A collection of speaker target responses in .csv/.txt format

[staticV3]

In order to use REW's automatic EQ feature, I started collecting and converting every speaker target that I could find into the necessary .txt format.
In this thread I want to share my work so far, as well as ask you guys for target responses that I may have missed.

Spoiler: rtings [black dotted line]

Spoiler: Harman(?) [black line]

Spoiler: HATS LCR+SUB Target

Spoiler: Dr. Floyd Toole [bold dotted line]

Comparison:

So far, my experience with working with these targets is as follows:
Toole is way too bass-light. Many times, the bassline in a song just vanishes.
HATS is noticeably blunt sounding as a result of that heavy treble roll off.
Harman sounds pretty nice.
I haven't tried the rtings target yet, so I can't say anything about it.

You can find the .txt/.csv files in a Zip that I've attached to the post.
If there are any major targets that I've missed or maybe an updated Harman target or something, then I'd be very grateful if you could point me to them.

 

[thewas]

I had also collected and digitised Harman loudspeaker target curves from different publications and averaged them (black line):

Attached below is the average as a txt file to use in REW or other programs. Mind you though, target curves depend on loudspeaker directivity and room reverberation and thus equalizing a loudspeaker with unknown directivity to a predefined target doesn't guarantee anything:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

 

[q3cpma]

"Toole" looks suspiciously like the B&K curve.

 

[Snarfie]

In order to use REW's automatic EQ feature, I started collecting and converting every speaker target that I could find into the necessary .txt format.
In this thread I want to share my work so far, as well as ask you guys for target responses that I may have missed.

Spoiler: rtings [black dotted line]

View attachment 85987

Spoiler: Harman(?) [black line]

View attachment 85988

Spoiler: HATS LCR+SUB Target

View attachment 85989

Spoiler: Dr. Olive Toole [bold dotted line]

View attachment 85990

Comparison:
View attachment 85992

So far, my experience with working with these targets is as follows:
Toole is way too bass-light. Many times, the bassline in a song just vanishes.
HATS is noticeably blunt sounding as a result of that heavy treble roll off.
Harman sounds pretty nice.
I haven't tried the rtings target yet, so I can't say anything about it.

You can find the .txt/.csv files in a Zip that I've attached to the post.
If there are any major targets that I've missed or maybe an updated Harman target or something, then I'd be very grateful if you could point me to them.

Did read here somewhere on this forum that Floyd Tool explaind that the Harman target key(s) are developt only with forward firing speakers so i asume if you have a bass back port of bipolair speakers it will not make sence to use the Harman target curve which raise the question are all target curves developt for forward firing speakers if so how usefull are they.

PS. Found Tools statement.

Remember, the Harman curve relates to conventional forward-firing loudspeaker designs. Legitimate reasons for differences are different loudspeaker directivities - omni, dipoles, etc. - or rooms that are elaborately acoustically treated, or both.

 

[staticV3]

I had also collected and digitised Harman loudspeaker target curves from different publications and averaged them (black line):

View attachment 86030

Attached below is the average as a txt file to use in REW or other programs. Mind you though, target curves depend on loudspeaker directivity and room reverberation and thus equalizing a loudspeaker with unknown directivity to a predefined target doesn't guarantee anything:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Wow, thank you! Do you have some context for these targets? Can they be seen as iterative updates/refinements, or are all equally as viable?
Furthermore, you said that EQing speakers with an unknown directivity standing in a room with unknown reflections isn't reliable, but if you measure the speakers in their final position from the listener's position, and ideally average the response from many sweeps with slightly different mic placement, then wouldn't that automatically account for directivity and reflections?
After all, the only thing that matters is what arrives at your ears/at the mic.

 

[staticV3]

"Toole" looks suspiciously like the B&K curve.

If you click on the spoiler, then you can see the source image that I used. It's directly from Toole's paper "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems", page 17.

 

[staticV3]

Did read here somewhere on this forum that Floyd Tool explaind that the Harman target key(s) are developt only with forward firing speakers so i asume if you have a bass back port of bipolair speakers it will not make sence to use the Harman target curve which raise the question are all target curves developt for forward firing speakers if so how usefull are they.

PS. Found Tools statement.

Remember, the Harman curve relates to conventional forward-firing loudspeaker designs. Legitimate reasons for differences are different loudspeaker directivities - omni, dipoles, etc. - or rooms that are elaborately acoustically treated, or both.

I'd argue that speakers with back-firing bass reflex ports or passive radiators still qualify as conventional forward-firing loudspeaker designs, since the frequencies that radiate from a port or passive radiator are undirectional in nature.

 

[thewas]

Wow, thank you! Do you have some context for these targets? Can they be seen as iterative updates/refinements, or are all equally as viable?
Furthermore, you said that EQing speakers with an unknown directivity standing in a room with unknown reflections isn't reliable, but if you measure the speakers in their final position from the listener's position, and ideally average the response from many sweeps with slightly different mic placement, then wouldn't that automatically account for directivity and reflections?
After all, the only thing that matters is what arrives at your ears/at the mic.

Well, guess they are so close so I guess they are iterations/evolution and also depended on the loudspeakers used.
About EQing, according to Toole which I linked above, above transition frequency we perceive tonally more the direct sound than the state state mix of direct and reflected sound which we measure with non-windowed sweeps at the listeners position:

It is essential to note that this is the room curve that would result from subjectively highly-rated loudspeakers. It is predictable from comprehensive anechoic data (the "early reflections curve in a spinorama). If you measure such a curve in your room, you can take credit for selecting excellent loudspeakers. If not, it is likely that your loudspeakers have frequency response or directivity irregularities. Equalization can address frequency response issues, but cannot fix directivity issues. Consider getting better loudspeakers. Equalizing flawed loudspeakers to match this room curve does not guarantee anything in terms of sound quality.

 

[staticV3]

yeah, that makes sense as directivity-caused FR changes depend heavily on the listener's position relative to the speakers and to the room and that position is of course constantly changing. By averaging many sweeps from different positions within the area that you'll be while listening, I suppose it's possible to account for directivity and room reflection problems to a certain degree. But tackling them in hardware (absorbers, different speaker) is of course the better way.

 

[staticV3]

@thewas_ Oh and I compared your averaged file to the one I extracted. The difference is at most .9dB. Mine looks pretty similar to the blue one in your graph. Have a look: (blue is mine, red is the difference)

 

[Soniclife]

Does anyone have the trained listener curve as a target? Or does one of these match it?

 

[staticV3]

Does anyone have the trained listener curve as a target? Or does one of these match it?

Please send me a link to the paper or whatever source you have this trained listener curve from and I'll convert it!

 

[Soniclife]

Please send me a link to the paper or whatever source you have this trained listener curve from and I'll convert it!

It's in your first post, on the Dr T graph, it's just clear to me when a bunch of the lines converge.

 

[staticV3]

It's in your first post, on the Dr T graph, it's just clear to me when a bunch of the lines converge.

Ah, I see. I decided to extract the predicted steady-state room curve from the graph since that looks like the end result of this test. From my (admittedly short) experience with playing with these curves I'd say that it would sound dull, just like the HATS curve, which shows similar treble roll off.
But hey, since you're interested in it, I'll just convert it as well. I'll post it here and @ you as soon as I'm done.

 

[dougi]

Thanks for this! I have been looking for house curves. FYI below is what my Lyngdorf DPA1 with Room Perfect did to my sat plus sub system, with your average Harman on top. Very similar, barring my tweeter rolloff.

 

[ernestcarl]

I actually do not use any predefined target. I just manually add a room curve and adjust to whatever fits the situation best -- as well as gradual adjustments over time through extensive listening.

Here's how my desk MMM RTA (summed L+R Neumann KH120s + SUB) desk measurement fits with target files posted:

Looks like the RTINGS target posted by @staticV3 and Harman average target file by @thewas_ fit-in very nicely. I actually am very surprised. Only 'substantially obvious' difference is the treble shelving -- switch settings at the back of monitors is set at -1dB. Also, the only reason the bass extension ends where it does is because of a gigantic null below that point at my MLP.

 

[ernestcarl]

It looks a little bit odd how the target looks less smooth when applied to my couch/sofa MLP measurement:

Again, I did not use a 'target curve' at all. Just whatever fits best (manual room/house curve) according to my measured response and extensive listening tests. Harman average seems closest...

Could probably reduce a bit of that excess energy around 70Hz and those peaks at 600Hz and 900Hz -- really, just a tad little adjustment. That rise past 5kHz is a consequence of the exaggerated toe-in I have on my horn-loaded S8 studio monitors. It's not bothering me so I will leave it 'as it is' for now.

*that previous peculiar target curve looks like a different, much older target file which I found elsewhere (never used it). Clearing and re-importing fixed the issue now:

Looks like my extended sub-bass extension is overly extravagant in comparison to the above target curves from this thread. Hah! But I kind of like it in this setup as the couch is where I watch movies -- listening to blockbuster movies played a heavy role in my adjustments. So... hmmmn. Maybe I'll keep it.

 

[gorman]

I had also collected and digitised Harman loudspeaker target curves from different publications and averaged them (black line):

View attachment 86030

Attached below is the average as a txt file to use in REW or other programs. Mind you though, target curves depend on loudspeaker directivity and room reverberation and thus equalizing a loudspeaker with unknown directivity to a predefined target doesn't guarantee anything:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Thanks for this @thewas_ I've used this target and matched target based on my 8 measurements average from slightly different positions around my listening position (my head, sitting at a desk, I use iLoud Micro loudspeakers). Result below. It says no smoothing because the average is calculated based on 8 var smoothed measurements. So I though further smoothing was not needed. If I'm wrong in this let me know.

I set target level at 84.7dB as that manages to give me a smooth curve (measurement was done at suggested 75dB). It requires -9.1 dB of preamp.

 

[staticV3]

@Soniclife Sorry for the long wait. Here's Toole's curve for trained listeners only:

Spoiler: Comparison

 

[DeLub]

Your Toole curve is based on the typically reflective room curve. But there’s also the curve mentioned in this post. It rolls of more on the high end. Shouldn’t this actually be the Toole target curve?