Search results

Sure SPL matters and not only because of Fletcher Munson. I think FR target has to be adapted to the room and the speakers and if you calibrate, as I do, to Katz's method so that Pink_Noise 500-2K -20 dBFS RMS reads 83 dB (A, C, the same with those frequencies) and play his honor roll selection...

what's the point ? I reaction to the thread's title, "Preferred FR target curve", I share 2 findings/conclusions : SQ might be much different, even if FRs at steady state look alike, if the standing waves are dynamically cancelled by a VBA rather than a target, let your speakers breathe...

I liked this video : I confirm the VBA is a game changer IMO, well worth the effort. At the moment I have a whole bunch of convolution sets to play with (none is 100 % perfect with 100 % of recordings, if ever), made after : H4 HC2 HTC And, last but not least, a bunch made over a flat target...

The "LEFTs" picture above shows no significant difference, as far as as steady state measurement can show, with my ""best" previous alternative EQ" ; yet the difference in perceived SQ is night and day. it's up to you or anybody else to try or not.

thank you for your explanations and, you're right, there's more to the picture than FR here's my latest iteration with VBA and as shown on L channel it's pretty close to Harman 4. Nevertheless it's drastically better with VBA since standing waves are dynamically, continuously, cancelled : both...

THANK you but let me rephrase my question : it's not about the relative benefits of using FDW or non FDW but about a glitch I can't put my finger on that causes MY measurements to change slope in HF when I apply FDW to them while on the imported mdat of OCA it does not BUT maybe your answer is...

HELP PLEASE : question for REW users : when I apply a FDW to a sweep measurement or a vector average, there's a drastic change in the HF profile that differs much (by an order of magnitude of 6 dB slope) I thought it was a REW on Mac issue but I opened the mdat attached after the OCA video and...

I tried with windowing, I tried by smoothing... your explanation might be the right one ; anyway my filters for room correction remain made on smoothed steady state measurements. And finally I only keep the filter obtained at the VBA stage. I have no observable preringing observable in REW but...

A must watch : thanks !! I could not get satisfying results with step 2 (main correction). Maybe REW for Mac is buggy when it comes to special functions like inversion...Anyway step 2 allows step 3 and it's never been so easy/ well explained to work with RePhase and get no preringing to get...

Indeed the making of I described above is biased : the preliminary set of corrections with 2 filters for R and 3 for L (those filters span from 61 to 156 Hz and are very broad ( Q of 0.27 to 0.67)) was made with Toole in mind. Going back to initial measurements, it appears that a straight line...

my latest making of goes like this After a first steady state measurements made moving the umik microphone straight to the ceiling with REW recording RTA, I made preliminary set of corrections with 2 filters for R and 3 for L (those filters span from 61 to 156 Hz and are very broad ( Q of 0.27...

different rooms, different speakers, same pattern : maybe you're displaying your microphone response more than anything else ?

I'm not surprised but the main issue comes from full range correction. You could try taking a few dB off the 220 broad peak and boosting the peak inside the dip around 320. I would also try to take a few dB off the 500 peak but every move above 300 is to be considered risky

Addendum : a quick word about "target" choices. yesterday alone I came across 2 Bernie Grundman masterings, Joe JAckson's Body &Soul SACD and H Hancock's Speak like a Child 24/192 ; both exhibited round 8 K bumps. A pure compensation would be more Hz precise, less than 2 octaves, and more...

I have taken the time to redo MMM with UMIK's 0°calibration file and with the mike fixed to a stick, thus 1m from by body but my arm. The HF roll off is now quite OK. I have created 2 sets though ; one has a -2.5 dB 2 octaves eQ point @8000K to match Bob Katz's HF roll-off and also because Steve...

Yes I'm interested in suggestions in the line of Steve Hoffman's in his forum : a dB more there less here for this or that recording, independently of room and speakers, supposed to be running at their best optimisation.... As of the BBC dip, Google is not an easy friend : I understand that it...

I used to have different eQ sets to apply to different recordings but now tend to be very happy with just one ; however if you have a list of your adjustments for easily available/common recordings I'd be interested in giving a try

before I read you kept the analog I wanted to ask you which sounds best to your ears with the idea that I would prefer the analog. Maybe you could give digital another try with the 2 attached mods (if possible) to be on Toole's above #64 Hz while keeping the existing bass level below : bass...

Thank you, yes timing reference signal was used with the sweeps since I cared about fooling with time domain (via RePhase) back then. Actually I did MMM back then which did not show those HF differences. Nowadays my Umik stays put behind and above LP for SPL measurements and craziness, it's...

Parsing through the thread, I'm pretty amazed by the quality in room responses some of you get even prior to eQ and I even wonder if I would eQ at all in some instances. I'm also amazed by the bass level of desktop or bookshelf speakers presented here, wondering once more how far from the...