Unique room EQ for loudspeaker comparisons

[thewas]

Why do yu think same room EQ cannot be used for all speakers?

Because it depends also on the size and position(s) of the woofers, ports and baffle.
And even if assuming those are very similar for compact bookshelf speakers, there are more problems to this approach.
Lets assume we take a loudspeaker with a flat response down to 20 Hz as reference on which we create our "universal room EQ". In most rooms such a loudspeaker would need quite some reductive EQing in the lower bass due to room gain and modes. Many experienced loudspeaker manufacturers know that fact and tailor their low end response to be falling to compensate for that. In this case using our ""universal room EQ" would make those loudspeakers sound to bass shy, so its even counterproductive.

 

[thewas]

IMO bookshelves shoud be tested on stands and floorstabnders on the floor. How they interact with the room regarding their woofers, ports and baffle is speaker related and has nothing to do with room EQ.

Of course it has as the room EQ depends on the interaction of loudspeaker and room, for example place a woofer 10 cm higher or the BR port to the rear and you will need a different room EQ to get a flat bass.

I think we shouldn't take into account if loudspeaker manufacturer choosed to implement falling low end to make better sound without room EQ. Manufacturer should have implemented such feature as a switch so it could be disabled.

Almost all passive loudspeakers are made like that as not everyone uses room EQ and it would be senseless to force a loudspeaker with a complicated passive network to a freefield linear bass just to reduce it after with room EQ. Also such switchable bass needs a very complicated passive and expensive network, thats why almost no passive loudspeakers have it. And even in this case some go for example linearly to 40 and some to 30 Hz, so again the approach of a "universal room EQ" wouldn't be optimal.

 

[QMuse]

Of course it has as the room EQ depends on the interaction of loudspeaker and room, for example place a woofer 10 cm higher or the BR port to the rear and you will need a different room EQ to get a flat bass.

I thought we agreed we wouldn't be EQ-ing speaker. Some speakers would find themselves better cooperating with that universal room EQ, some will do worse. Same is happening without now without room EQ, but on a much worse (larger) scale.

Almost all passive loudspeakers are made like that as not everyone uses room EQ and it would be senseless to force a loudspeaker with a complicated passive network to a freefield linear bass just to remove it after with room EQ. Also such switchable bass needs a very complicated passive and expensive network, thats why almost no passive loudspeakers have it. And even in this case some go linearly to 40 and some to 30 Hz, so again the approach of a "universal room EQ" wouldn't be optimal.

It is not hard to identify room mode below 50 Hz, correct it and leave verything else in the 20-50Hz range intact. How particular speaker will handle this would be shown in its score, but every speaker would get the same equal chance to do it right. Again, same thing is happening now without room EQ, but in a worse conditions as room mode is not tamed.

 

[QMuse]

In this context room EQ should be considered as a room treatment which would also affect equally all speakers you put in that room.

 

[thewas]

I thought we agreed we wouldn't be EQ-ing speaker.

Again, take 2 loudspeakers with perfect linear free field bass response up to 20 Hz but with different baffle size, positions of woofers and ports, you will need different room EQ for a linear bass at the listening position.

Some speakers would find themselves better cooperating with that universal room EQ, some will do worse. Same is happening without now without room EQ, but on a much worse (larger) scale.

Only that without any room EQ the usage and comparsion will be more sensible and reality oriented than to an immanently flawed universal room EQ concept.

It is not hard to identify room mode below 50 Hz, correct it and leave verything else in the 20-50Hz range intact.

Again, if a loudspeaker has a falling freefield response below 50 Hz (like probably 95+% of the loudspeakers) it would "bump" that mode less up and often this mode would even help it to a more linear room bass, something that the universal room EQ would deteriorate.

 

[QMuse]

Again, take 2 loudspeakers with perfect linear free field bass response up to 20 Hz but with different baffle size, positions of woofers and ports, you will need different room EQ for a linear bass at the listening position.

Only that without any room EQ the usage and comparsion will be more sensible and reality oriented than to an immanently flawed universal room EQ concept.

Again, if a loudspeaker has a falling freefield response below 50 Hz (like probably 95+% of the loudspeakers) it would "bump" that mode less up and often this mode would even help it to a more linear room bass, something that the universal room EQ would deteriorate.

Once again, in this context room EQ is should be considered and designed as a room treatment which would also affect equally all speakers you put in that room.

 

[thewas]

Once again, in this context room EQ is should be considered and designed as a room treatment which would also affect equally all speakers you put in that room.

And again room EQ is unfortunately far different to room treatment and will depend on the baffle size, position of woofers etc...

 

[QMuse]

And again room EQ is unfortunately far different to room treatment and will depend on the baffle size, position of woofers etc...

Sorry but no, you are missing my point - in this context room EQ is the same as room treatment and doesn't have anything to do with baffle size and position of woofers, in the same sense that adding an absorption panel behind the speakers and/or bass trap in the corner dosn't have to do with baffle step and position of woofers. Room treatment and room EQ would here play the same role and that role is not targeted to any particular speaker but only to the particular room.

But ok, this is running in circles, so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Jon AA]

Almost all passive loudspeakers are made like that as not everyone uses room EQ and it would be senseless to force a loudspeaker with a complicated passive network to a freefield linear bass just to reduce it after with room EQ.

I look at it differently. A speaker that's nice and flat anechoically to a low frequency, when placed in a room as most normal people will place it (within a foot or three of at least the front wall, and possibly a side wall as well), gives you that nice rise in bass of the (latest) preferred in-room Harman curve:

In that demonstration they used the F208 which is completely flat down to 60 hz and a couple db down at 40 Hz.

If the speaker used was flat down to a lower frequency for that demonstration, it would have needed less EQ to match the target curve in that particular room/setup--this one needed to be boosted. Any speaker with a faster rolloff starting at a higher frequency would have needed even more boost (likely pushing the limits of what's possible or wise).

Of course you're right, it's all setup dependent--move the speaker this way or that a foot and you can radically change the results. And it'll almost always be a mess (not smooth) without EQ, but personally I'd always rather have the speaker that reaches lower flatter (if no sub will be used)--you're more likely to be "in the ballpark" of that target curve and can EQ it just to smooth it out without needing a bunch of boost. Of course if you don't EQ and it's too much and sounds boomy, you need to play with pulling it out from the wall a bit more, etc. It's always easier to cut bass than it is to add it (unless you're in a really tiny room). I agree with your line of thinking more if the speaker is designed or being advertised as able to be set up more closely to a wall than normal or something like that.

 

[thewas]

Sorry but no, you are missing my point - in this context room EQ is the same as room treatment and doesn't have anything to do with baffle size and position of woofers, in the same sense that adding an absorption panel behind the speakers and/or bass trap in the corner dosn't have to do with baffle step and position of woofers. Room treatment and room EQ would here play the same role and that role is not targeted to any particular speaker but only to the particular room

What do you not understand in what I wrote above?

Again, take 2 loudspeakers with perfect linear free field bass response up to 20 Hz but with different baffle size, positions of woofers and ports, you will need different room EQ for a linear bass at the listening position.

 

[QMuse]

What do you not understand in what I wrote above?

What do you not understand in the analogy of room EQ and room treatment?

Also, what do you not understand in my proposal to agree that we disagee and leave it there? I'm not bored enough and don't want to bore others here with our running in circles. We stated our opinions, so I suggest one more time to leave it there.

 

[thewas]

I look at it differently. A speaker that's nice and flat anechoically to a low frequency, when placed in a room as most normal people will place it (within a foot or three of at least the front wall, and possibly a side wall as well), gives you that nice rise in bass of the (latest) preferred in-room Harman curve

In ideal conditions yes, but if you see how most homes sizes and loudspeakers are here in Europe at least where I live, people tend to get a big peak around approximately 35 Hz with a linear deep bass loudspeaker which is still quite far away from the Harman target curve, see also this article https://www.hifi-selbstbau.de/grund...sinn-und-unsinn-einer-grenzfrequenz-von-20-hz (you can use google or deepl.com to translate it to English)
In my previous house I needed to most negative bass EQ to get my desired Harman target curve with the loudspeakers that had the most linear bass out of my collection (Neumann KH310). Even in the acoustically better room of a friend of mine you can see that loudspeakers with linear bass need quite some bass reduction to reach the Harman target https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/best-room-response.12715/page-7#post-382707

Of course if you don't EQ and it's too much and sounds boomy, you need to play with pulling it out from the wall a bit more, etc. It's always easier to cut bass than it is to add it (unless you're in a really tiny room). I agree with your line of thinking more if the speaker is designed or being advertised as able to be set up more closely to a wall than normal or something like that.

I see it similarly, for me its also not a problem as I anyway use EQ, but for many it can be, that's why either choice of a loudspeaker designer can be "right".

 

[thewas]

What do you not understand in the analogy of room EQ and room treatment?

Sensible room treatment works for any loudspeaker well, while room EQ as said depends on the characteristics of the loudspeaker, thats why the first can be universal but the second not.

Also, what do you not understand in my proposal to agree that we disagee and leave it there? I'm not bored enough and don't want to bore others here with our running in circles. We stated our opinions, so I suggest one more time to leave it there.

Opinions should't be confused with facts, I wrote facts why a universal EQ cannot exist.

 

[QMuse]

In ideal conditions yes, but if you see how most homes sizes and loudspeakers are here in Europe at least where I live, people tend to get a big peak around approximately 35 Hz with a linear deep bass loudspeaker which is still quite far away from the Harman target curve, see also this article https://www.hifi-selbstbau.de/grund...sinn-und-unsinn-einer-grenzfrequenz-von-20-hz (you can use google or deepl.com to translate it to English)
In my previous house I needed to most negative bass EQ to get my desired Harman target curve with the loudspeakers that had the most linear bass out of my collection (Neumann KH310). Even in the acoustically better room of a friend of mine you can see that loudspeakers with linear bass need quite some bass reduction to reach the Harman target https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/best-room-response.12715/page-7#post-382707


I see it similarly, for me its also not a problem as I anyway use EQ, but for many it can be, that's why either choice of a loudspeaker designer can be "right".

Here is what i suggest you try: put your KEFs where your Kali's are and try to measure and listen to them with Kali's room EQ and without any room EQ. Post the results and then we're continue this discussion.

P.S. I am of course aware that your Kali's room EQ is not true room EQ because it still includes some non-linearities in Kali's LF response, but I'm still sure KEFs would measure and sound better with Kali's EQ than without it.

 

[QMuse]

Sensible room treatment works for any loudspeaker well, while room EQ as said depends on the characteristics of the loudspeaker, thats why the first can be universal but the second not.

True room EQ is speaker agnostic. It is not easy to throw out speaker's non-linearities when doing it, but it can be done. Even if not ideal, it would still give much better results with any speaker in that room and that LP than without it.

As I proposed, do the experiment and post measurement, then we can discuss further.

 

[thewas]

Here is what i suggest you try: put your KEFs where your Kali's are and try to measure and listen to them with Kali's room EQ and without any room EQ. Post the results and then we're continue this discussion.

P.S. I am of course aware that your Kali's room EQ is not true room EQ because it still includes some non-linearities in Kali's LF response, but I'm still sure KEFs would measure and sound better with Kali's EQ than without it.

Of course some characteristics are common to some extend but on the other hand if I use the room EQ I made for the KEF on both it will give an advantage to it and vise versa if U use the Kali room EQ for both it will make its bass sound more neutral, which is what I am saying since some pages.
Also if the improvement of both would be exactly the same, why bother using it, since it wouldn't change the rating anyway?

 

[thewas]

True room EQ is speaker agnostic. It is not easy to throw out speaker's non-linearities when doing it, but it can be done. Even if not ideal, it would still give much better results with any speaker in that room and that LP than without it.

Nope, it isn't loudspeaker independent due to the reasons I wrote several times above.

As I proposed, do the experiment and post measurement, then we can discuss further.

I won't do an experiment that I don't find sensible, if you want to prove something please feel free to do it yourself, putting someone prove your point is an easy exit argumentation.

 

[thewas]

The type of construction also impacts bass performance. Drywall and timber board on joist floors are a lot lossier than brick/block walls and concrete slab floors.

Of course, average US homes tended to have not solid walls and larger room sizes, that's why US loudspeaker manufacturers often more gave them more bass than for example UK ones.

 

[QMuse]

Nope, it isn't loudspeaker independent due to the reasons I wrote several times above.

Once you EQ the speaker according to Klippel everything you measure and correct is your room at the LP, and that will be valid for every speaker you put in that room at that LP. Why is that so hard to understand?

I won't do an experiment that I don't find sensible, if you want to prove something please feel free to do it yourself, putting someone proof your point is an easy exit argumentation.

Sure, repeating the same blabla is easier than rolling the sleeves and doing something. Especially when it may prove you're wrong.

 

[thewas]

Once you EQ the speaker according to Klippel everything you measure and correct is your room at the LP, and that will be valid for every speaker you put in that room at that LP. Why is that so hard to understand?

Again, even if you "EQ them to same Klippel" (by the way to which one, 0°, LW, smooth PIR or, or, or? ) they will give you different bass responses at the listening position due to the reasons I wrote, like position of drivers and directivity so you would again need different room EQs. Also the proposal here was to not EQ them above the modal region.

Sure, repeating the same blabla is easier than rolling the sleeves and doing something. Especially when it may prove you're wrong.

I explained the reasons why I find the experiment senseless, so question is why don't you roll your sleeves and do your proposed experiment?