Post Your Frequency Response Curve!

[sigbergaudio]

For clarity, no pun intended, are you referring here to my High Shelf 5000hz, -1.5db filter?

Not directly, but if you don't think the sound was too bright to begin with, I would not add that.

I was referring to you saying that you would create a target filter based on the Harman curves. If we look at those curves / that graph, it's actually slightly confusing, and the difference between the different lines isn't as big as it may seem, as they are separated deliberately so you can tell the differences apart. The total shift between bass and treble is relatively similar in all, it's mainly the shape of the curve that is different.

1) Untrained listeners, total lift from 50hz to 10khz is around 9-10dB. But the lift is mainly from 100-150hz and up, what you'd typically get by employing a subwoofer and turning up the gain.

2) All listeners, basically an average between 1 and 3. More even curve, lift between 50hz to 10khz around 7d-8dB.

3) Trained listeners, total lift from 50hz to 10khz around 6-7dB. What's interesting about this curve is that it's very even, basically a gradual fall all the way. Incidentally relatively similar to my in-room response (posted on page 1) . That measurement is the natural response of my system, there's only active EQ below 200hz, and it's only to even out peaks as well as match the level of the sub with the natural tilt from the speakers.

For my comment to you, it's also worth noting specifically the thickest dotted line, which is predicted room curve for highly rated loudspeakers. Note how that is actually quite flat from 1-2khz and beyond. Finally note the shaded area indicating the difference in natural in-room lift depending on the room itself. And here different amounts of lift can sound natural in different rooms.

The point I'm trying to make about this last graph specifically is that the natural response of your probably quite competent speakers are relatively flat in the midrange/treble in your room. Unless you find the top end offensive / too bright, there's no sense in EQing that to match the Harman curve. That's not what the curve is trying to tell us.

Sorry if that was too long to follow, feel free to ask again and I'll try to clarify (hehe) again.

 

[orange55]

Not directly, but if you don't think the sound was too bright to begin with, I would not add that.

I was referring to you saying that you would create a target filter based on the Harman curves. If we look at those curves / that graph, it's actually slightly confusing, and the difference between the different lines isn't as big as it may seem, as they are separated deliberately so you can tell the differences apart. The total shift between bass and treble is relatively similar in all, it's mainly the shape of the curve that is different.

1) Untrained listeners, total lift from 50hz to 10khz is around 9-10dB. But the lift is mainly from 100-150hz and up, what you'd typically get by employing a subwoofer and turning up the gain.

2) All listeners, basically an average between 1 and 3. More even curve, lift between 50hz to 10khz around 7d-8dB.

3) Trained listeners, total lift from 50hz to 10khz around 6-7dB. What's interesting about this curve is that it's very even, basically a gradual fall all the way. Incidentally relatively similar to my in-room response (posted on page 1) . That measurement is the natural response of my system, there's only active EQ below 200hz, and it's only to even out peaks as well as match the level of the sub with the natural tilt from the speakers.

For my comment to you, it's also worth noting specifically the thickest dotted line, which is predicted room curve for highly rated loudspeakers. Note how that is actually quite flat from 1-2khz and beyond. Finally note the shaded area indicating the difference in natural in-room lift depending on the room itself. And here different amounts of lift can sound natural in different rooms.

The point I'm trying to make about this last graph specifically is that the natural response of your probably quite competent speakers are relatively flat in the midrange/treble in your room. Unless you find the top end offensive / too bright, there's no sense in EQing that to match the Harman curve. That's not what the curve is trying to tell us.

Sorry if that was too long to follow, feel free to ask again and I'll try to clarify (hehe) again.

Perfect. Thanks all makes and great information.

 

[Lagonda]

Ron i applaud your efforts in starting this thread .
I thought it would die a soon death due to of lack of popularity , but instead it became a hub .

Yes, but a hub for what ?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Yes, but a hub for what ?

Intelligent audiophiles .
Audiophiles used to " solve " a lot of FR related problems with buying ( thick ) expensive cables .
May be now they realize where the real problem lies

 

[cjf]

Unfortunately I cant use the App mentioned as I don't own any Apple products but I do have REW Charts.

Measurements shown are with DSP, 5 channels total (2 Main Towers, 3 Subs) and Audiolense Filters. Listening room is a 25ft x17ft x at least 10ft high and is an untreated Living Room (at least 4500cu/ft). Mic is 9ft away at seated listening position/seated listening height (Earthworks M30) and the rest of the measurement gear was a Lynx Hilo and Earthworks 1021 Mix Pre. Sweeps done at 24/192kHz. These were done using a Freq Sweep from 10-25kHz

This is closest thing I have showing zero smoothing of the FR with all channels combined. Ignore the lower chart showing Phase.

Closest thing I have showing the 10-350hz range without smoothing is this Waterfall

And here is an FR only plot. 1/12th smoothing, 60-90db range, individual L/R Channels as well as Both channels combined. Its easy to see the +6db of gain from the combined measurement here.

 

[orange55]

Regarding target curves, I shoot for a flat mid range, boost the frequencies below my 80 Hz XO point by ~ 6 dB, and roll off frequencies from 5 kHz - 20 kHz by 5 dB. That's fairly consistent with what Sean Olive, Floyd Toole and others have found to be the most accurate-sounding FR target curve in a typical home listening room.

The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems

----

@henrich3 Are you able to post a REW graph of your response so I can use it as a reference please?

Thanks in advance.

 

[orange55]

Ok so it turns out that the graphs I have posted on this thread so far were based on a rough REW file, which was created using an Anthem ARC calibration mic and not my proper calibrated mic. (Think I need to work on my filing system) That also explains why what I was hearing didn't compute with the images I saw.

I have now done fresh readings with proper mic and calibration files in place. Firstly for reference here is the default calibration by my Lyngdorf.

Now that looks more like you would expect from this kind of kit.

I have taken onboard the comments in this thread to improve the sound and this is the current graph I am listening to and as ever happy to get any feedback.


For reference I added the following filters:
High Pass 200hz -3db
High Pass 120hz -1db

Thanks in advance.

 

[sigbergaudio]

@orange55 bit of a dip from 2-400hz, but some issues in the 100-400hz area are common in most rooms. Other than that the overall tonal balance looks good

 

[henrich3]

@henrich3 Are you able to post a REW graph of your response so I can use it as a reference please?

Thanks in advance.

I don't use REW or have a UMIK-1. My OmniMic charts are here however -
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/post-your-frequency-response-curve.36361/post-856185

 

[sbo6]

@Mike

View attachment 104535


This is with all Tube Traps removed, and 4' x 8' x 2" absorption panels in the front wall corners.


View attachment 104536

Beautiful room and setup, Ron.

My measurement via REW. Please note - I employ -5DB @~30Hz not reflected in this measurement. Also, as I have learned over the years measuring / tweaking and setting up my and others' systems is - there is some but no a direct correlation of what you see vs. what you hear. For example, if I were to employ more of a house curve, my system (same with most others) sound boomy and less articulate at low frequencies. Also, less wide freq. ranging dips (more so than peaks) are very difficult for our ear / brain to perceive and can be ignored, deeper wider gaps not so much. And the effort to reduce such dips or achieve the "perfect" response curve may be more detrimental (too much DEQ = bad IME!) than one can actually hear. Also, for a more complete picture you really also need decay time (which I'm too lazy to upload)

 

[andromedaaudio]

I m still waiting for some graphs of Audio note UK , Devore and Altec horns speakers to be added to the database.

 

[andromedaaudio]

@Mike

Beautiful room and setup, Ron.

My measurement via REW. Please note - I employ -5DB @~30Hz not reflected in this measurement. Also, as I have learned over the years measuring / tweaking and setting up my and others' systems is - there is some but no a direct correlation of what you see vs. what you hear. For example, if I were to employ more of a house curve, my system (same with most others) sound boomy and less articulate at low frequencies. Also, less wide freq. ranging dips (more so than peaks) are very difficult for our ear / brain to perceive and can be ignored, deeper wider gaps not so much. And the effort to reduce such dips or achieve the "perfect" response curve may be more detrimental (too much DEQ = bad IME!) than one can actually hear. Also, for a more complete picture you really also need decay time (which I'm too lazy to upload) View attachment 105121

Good speaker the Vivid Giya , and the corresponding graph looks excellent as well , it looks like a + - 2, 5 DB range from 600 hz to 20 Khz , i dont know how much smoothing was used

 

[sbo6]

Good speaker the Vivid Giya , and the corresponding graph looks excellent as well , it looks like a + - 2, 5 DB range from 600 hz to 20 Khz , i dont know how much smoothing was used

Thank you, much time and effort with custom treatments to achieve in my modest - sized rom. WRT Vivids, agree, especially considering it's a 4 - way, incredibly coherent IMO.

Also, 1/6 smoothing.

 

[sbnx]

I can post a few measurements. Perhaps one of the most meaninful is the small temprorary system I setup in my front room while my main room/system undergoes some substantial changes. I posted some videos/recordings of this system using a binaural dummy head in this thread. The system is Wilson Sophia 3, Luxman M300a, CH Precision L1/X1, MSB Diamond DACV, Antipodes K50.

I think if one listens to the recordings using headphones and then looks at the measurements then maybe that will give a loose correlation to how sound correlates to measurements. Note the RT60 in this room is averaging about 650ms. That is pretty high but with very careful speaker placemnet the music is still very articulate. The dropoff in frequency response above 10k is an atrifact of mic placement.

Temporary system

At the moment my main system is undergong a metamorphosis. You could easily say it is changing directions by 170 degrees but that is a discussion for another day. In the mean time my wife has let me "borrow" the front room to setup a temporary system. I purchased a pair of Wilson Sophia 3's...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Tim Link]

Regarding target curves, I shoot for a flat mid range, boost the frequencies below my 80 Hz XO point by ~ 6 dB, and roll off frequencies from 5 kHz - 20 kHz by 5 dB. That's fairly consistent with what Sean Olive, Floyd Toole and others have found to be the most accurate-sounding FR target curve in a typical home listening room.

The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems

----

These preference curves are interesting to me. I've struggled with not liking the sound of too much energy in the 200-500 Hz range but it's where a lot of musical magic happens if it's working right. From what I've seen of room acoustics this is a troublesome range for a lot of rooms. My latest measurements in my new room, which I'll post when I get a chance, are showing this range again to be the most problematic, with a lot of strong canceling reflections messing with both the smoothness of response and the timing of the signal reaching my ears. Turning it down is a way to make the muddy sound go away, but I suspect most untrained listeners would prefer not to do that if the sound was clear in that range. Fortunately this range is not difficult to get after with acoustic treatments. The key is to selectively absorb a bit out of this range without taking too much out of the higher frequencies.

 

[Tim Link]

Idiosyncratically for me I seem to be very sensitive -- in the sense of finding it edgy or fatiguing -- to a material bump in the 2kHz to 4kHz range.

Does anyone else experience this particular sensitivity?

When there are problems, this range can really stand out in a bad way for me. It can be extremely irritating if it sounds too hot, but also very disappointing and dull if too weak in this range. It needs to be bright and clear and forceful enough but not so much that it feels like it's drilling a hole in your forehead, as Bruce Edgar once put it.
I've been having problems with perceiving my system to be a bit weak in this range for a while now. Recently I switched amps and dacs (nothing remotely high end - just different) and it seems to have made a big difference for the better. I perceive it as a dynamic improvement in this range more than a volume increase, although I'll have to hook the old stuff up and measure to see if it shows up as frequency response changes. One track that seems to have a lot of energy in this range is Loreena McKennitt's All Souls Night from The Visit album. Her voice is searing hot at times but I love it turned up loud now.

 

[henrich3]

These preference curves are interesting to me. I've struggled with not liking the sound of too much energy in the 200-500 Hz range but it's where a lot of musical magic happens if it's working right. From what I've seen of room acoustics this is a troublesome range for a lot of rooms. My latest measurements in my new room, which I'll post when I get a chance, are showing this range again to be the most problematic, with a lot of strong canceling reflections messing with both the smoothness of response and the timing of the signal reaching my ears. Turning it down is a way to make the muddy sound go away, but I suspect most untrained listeners would prefer not to do that if the sound was clear in that range. Fortunately this range is not difficult to get after with acoustic treatments. The key is to selectively absorb a bit out of this range without taking too much out of the higher frequencies.

I installed 48"x48"x2" acoustic panels at first reflection points for my center channel, mains, & surrounds. Even after that I still had minor "clarity" issues when my Denon AVR (Audyssey XT32) was driving the system. The clarity improved, especially dialogue, after upgrading to a Trinnov Altitude. I don't understand what processing it does to help in that area, but my system does sound a bit better. I had bumped up the CC gain on my old system to make dialogue more intelligible, but I don't need to do that now. Anyway, my general recommendation for someone that has clarity issues with their system's audio is to start by attenuating those first reflections. Beyond that, an upgrade in one's audio processor (eg. Trinnov) would probably help. None of this is new to you however.

HT with acoustic panels -

Those acoustic panels aren't very pretty, but they disappear when the lights are off for movie time, so not a big deal for me.

My 200 - 500 Hz range is a bit lumpy, but not too bad -

Cheers.

 

[Tim Link]

I installed 48"x48"x2" acoustic panels at first reflection points for my center channel, mains, & surrounds. Even after that I still had minor "clarity" issues when my Denon AVR (Audyssey XT32) was driving the system. The clarity improved, especially dialogue, after upgrading to a Trinnov Altitude. I don't understand what processing it does to help in that area, but my system does sound a bit better. I had bumped up the CC gain on my old system to make dialogue more intelligible, but I don't need to do that now. Anyway, my general recommendation for someone that has clarity issues with their system's audio is to start by attenuating those first reflections. Beyond that, an upgrade in one's audio processor (eg. Trinnov) would probably help. None of this is new to you however.

HT with acoustic panels -

Those acoustic panels aren't very pretty, but they disappear when the lights are off for movie time, so not a big deal for me.

My 200 - 500 Hz range is a bit lumpy, but not too bad -

Cheers.

A 2" thick panel gets you absorption in the needed range, and first reflection points are important. I've not had direct experience with the Trinnov processors but I keep hearing good things about them. If the overall bass tone is balanced correctly and smoothed out that helps with clarity. I can do that stuff manually with a digital EQ. I understand the Trinnov does more than just EQ. You've got bass extension to 5 Hz!

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...it may also be useful to try diffusion at first reflection points. I have used both, but prefer 2D diffusion panels there. They need not be two-inch thick either, in such cases, although currently, I have 24x24x2 inch panels installed. That diffusion concept can go for the ceiling too (for me).

 

[Tim Link]

...it may also be useful to try diffusion at first reflection points. I have used both, but prefer 2D diffusion panels there. They need not be two-inch thick either, in such cases, although currently, I have 24x24x2 inch panels installed. That diffusion concept can go for the ceiling too (for me).

I don't want to go too far off topic but I agree proper diffusion, or sound scattering is very helpful at first reflection points and throughout the room. Last night I took home four panels that are about 8" wide x 48" tall and two inch thick. These have a reflective strip down the center which scatters sound, creating a new line source of reflected sound at that point. The edges of the panels also scatter sound, which is why dividing a single larger panel into some thinner strips and spacing the strips apart on the walls can work some magic. What I heard last night and this morning with those panels temporarily propped up along the sidewalls was a smoother overall tone and some even more magical imaging than I was already getting with my special 3 speaker array.

To get back closer to the topic of this thread, I didn't see a quickly noticeable measurement difference from these panels in terms of overall frequency response, but I'm hearing the imaging improvements and some perceptual reduction of the room's characteristics.
I'll post some measurements next.