• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Equalizing loudspeakers based on anechoic measurements (community project)

OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Hi,


Hi,

Kudos for going though the listening tests. These can indeed be very tiring.
Your EQ score is 6.87, again it more of an indicative score than a real value.
View attachment 76387
From the curves it looks like you have EQed for a smooth PIR rather than ON/LW, is that correct?
Was your EQ adjusted by ear?
View attachment 76388

M


There you go:
All PEQ except the one LowShelf (LS) per filter.
You might want to adjust the volume as the EQed response are lower than the raw speaker.

Code:
% 6.54 MX
01=[  50.0,  1.42,  1.80,...
     613.0, -0.86,  2.43,...
    2050.0, -1.00,  1.92,...
    1045.0, -0.67,  0.70,... LS
    5740.0, -2.62,  1.71,...
   11045.0, -1.45,  2.81,...

%  6.58 HM
02=[  50.0,  1.42,  1.80,...
     659.0, -0.86,  2.00,...
    1590.0, -1.00,  1.34,...
     932.0, -0.67,  0.70,... LS
    5740.0, -2.35,  1.50,...
   10950.0, -1.62,  2.41,...

%  6.57 HO
03=[  50.0,  1.42,  1.80,...
     377.0,  0.65,  2.57,...
     640.0, -0.61,  2.00,...
    1592.0, -0.70,  1.34,...
    1225.0, -0.60,  0.70,... LS
    5740.0, -2.15,  2.00,...
   10580.0, -1.10,  3.41,...


Round #1

Same procedure. Had my GF load the filter into text files and name them and I listened to them vs one another. I asked her to doublecheck, because I could not discern any differences without doubt - she assured me they were loaded correctly. Vacation must have put me in a good mood because it all sounded good and alike to my ears. I ended this after a little over 30 minutes and went to round #2

Round #2

Since your filters sounded very alike to my ears, I simply used the first one and put it against my own made filter, and the original uncorrected C208.

Again, it was very hard to discern any differences - there were a few times in which one of the test candidates sounded a little 'sharper' than the other two. After another good 30 minutes I called it a day - I suspected correctly that the slightly sharper sounding file was the one without any filters loaded, and turned out I was correct. I have not loaded your files into REW yet, but looking at the filters now I suspect they are all very similar.

If you are interested, here are my filters - I may replace it for one of yours, I'll have a look in REW what's going on exactly :)

1596635818476.png


Any remarks so far on your end about our testing here? Is there any correlation between my subjective impressions and your filter design criteria?
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
440
Likes
3,704
Location
French, living in China
Hi,

Again great contribution!

Your EQ looks brighter, indicative score 6.18
20200806 C208 TimVG EQ.png


It looks like your preference is more towards LW/ON flat. Not a big surprise.
I optimized both for the score AND the flat ON as opposed to just the score.
i.e. make the LW/ON as flat as possible while not compromising the score too much (in the 0.1/0.3 range) but I set no limit.
The algorithm just sorts itself out.

This was your preferred this strategy for the Genelec, M105, F206 and not conclusive for the C208.

This is similar to EQing to flat what can actually be EQed as the score would decrease too much if one would simply EQ flat with no consideration for the directivity.

FYI the MX EQ (default setting) I designed vs the the HM which is trying to smooth out the PIR
20200806 C208 EQ.png


Did you adjust the gain ? As I said when I sent you the filters the My EQ are 0.6/0.8dB softer than yours.
It might be *a* factor why you preferred your EQ.

20200806 C208 TimVG EQ vs MX.png
 
Last edited:
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Did you adjust the gain ? As I said when I sent you the filters the My EQ are 0.6/0.8dB softer than yours.
It might be *a* factor why you preferred your EQ.

Yes, using pink noise since I didn't want to have any clue on the curves. I must say it wasn't that I -preferred- my curve with this particular speaker. The only one that stood out somewhat was the uncorrected C208 - each of the other filtersets sounded better to me, but they were all so close to one another I couldn't give a preference. This speaker doesn't really need much to max out on its potential (imo).

I will do the KH80 next - I think you already gave me filtersets for that.
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
440
Likes
3,704
Location
French, living in China
Hi,
@TimVG
The KH80
format: Freq/Gain/Q

- no EQ score 6.15
- score with the following EQ: 6.54
EQ01: ( the original EQ I sent page 3 post 61)
62.2, 1.33, 0.80,...
1992.0, 1.35, 1.62,...
5433.0, 0.77, 5.06,...
7830.0, 0.89, 5.78,...
9493.0, -0.55, 8.90,...
12990.0, -0.00, 7.30,...
23359.0, -2.70 1.37,..

EQ02: 6.44
62.2, 1.33, 0.80,...
2127.0, 1.00, 1.10,...
3460.0, -1.10, 6.80,...
5438.0, 0.70, 7.40,...

BTW, how do you rank the Genelec/M105/KH80 against each others.
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Hi,
@TimVG
The KH80
format: Freq/Gain/Q

- no EQ score 6.15
- score with the following EQ: 6.54
EQ01: ( the original EQ I sent page 3 post 61)
62.2, 1.33, 0.80,...
1992.0, 1.35, 1.62,...
5433.0, 0.77, 5.06,...
7830.0, 0.89, 5.78,...
9493.0, -0.55, 8.90,...
12990.0, -0.00, 7.30,...
23359.0, -2.70 1.37,..

EQ02: 6.44
62.2, 1.33, 0.80,...
2127.0, 1.00, 1.10,...
3460.0, -1.10, 6.80,...
5438.0, 0.70, 7.40,...

BTW, how do you rank the Genelec/M105/KH80 against each others.

Subjective remarks:
I did a (sighted) comparison a while back of the 8030C vs the M105 and the G2 (8020) against the KH80.
This was without EQ and there were definitely differences in terms of tonality - In general I slightly preferred the smoother presentation of the 8030C vs the somewhat 'edgier' M105 - but remember mentioning that somewhere inbetween them would be ideal (which turns out is exactly what the recent EQ is doing). The G2 and KH80 were closer tonally than the M105 and 8030C - what stood out in that comparison (and this was in a large auditorium, both were completely away from boundaries) is how much more spacious the G2 sounded. This was quite clear on-axis, but became completely obvious as I moved to the far off-axis. I wouldn't have guessed this being in a room as large as this, away from walls. I've mentioned it before, but mono listening doesn't flatter the KH80 - in stereo however, this translates to quite 'pin-point' imaging. So, no real winner or loser. Any of these brands should provide people with a good listening experience, especially after EQ they are all so subjectively close to one another. For prospective buyers I'd suggest looking at local pricing/availability/support and make your decision based on that.

PS: these KH80 filters are for the latest measurements Amir made (version #3), correct?
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
The one thing all these recent speakers are still 'lacking' is something I've not been able to determine for sure yet, and that is a certain upper-bass to low-mid coloration which presents itself as a 'diffuse' timbre in that ~200-800Hz range. There is some stuff that just sounds 'right' on speakers like in my avatar that feature a wide baffle and a 12-15" driver. I speculate it has to do with controlling directivity in the horizontal plane to a low enough cut-off point.

It makes sense that if the reflected sound resembles the direct sound, it is preferred and less heard as coloration. So far it seems most people prefer something with controlled directivity as opposed to constant directivity, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that so called controlled directivity only seems to take place from the high/mids upward (or low treble for some).

As Charles sprinkles put it on why he chose an eliptical waveguide for his Kali audio range:

The Image Control waveguide was designed to provide individual control of vertical and horizontal coverage and lower pattern control frequency. It was also constant directivity. The Kali waveguide has an elliptical waveguide with a sound power that drops at about 1dB per octave. This creates less of an inflection in the soundpower than a constant directivity waveguide and in our opinion sounds more neutral.

Could this be why in the Salon2 / M2 shootout the Salon2 was preferred? Would the situation have been different if the M2 would feature a lower cutoff point in terms of constant directivity?

I'm contemplating of auditioning a pair of the new GGNTKT M1 speakers to see what happens if the directivity remains controlled/constant down to the transition zone. At the same I'm also interested in a pair of Revel Gem2 to see what something with very wide dispersion does.. alas, I only have money for one or the other :)
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,180
The one thing all these recent speakers are still 'lacking' is something I've not been able to determine for sure yet, and that is a certain upper-bass to low-mid coloration which presents itself as a 'diffuse' timbre in that ~200-800Hz range. There is some stuff that just sounds 'right' on speakers like in my avatar that feature a wide baffle and a 12-15" driver.
Same for me when I listen to my very neutral 12" vintage loudspeakers compared to smaller modern neutral ones.

As Charles sprinkles put it on why he chose an eliptical waveguide for his Kali audio range:

The Image Control waveguide was designed to provide individual control of vertical and horizontal coverage and lower pattern control frequency. It was also constant directivity. The Kali waveguide has an elliptical waveguide with a sound power that drops at about 1dB per octave. This creates less of an inflection in the soundpower than a constant directivity waveguide and in our opinion sounds more neutral.

Could this be why in the Salon2 / M2 shootout the Salon2 was preferred?

That's what I am also wondering since I remember enjoying the Buchardt S300 MKII more than the S400.
1596710687683.png 1596710702807.png
 
Last edited:

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
The one thing all these recent speakers are still 'lacking' is something I've not been able to determine for sure yet, and that is a certain upper-bass to low-mid coloration which presents itself as a 'diffuse' timbre in that ~200-800Hz range. There is some stuff that just sounds 'right' on speakers like in my avatar that feature a wide baffle and a 12-15" driver. I speculate it has to do with controlling directivity in the horizontal plane to a low enough cut-off point.

It makes sense that if the reflected sound resembles the direct sound, it is preferred and less heard as coloration. So far it seems most people prefer something with controlled directivity as opposed to constant directivity, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that so called controlled directivity only seems to take place from the high/mids upward (or low treble for some).

Tim, I think you're sensitive to the baffle step, hence the love of many audiophiles for wide baffle speakers (I have an informal theory that listeners can be divided into their prioritization of three factors: spaciousness, clarity, and tonality; for those who value tonality, the midrange and issues like floor bounce may be critical), and I think you're right about its effect on off-axis response, i.e. directivity.

Young-Ho
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Tim, I think you're sensitive to the baffle step, hence the love of many audiophiles for wide baffle speakers (I have an informal theory that listeners can be divided into their prioritization of three factors: spaciousness, clarity, and tonality; for those who value tonality, the midrange and issues like floor bounce may be critical), and I think you're right about its effect on off-axis response, i.e. directivity.

Young-Ho

Hi Young-Ho

Just out of curiosity - how would you differentiate clarity and tonality. intuitively I would classify clarity as a part of tonality. Could you elaborate on this?
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
Hi Young-Ho

Just out of curiosity - how would you differentiate clarity and tonality. intuitively I would classify clarity as a part of tonality. Could you elaborate on this?

Tim, it came from a paper by Tapio Lokki, which I mentioned here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-audiophile-journey.14547/page-22#post-467125. As @Duke pointed out, the tonality didn't come up as a preference class because of the sources in the study, but it did in the underlying class of attributes.

Broadly speaking, I think it's pretty clear that Toole prioritizes spaciousness, which I believe likely favors wide-dispersion speakers to facilitate lateral reflections, as well as listening setups that reduce IACC. I speculate that prioritizing clarity/definition may favor narrower-dispersion speakers and listening setups that reduce early reflections (e.g. those who bring up the ISD gap).

These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but probably a matter of priorities, and there will always be tradeoffs.

Anyway, just armchair theorizing...
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Tim, it came from a paper by Tapio Lokki, which I mentioned here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-audiophile-journey.14547/page-22#post-467125. As @Duke pointed out, the tonality didn't come up as a preference class because of the sources in the study, but it did in the underlying class of attributes.

Broadly speaking, I think it's pretty clear that Toole prioritizes spaciousness, which I believe likely favors wide-dispersion speakers to facilitate lateral reflections, as well as listening setups that reduce IACC. I speculate that prioritizing clarity/definition may favor narrower-dispersion speakers and listening setups that reduce early reflections (e.g. those who bring up the ISD gap).

These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but probably a matter of priorities, and there will always be tradeoffs.

Anyway, just armchair theorizing...

Okay, I believe I understand: spaciousness and clarity are two opposites on the same spectrum. It also just happens that most wide/very wide dispersion systems feature controlled instead of constant directivity. I believe two possible exceptions may be certain CBT designs, as well as certain sausolito designs.

My own listening studio is small at 4m long x 3m wide with the L/R speakers about 50cm from the side-wall, surprisingly I prefer the presentation with the sidewall reflection kept intact. I do believe however the 'clarity' issue in the upper-bass/low-mid is something that will require either absorption (lateral and behind) down to a couple hundred Hz - which also takes away spaciousness - or using loudspeakers that control directivity to a lower cut-off point.

Some of the options I was considering for L/R

Revel Gem2: won't really solve this particular issue, as it's only a little wider than the F206, but the very wide/even lateral dispersion is something I'd like to experience.

GGNTKT M1: Seems to be a very well thought out design. Priced competitively, includes an amplifier and user adjustable DSP. Would require a custom made stand.

Revel C208: Already use one as a center, at 73cm width it should control directivity down low enough, lateral reflections are better behaved than the F206 on account of its smaller 4" midrange and slightly higher tweeter/mid crossover. It's quite bulky however, and would also require a custom stand.
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
Okay, I believe I understand: spaciousness and clarity are two opposites on the same spectrum. It also just happens that most wide/very wide dispersion systems feature controlled instead of constant directivity. I believe two possible exceptions may be certain CBT designs, as well as certain sausolito designs.

Although it would seem that way, I don't think that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, hence many studio control rooms' preservation of later reflections with the use of diffusers, setup recommendations like Earl Geddes' where CD speakers are set up to cross axes in front of the listening position so that early ipsilateral reflections are minimized but contralateral ones are stronger, and designs or setups like @Duke (or Bill Waslo/wesayso outlined here: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/330741-preference-direct-radiators-33.html) with CD speakers plus delayed signal. I think it's primarily the order of prioritization, not simply a univariate preference to the exclusion of the others.

Young-Ho
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
Okay, I believe I understand: spaciousness and clarity are two opposites on the same spectrum.

Imo Young-Ho's reply is excellent:

Although it would seem that way, I don't think that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, hence many studio control rooms' preservation of later reflections with the use of diffusers, setup recommendations like Earl Geddes' where CD speakers are set up to cross axes in front of the listening position so that early ipsilateral reflections are minimized but contralateral ones are stronger, and designs or setups like @Duke (or Bill Waslo/wesayso outlined here: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/330741-preference-direct-radiators-33.html) with CD speakers plus delayed signal. I think it's primarily the order of prioritization, not simply a univariate preference to the exclusion of the others.

Likewise, I do not find that there is necessarily a tradeoff between spaciousness and clarity, but I do find a tradeoff between the benefits of early reflections (which include spaciousness) and clarity. In other words, imo it is the early reflections (not the late ones) which are a two-edged sword. In my opinion sufficiently late-arriving reflections convey spaciousness without degrading clarity as long as they are not too loud.

In my opinion a "reverberant field done right" does a good job of presenting the acoustic space cues on the recording while minimizing the "small room signature" cues inherent in the playback room's undesirably small dimensions.
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799
Imo Young-Ho's reply is excellent:

Likewise, I do not find that there is necessarily a tradeoff between spaciousness and clarity, but I do find a tradeoff between the benefits of early reflections (which include spaciousness) and clarity. In other words, imo it is the early reflections (not the late ones) which are a two-edged sword. In my opinion sufficiently late-arriving reflections convey spaciousness without degrading clarity as long as they are not too loud.

In my opinion a "reverberant field done right" does a good job of presenting the acoustic space cues on the recording while minimizing the "small room signature" cues inherent in the playback room's undesirably small dimensions.

I wonder whether home listener preferences are as stable across a variety of musical content or recording types, as reflected in this specific paper, which only compared two types of symphonic content. I imagine, for example, that tonality preference might come increasly into play for symphonic classical versus non-classical content (especially when it comes to floor bounce affecting the "weight" of the sound of symphonic music) but perhaps more so for solo instruments violin or piano, also vocal, minus the effects of close microphone placement. I wonder how pan-potted pop/rock and electronic dance music could play into preferences of spaciousness versus clarity. I also wonder how the intrinsic comb filter of head shadowing and the Shirley paper affect perceptions of clarity/definition versus timbre. Sorry, I have only the vaguest inklings of a semi-coherent idea here.
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
440
Likes
3,704
Location
French, living in China
Subjective remarks:
I did a (sighted) comparison a while back of the 8030C vs the M105 and the G2 (8020) against the KH80.
This was without EQ and there were definitely differences in terms of tonality - In general I slightly preferred the smoother presentation of the 8030C vs the somewhat 'edgier' M105 - but remember mentioning that somewhere inbetween them would be ideal (which turns out is exactly what the recent EQ is doing). The G2 and KH80 were closer tonally than the M105 and 8030C - what stood out in that comparison (and this was in a large auditorium, both were completely away from boundaries) is how much more spacious the G2 sounded. This was quite clear on-axis, but became completely obvious as I moved to the far off-axis. I wouldn't have guessed this being in a room as large as this, away from walls. I've mentioned it before, but mono listening doesn't flatter the KH80 - in stereo however, this translates to quite 'pin-point' imaging. So, no real winner or loser. Any of these brands should provide people with a good listening experience, especially after EQ they are all so subjectively close to one another. For prospective buyers I'd suggest looking at local pricing/availability/support and make your decision based on that.

PS: these KH80 filters are for the latest measurements Amir made (version #3), correct?

Hi,

The KH80 EQ are based on the latest (V3) NFS data.

Thanks for the input on the comparison
Regarding your comments on the G2vs KH80 I have two remarks:
First, Mono seems to be a more discriminating way for comparing speakers, you can have a look at Toole's book for the hard evidence (p42 and p87, ed3). It is something that I also noticed myself, first because I was lazy to set up 4 crossovers for A/B comparison then realized that Stereo was more of the same just more or less obvious depending on what was tested.
Second, with a fixed listening distance the larger the room the more the speaker is in control as the reflexions are delayed and the steady state takes longer to establish.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
I wonder whether home listener preferences are as stable across a variety of musical content or recording types, as reflected in this specific paper, which only compared two types of symphonic content. I imagine, for example, that tonality preference might come increasly into play for symphonic classical versus non-classical content (especially when it comes to floor bounce affecting the "weight" of the sound of symphonic music) but perhaps more so for solo instruments violin or piano, also vocal, minus the effects of close microphone placement. I wonder how pan-potted pop/rock and electronic dance music could play into preferences of spaciousness versus clarity. I also wonder how the intrinsic comb filter of head shadowing and the Shirley paper affect perceptions of clarity/definition versus timbre. Sorry, I have only the vaguest inklings of a semi-coherent idea here.
Have you seen this?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...acks-for-speaker-and-room-eq-testing.6/post-8
 

youngho

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
486
Likes
799

Yes, but what if someone likes listening to orchestral or instrumental music, other than the Toy Soldier March? Or electronic dance music (I like Thievery Corporation, though it's terribly engineered from a soundstage aspect, but Bajofondo Tango Club or Orbital do a lot of interesting things)? Sometimes I like to compare different violinists' recordings of the Ciaconne from Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for the Unaccompanied Violin, which often reflects different recording approaches. It often seems like the classic BBC-style Stirling SB-88 reproduce the tonality nicely but at the expense of spaciousness and clarity/definition. I sometimes find myself preferring different speakers for different styles of music.
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
By the way, I would be very interested (and I may not be the only one) if TimVG could show us some MMM measurements at listening position for his M105, KH80 and 8030C

Sorry for the wait, I've been a bit busy - but here are MMM of my F206 pair (L/R - they are normally used along with 4 subwoofers, hence the lack of extension). I overlayed the 'early reflection' curve which is close to the estimated in-room response curve (from the CEA2034 sheet). The only correction that took place was EQ based on the anechoic data, so there is no 'room correction' here.

mmmF206.png


And here is the calculated result of ON - LW and ER after correction based on the spinorama posted by Harman. Since there is good correlation between the ER curve and my MMM measurement I suspect it's not too far off.

F206.png
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Sorry for the wait, I've been a bit busy - but here are MMM of my F206 pair (L/R - they are normally used along with 4 subwoofers, hence the lack of extension). I overlayed the 'early reflection' curve which is close to the estimated in-room response curve (from the CEA2034 sheet). The only correction that took place was EQ based on the anechoic data, so there is no 'room correction' here.

View attachment 77122

And here is the calculated result of ON - LW and ER after correction based on the spinorama posted by Harman. Since there is good correlation between the ER curve and my MMM measurement I suspect it's not too far off.

View attachment 77123

Maybe it would be interesting if you can generate 3 single tone files with 1kHz, 2kHz and 3kHz and play them to see if you will hear 2kHz quiter than other 2 or not. ;)
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Maybe it would be interesting if you can generate 3 single tone files with 1kHz, 2kHz and 3kHz and play them to see if you will hear 2kHz quiter than other 2 or not. ;)

At any of those frequencies moving my head a bit to side to side or back and forward causes audible SPL shifts in both channels, all local interference effects. In general - I'm not sure how valid this kind of test is. In any case, the higher the frequency the more annoying it seems to get :)
 
Top Bottom