Thank you and congrats on the update, RME. My foremost question is about the EQ's compatibility with the filter values generated by Room EQ Wizard (REW). These can be set to "Generic" which are compatible with EQAPO and exported as either text or impulse response. I'm sure you've seen these types of information:

Filter  1: ON  PK       Fc   66.20 Hz  Gain  -3.60 dB  Q  6.795

Maybe I'm misinformed but I'm under the impression that each EQ may vary in how it implements Q. This could be a small issue but, fundamentally, is the RME EQ sufficiently equivalent to those created by REW or implemented in EQAPO or is this too small of an issue to be worth discussing?

Related to that, it seems we will have to manually enter in the EQ values - is that the case? I guess nine filters won't break anyone's fingers but some kind of, again, compatibility with generated text or .wav impulses would simplify the process of setting this up for the end user and reduce error.

Thanks again and I hope the UCX II will have this new feature so I can take hopeful solace since my BFPFS won't be updated

That's a great feature to be added to the UFX family.
A request would be to add an integration in TotalMix for https://autoeq.app. This so to load Headphones settings dynamically and keep consistency with perhaps the most comprehensive of aggregated PEQs available online.

Also wanted to say congratulations to Matthias and the RME team for an incredible value add. We knew this was coming but maybe not so soon. Good work.

While I fully intend to upgrade to UFX lll next year, for now I am still so very happy with Madiface USB feeding ADI 648 which feeds 3 x Cranborne Adat500 racks and original UFX which feeds ADI-2 Pro FS R over AES. Room EQ and delays live on Logic’s master bus for now but Totalmix is coming for them:-)

Kind regards

From post 1:

The Room EQ button in any output channel's Settings panel is lit when any of the functions in the Room EQ window are activated. For Delay that means not 0 ms, for VolCal not 0 dB.

The On/Off button on top is PEQ only. Easy to see when toggling as Delay/VolCal do not get greyed out.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. So best way to Enable / Disable all, is using the "W" Workspace Quick Select, yeah?

Hello guys, I'm new here but I read regularly. I would like to contribute the following: For example, people with mild/moderate hearing loss can compensate for frequency problems in a stereo setup. At least in an approximate quality. This opens up completely new possibilities, also for RME. So it would be great if devices that could have an upgrade were also upgraded. By the way, this is an edge case until you are affected by it.

Rev 2 cards with that print do exist...all photos existing most probably show the former cards.

Hi,

Congrats for these new features. Love the RoomEQ.

I encountered a few problems on my UFX II so I thought I would share them here.

Situation : I've got a few synths connected on an EVO SP8, and some guitar pedals.

I installed the new firmware provided in the first post.

Two problems appeared :

• The ADAT sync seemed not stable : it changed every few seconds from "sync" to "lock". Didn't hear any effect on the sound though.

• (Not 100% sure as I might have touched something else) : the ADAT OUT seemed to be working but the EVO SP8 didn't see any signal in ADAT IN

Reverting to the previous firmware solved those problems. Also, setting the RME in "slave" with the EVO SP8 in "master" did allow for a perfect synchronization.

Oh and a question : I reverted the firmware to the previous version but not TotalMix. Will the "RoomEQ" still work or do I have to reinstall TotalMix too ?

Great update nonetheless !

Thanks,

Adrien

There is currently no import function for the Room EQ in Total Mix. You will need to dial in the parameters by hand for each output channel.

Sonarworks currently only supports exports for devices by other companies, like some DAD and Avid interfaces or Adam loudspeakers.
You could try measuring and exporting profiles for those. Then open that exported file in a text editor and you might see the needed values which you could manually enter in Total Mix. The number of available bands will probably not match to the 9 bands available in Total Mix. E.g. DAD has more than 9 bands (in this video I see between 12-15, it probably depends also on what is needed to correct your room, Adam speakers might have less).
https://soundid-reference.support.sonar … processing

You could just skip some of the less dramatic ones then, especially those with lower dB values... Or try the ADAM export which maybe has less bands (it looks like 6 to me...)
https://soundid-reference.support.sonar … s-speakers

A software like Room EQ wizard might be better to generate 9 band eq curves for Total Mix, but I haven't looked into it...
http://www.roomeqwizard.com

Would be great if RME would collaborate with Sonarworks, supporting their easy to use measurement software and/or release some tutorials on how to do it in Room EQ Wizard.

I can speak on small room acoustics and applying EQ to a bass managed system with one subwoofer. It’s true that the minimum phase element of applying EQ to contradict ringing is only valid per-point. However, applying EQ to a single response or averaged group of responses is still valid. The smaller the area you need to correct, the less compromise you’ll need to make. If you look at a certain EBU specification**, among others, you’ll see that they advise measuring in a listening _area_ and not a single point. How big this area is depends on whether it’s a single “king seat” or several rows of bench seating for a theater. The former can receive more nuanced correction without compromise than the latter. By compromise I mean tempering the magnitude of equalization as to avoid pushing adjacent areas out of spec which happens if, say, you subtract a peak at MLP which worsens a null 1/4 wavelength away. If one needs a more linear bass response over a greater area then multiple subwoofers are needed.

The point I’m making is saying “simple parametric EQ only works in one spot” is pedantic yet incomplete of a statement. If a user has a Main Listening Position then they can measure a small listening area of about a meter diameter or less, average it, then apply subtractive EQ to the lowest frequencies with minimal penalty. In the event they need to manage a larger listening area, they can add multiple subwoofers but, as far as I know, even with then there will always be some points in the listening area which will be more “to spec” than others. You may not be able to negate all ringing this way but you can improve your amplitude response to a significant degree.

Also, aligning a single subwoofer to two stereo speakers in a small room is, without doubt, a straightforward process. Phase measurements are not needed. My subwoofer has a just a polarity invert switch and that’s all I’ve required. Some subs have a potentiometer - just twist and check the amplitude response at the crossover band. You can look at this manual for the Genelec 7360A subwoofer for a simplified graphic of how various phase combinations affect integration: https: //assets.ctfassets .net/4zjnzn055a4v/2xfj0AkjCUMkM4msUE0Aiw/abf7c0a2fe9860608d89b063fe51254c/7360_and_7370_op-man_a_0.pdf (remove spaces)

**https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf

Let me preface that I’ve not used Dirac or Sonarworks. I’ve only used Room EQ Wizard with Equalizer APO. An article I read by Ethan Winer put me off trying these expensive products:

http://ethanwiner.com/dirac/dirac.htm

But back to my reply:

The instructions in your link seem complicated and I don’t see much point if you can get a flat enough join between sub and mains without it.

Yes, of course, everyone on the internet is an expert. I’m sure you have experience but Dirac, which you really are promoting here, is expensive and I’ve never needed it. Also, any claims that it reduces ringing or “booming bass” is probably overblown since those matters are best handled by plain old absorbers. Remember what you said about “per-point”? Yeah, nobody is sitting with their head in a vice.

EQ, phase alignment, etc, are all best handled after positioning and absorption is there. Dirac and other DSP solutions like Sonarworks seem to promise the moon and deliver much less and I don’t think most people need it.

I’m content to leave this on disagree. All I ask is for anyone who is undecided to just align their sub and mains with simple polarity or the phase pot and delay if available then apply EQ. Assuming they’ve done all they can in terms of complimentary positioning then they can look into premium DSP products if they want them. For your average home studio person, they’re not needed.

Today I had to calibrate my monitors. This is done with no phase information although I did high pass the monitors which could shift the phase a bit. Even so, all I aimed for was flatness at the crossover band. This is post EQ generated by REW which I don’t think incorporates any phase adjustments:

https://imgur.com/gallery/BQv1u4I

+- 4dB from 32-200Hz in-room is not too shabby!

Yeah Ethan founded the company but I think he sold it. But anyone can build absorbers from a number of insulation types, which is what I’ve done. He even encourages this himself.

How about you ask whether I’ve read any texts in acoustics before making a reading list? I’ve read, my DSP-worshipping friend, believe that.

An important note to make is that reading acoustics materials is just a start. There’s plenty of room for disagreement and many ‘accepted truths’ are unquantified and or misleading.

For example, Dr. Earl Geddes is quoted* to have said, “…one does not want high room damping at the higher frequencies because that will destroy the spaciousness.” First of all, what is “high damping” in numerical terms and second, why do you want your room coloring the sound of the audio you’re listening to? I haven’t tested this myself but Ethan has argued that, for example, listening to concert music, recorded in a big hall, in a small reflective room will make the recording sound smaller, not larger.

Anyway, there are many cases like this where either the information is incomplete or not applicable for certain scenarios. For this reason, one is best served by studying materials as a reference but then reasoning for oneself - preferably with measurements - to arrive at tailored solutions.

“low frequency absorption generally requires huge volumes and high surface coverage!”

I’d ask you to quantify that statement but I’ll assume you’ll come up with misleading numbers. In my room, I might have 15% coverage of panels with thicknesses ranging from 6-24”. The notion you need 1/4 wavelength-thick panels down to 16Hz is misleading and false. Thinner panels absorb to lower frequencies and at least one reference** only specifies decay times above ~63Hz. Couple all this together and I’ve refuted your vague statement.

Forget Ethan, I speak on my own authority. I’m well-referenced and produce measurable results in accordance with industry standards. Dirac is no substitute for broadband absorption.

In my model, DSP is the final step. If it is your only step, you’re leaving improvement on the table.

/responses to this line of conversation.

*https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/

**https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf

Interestingly enough, I made a requested to RME for eq and delay in TM more than ten years ago ;-) It finally arrived!