And in life like in anything & everything else, we should always take the time, and do things right.
--- Yup? :b
--- Yup? :b
Speaker/Room calibration
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
Hi Bruce, Gotcha, you and I are listening for different reasons, and need to have a different freq response to satisify those needs. Would you be so kind to post a graph of the response from 0 to 20k hz? Also the mdat would be good now that I have the program to read it.
I have downloaded the REW program and am looking forward to using it. If I dont want a flat response, because it does not sound good what should my response be?
Is there any reason to use subs in your system as it allready goes down to 5hz? I don't think adding subs would make any difference in your case.
Wendell
I have downloaded the REW program and am looking forward to using it. If I dont want a flat response, because it does not sound good what should my response be?
Is there any reason to use subs in your system as it allready goes down to 5hz? I don't think adding subs would make any difference in your case.
Wendell
The use of extra subs is not to make the bass extension go lower. You use them to cancel the room nulls, which EQ can not do. So if you look at your graphs and you see the that there are dips in its tracing, that is because the room is canceling out that freq. You add subs to add that freq back in. EQ should only be used in a subtractive manner.
This one has fared well over time. It is from the older Synthesis SDEC 1000/2500 Installation Guide.
Hi Roger, Now that looks sweet, 15db up at 20hz!!!!!!!!! WOW big bass!! I like it. Anybody else have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Wendell
Thanks,
Wendell
OOOPPPSSS, I read the graph wrong, it is 8 to 9 db up at approx 30 hz. It is 5db up at 20hz, I am still liking it though. Its gotta sound better than flat for listening to music. But not for accuracy.
Wendell
Wendell
Hi Roger,
That graph above, perhaps for Movies, but for Music I personally prefer another curve (with less emphasis in the two lower octaves covering the 20-80Hz region). :b
...Like perhaps few dBs above the average at 80Hz, but with a gentle descent below that point back to the average, instead of an ascension.
The other extreme end (treble region), that ain't too bad (a la THX).
Hi Northstar, Which curve do you use, could you please post a graph of it and the response you have in room. I am looking for a response for music. Can I assume you are using REW also? Or do you use a different measuring program.
Hi Bruce, your question, What is the actual room response? What are you refering to?
Thanks,
Wendell
Hi Bruce, your question, What is the actual room response? What are you refering to?
Thanks,
Wendell
What is the actual measured room response using a calibrated microphone? This may be the EQ setting for your software, but what are you actually hearing?
Hi Wendell,
I don't use REW or any other program; only by ears and with test discs & a SPL meter.
And I'm happy with what Audyssey MultEQ XT is providing to me (I just have to manually balance my two subs).
* For Movies impact, a small boost at 40Hz (Sub) is excellent.
For Music, a little boost at 80Hz adds musicality and is appropriate. IMO. :b
Bob
It does indeed sound better. Why do you say it is not accurate? Ok, yes, as soon as we play content below reference level (whatever level at which is was mixed), the spectral balance is no longer accurate. Attempts have been made by Dolby and Audyssey to develop dynamic loudness compensation, which is theoretically the best way to address it. I have no idea if these work well, but thus far I have not found that to be the case in my inadequate explorations.
But relatively speaking, a bass boost can mitigate the first-order issues arising from playing back content below reference level. This plot shows the Synthesis curve overlaid on the differential loudness curves from the seminal Holman/Kampmann AES paper "Loudness Compensation: Use and Abuse."
If your listening habits use a consistent volume, a fixed house curve can be invaluable. I have such a curve for music, and a gentler one for movies which I play at higher volumes. They are automatically called based on which source I am using.
Hi Roger, I am sure it has been said a number of times in this post that a "flat response is accurate". But that it is not something to emulate except for particular purposes such as a recording studio. I do not have a recording studio.
A flat response does not sound like something that I want to listen to in my stereo room. Roger, you mention that you use a curve, is the graph you posted the desired goal? Can you post a graph of your in room response?
Hello, Bruce, You said, "What is the actual measured room response using a calibrated microphone? This may be the EQ setting for your software, but what are you actually hearing?"
You are correct, and just like the fact that you want, for your recording studio, a "flat response" (within reason) I am looking for a response that should sound good for playback of music in my room. The graphs posted by the other posters would be my goal just as a flat response is your goal.
Of course you are correct, when you ask, if that is the in room response. Because it appears that you are the only one capable of measuring!
Now I am not sure if I want a flat response or one of the suggested curves.
Thanks,
Wendell
A flat response does not sound like something that I want to listen to in my stereo room. Roger, you mention that you use a curve, is the graph you posted the desired goal? Can you post a graph of your in room response?
Hello, Bruce, You said, "What is the actual measured room response using a calibrated microphone? This may be the EQ setting for your software, but what are you actually hearing?"
You are correct, and just like the fact that you want, for your recording studio, a "flat response" (within reason) I am looking for a response that should sound good for playback of music in my room. The graphs posted by the other posters would be my goal just as a flat response is your goal.
Of course you are correct, when you ask, if that is the in room response. Because it appears that you are the only one capable of measuring!
Now I am not sure if I want a flat response or one of the suggested curves.
Thanks,
Wendell
I took a look and there were the only two places where flatness of response was mentioned as an ideal:
Post 22 Bruce said:
On one level, that means flattening out all the bumps and dips by careful placement of speakers, which is indeed a good thing. It does not necessarily mean there is no tilt or room gain compensation or whatever other shaping of the curve. However much, if any, of that would be present would be based on both the desired playback volume and spectrum that Bruce likes to hear when referencing other content on his system, as that is his "reference target" when mastering his own product, assuming it has to fit within that context.
And in Post 216 Don stated:
Here he equates accurate with flat, but I have never seen anyone aim for a truly flat response in speakers as it elevates the treble too much. All the automatic EQ systems include a target curve that is not perfectly flat just for this reason, let alone the bass issues.
Nor I. The problem with language is that if you ask anyone who is interested in high fidelity sound if they want to listen to a system with a flat frequency response or one that is not, they most likely say they want the flat response. That could be because flat response in electronics is a good thing, so logic says why not the speakers, too. Or it could mean they want smooth, uniform response, as no one wants the usual forms of non-flat response, like lumpy bass, peaky treble, etc. Flat is surely better than all those horrors. What very few people realize is that what sounds flat and "accurate" is some form of gently departing curves away from that ruler flat line.
The Synthesis graph was the first time I'd encountered a target curve that reflected a bass rise to any degree (Anthem Room Correction has a small one), and my bass rise follows the same curve but keeps going before it levels off around 20 Hz. I wanted to see what was down there, but it is often a disappointment. Mic pops and other unwanted spuriae not heard so not removed. I have a switchable 20 Hz high pass filter in the system for such occasions.
Last edited:
Hey Bruce,
Nice frequency response! Would be interesting to see the ETC's and Waterfalls as well. Are you enjoying the sound?
I wrote an article comparing my untreated room, with acoustics treatments, and with digital room correction. What is novel is that I also recorded the sound of each of these using a set of in-ear binaural microphones so that people could listen to the sonic improvements themselves.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/importance-timbre-sound-reproduction-systems-222/
Cheers,
Mitch
Nice frequency response! Would be interesting to see the ETC's and Waterfalls as well. Are you enjoying the sound?
I wrote an article comparing my untreated room, with acoustics treatments, and with digital room correction. What is novel is that I also recorded the sound of each of these using a set of in-ear binaural microphones so that people could listen to the sonic improvements themselves.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/importance-timbre-sound-reproduction-systems-222/
Cheers,
Mitch
Thanks Mitch... would love to read it but I've been banned from the site. He has my IP addys' blocked. Sorry
---Bruce, is there a way to transfer or copy the article somewhere else where you can access it?
* Check your PM box. :b
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |