Recent content by flipflop

Some info about my methodology. All the EQs use 20 filters for accuracy's and consistency's sake. The filters only affect frequencies from 300 Hz and up. This is to avoid messing with the low frequencies, which the room dominates, and therefore needs individual equalization depending on the...

Before (dark red) and after (regular red) EQ on-axis: Before and after EQ PIR: As you can see, the EQ is based on PIR and although it might not be completely obvious, it also improves the on-axis response. I also made an EQ for a flat LW, but it has an on-axis response that's more inaccurate...

Peace doesn't work with that kind of filters. You can try these: Filter 1: ON PK Fc 345 Hz Gain 0.4 dB Q 12.000 Filter 2: ON PK Fc 429 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 12.000 Filter 3: ON PK Fc 493 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 17.000 Filter 4: ON PK Fc 575 Hz...

No, it just means 'not using an extreme slope to game the model'. I used -1.0 dB/octave for the vast majority of my EQs. Depending on the ERDI of the speaker in question, everything in the range of about -0.5 to -1.8 could also be reasonable, I guess. Yes. Yes. Those are exactly my points...

No problem at all. I think what I've said so far would constitute as a summary of the data. If you want a more elaborate explanation, you will have to read through the conversation.

I think some of the confusion and misconceptions stem from the fact that you haven't had at look at the actual data I'm referring to. You're still talking about things from a very theoretical perspective, while I'm trying to convey how things look in practice on top of that. Maybe I haven't been...

'Tonal balance' is not synonymous with 'sound quality'. Revel M16 is a warm speaker: Adam S2V is a bright speaker: Dayton Audio B652-AIR is a neutral speaker: The Revel and Adam are both superior to the Dayton. The only thing he's advocating for in that quote is smooth dispersion. Just...

What I consider unwarranted and overconfident is disregarding a PIR based approach, which has been shown to improve NBD_ON, NBD_PIR, and SM_PIR for all speakers, and instead favoring a direct sound approach, which improves NBD_ON and NBD_PIR, but decreases SM_PIR for a category of speakers. The...

@edechamps The problem with basing the EQ on the on-axis or listening window is that certain speakers with recessed treble and strong early reflections will have their SM_PIR degraded to the point where it drags down the entire aggregated score. Equalizing to the PIR is the only universal...

Last night I made a new EQ with a 0.8 dB slope and it also brought NBD_ON down to 0.18. The overall score remained at 6.9, though. I think your algorithm is very useful for determining the optimal slope. Could you please apply it to the newly measured GR Research X-LS and share the number it...

Our scores are very close considering the fact that you're only using 5 filters. I'm guessing your PIR slope is superior to mine. Here's a graph showing the uncorrected on-axis response (brown), the corrected response with my EQ (red), and the target set to the SPL @ 300 Hz (blue): The...

That listening must be done blind. It doesn't "suffer" for any of the speakers I've made EQs for. Please have a look at the spreadsheet I posted. Otherwise let's agree to disagree.

I disagree. Every single speaker shows an improvement to NBD_ON post-EQ: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRqZmi59T8Z4XgJm5HL3ku152ftpFP63E8gpYA0pBiIYFRpkY45KxBFTZxYuK-lXXeAz7n3XQYojlaD/pubhtml

Correct. Most of my EQs are based on the PIR and use a 1.0 dB/octave slope. I wanted to give all the speakers an equal treatment and this seemed like the only universal approach that worked. I might have to revise some of the EQs at a later date. Yes. Feel free to elaborate :)

Yes, most of my EQs are based on the PIR, so the on-axis response can't be expected to be perfectly flat. pierre just shared the post-EQ scores with me for the remaining speakers and 8030C went from a 6.3 to a 6.9 with improvements to all score components, including ON_NBD. KH80 went from 6.2 to...