czt
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 90
- Thread Starter
- #21
Exactly confirmed my measurements.There might some pointers here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ements-teardown-subjective-impressions.29425/
Exactly confirmed my measurements.There might some pointers here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ements-teardown-subjective-impressions.29425/
Exactly confirmed my measurements.
We are on the same page here. And also in that, not so much difference in a nearfield/MLP situation. But my main concern was the side effects/artifacts of the commercial and free eq solutions.EQ is tool, and just as not all problems call for hammer it is not always a helpful tool or the right solution.
---
I come from a live audio background, and I know for tuning PA systems that flattening out every single little peak and dip would be a mistake....
The owner of Rational Acoustics (the predominate measurement software for live work) would call feeding this urge "measurebation."
Because if you move that mic over a single centimeter you will get a completely different set of peaks and nulls. Not to mention a foot away or 70ft away.
Most well tuned systems in a larger context have more minimal EQ with a wider Q. The best system tuners in the world often only do 3-4 bands of wide-Q filters. That is it. Anything more, and it is probably more destructive than constructive.
---
Now obviously a smaller room is different; you will not have the variance (high frequency air loss) and problems with timing inherent with a large spaces, but this still does hold true to extent. What is a prescriptive correction for one part of the room, might be quite destructive in another. Audio is game of compromises.
Thereby when applying EQ as a correction many measurements need to be taken to assess trends and make an average. This is balanced with where you know you will be listening.
Some things EQ will not account for:
1. EQ will not fix room problems (nodes, decay etc).
2. Speaker quality (you could make a $150 speaker measure the same as $5,000 but they wouldn't sound the same).
We are on the same page here. And also in that, not so much difference in a nearfield/MLP situation. But my main concern was the side effects/artifacts of the commercial and free eq solutions.
I wouldn’t use those automatic corrections, I would measure with REW then just correct ( with individual PEQ) any standing wave based peaks, check in REW that they are minimal phase then there are no phase issues and you are guaranteed a perfect inversion.Exactly what I do. ARC3 ("natural"/linear phase) and Sonarworks (mixed/linear phase) also doesn't sounded good.
And not surprisingly, those were the best corrections in the end of my long experiments according to control measurements too.I wouldn’t use those automatic corrections, I would measure with REW then just correct ( with individual PEQ) any standing wave based peaks, check in REW that they are minimal phase then there are no phase issues and you are guaranteed a perfect inversion.
Keith
ARC3 correction looked and sounded good with the monitors alone, but mainly due to the "low end" correction and extension. (The attached example not the final correction as used then.)Could you please post a screenshot of your ARC window with the measured response, target and predicted response visible?
In the process of reviewing this monitor, I performed full range corrections using ARC, Dirac and Audiolense, with excellent results from all three. Perceived clarity was greatly improved in comparison to the uncorrected response. It may well be the case that your preference is vastly different from that of the typical listener or there may be a problem with your measurements.
ARC3 correction looked and sounded good with the monitors alone, but mainly due to the "low end" correction and extension. (The attached example not the final correction as used then.)
That was an older screenshot before the sub, but ARC3 low end extension was flawless and still a lot of headroom remained then. Unlike the crowd the flat ("too bright") target returned, and remains for the mentioned reason of sound clarity.You've got no slope there really, that correction filter set is going to sound bad. Your monitors also seem to fall like a cliff after 100hz and correction is adding a lot back in, so distortion is probably rising a lot on the woofer and amp headroom is being eaten up. Those things really need a sub (or just better speakers, that's just bad low end extension). That lack of low end is probably going to greatly affect one's perception of EQ corrections and well sound in general.
This is my slope. It sounds great and I can't imagine not using EQ correction.
View attachment 186164
I'm not familiar with ARC3 at all so pardon me if this is an obvious question, but does that ARC3 graph window show actual room response after correction? Have you measured with REW to compare?That was an older screenshot before the sub, but ARC3 low end extension was flawless and still a lot of headroom remained then. Unlike the crowd the flat ("too bright") target returned, and remains for the mentioned reason of sound clarity.
Orange shows ARC3 predicted/simulated "after" correction, verified by REW sweep (with acoustic timing reference) and RTA. The (almost) lack of nulls is the result of the optimization with REW RTA (first post). Eg if the sub would facing front instead of left in the same close to front wall position would have a huge ~9 dB SBIR null below 50 Hz. It is in the only best place in my current acoustic environment (treatments are NOT my world). Obviously my goal was to minimize the need of boost in ARC3, to avoid distortion as much as possible.I'm not familiar with ARC3 at all so pardon me if this is an obvious question, but does that ARC3 graph window show actual room response after correction? Have you measured with REW to compare?
EDIT: Also, if that's an actual measured response, I'm super jealous by your lack of nulls.