At this point, I have some acoustic reference material coming for study so, although I can recognize the pattern, I don't know what it really means.

Other interesting (to me) observations. Putting the 1.6's closer together than I remember trying before starts to push the sound stage to the front of the speakers instead of behind and starting to produce the clarity in the vocal registers that I was seeking at the start of this. Despite the nice clarity, it is too bright to listen to anything but female vocals and acoustic instruments in that position and the soundstage is too narrow.

Next step... read a little theory and build some really big DIY bass traps to test.

Please forgive the typos, mispellings, and my grammar.

Regards,
Jim S.
I don't trust readings below 100 Hz for reasons of speaker and instrument inaccuracy. However, the dips centered around 125 and 250 Hz are definately room related. I would suggest focusing on those and hope for ancillary benefits below.

Playing those test tones, you should also be able to find the nodes by walking around the room, probably by ear. I would be willing to bet that there are two nodes parallel to the speaker plane. I mention this because it might lead to the easiest solution, by experimenting with speaker/trap location. Start with traps in the corner.

If you're ambitious, you can try DIY panel traps. There isn't much in the way of designs and plans available on the net but you'll get the vague idea with research. I built some using 1/8" hardboard for the panels. Some basics are covered online through the Sound On Sound articles, "Room for Improvement" (5 parts in DIY section). Geared toward studios and pros. At least, they aren't selling anything.
Ngjockey,

Thanks for the advice and sources. I found a couple of DIY bass traps recipes on AA posted by Jon Risch. I can afford to put together a couple of 18-20" tube replicas to test. They seem to be rather narrow range in absorption and if big enough can work down into the double digit frequencies.

I also have my eye on a corner, angled just off (4-5') the left speaker, that houses a fireplace. Not sure that is the problem, but I never did like that fireplace anyway.

I can't knowledgably comment on the meter accuracy or my testing accuracy. One thing that gives me some confidence in the measurements, are the repeatability I am observing. And the fact that the 70-80hz boost correlates to Shadornes recording reference. If the bass note progression is described correctly (and I believe it is), the third note in the beginning progression is consistantly much louder.

Do I just not understand all that is involved? Certainly possible/probable!

Regards,
Jim S.