• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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.

Screenshot 2020-10-03 014355.png

Range-of-adjustments-to-taste-and-preferences-1100x728.jpg

Synthesis Target Curve (1).jpg

Screenshot 2020-10-03 163406.png

Comparison:
Speaker Targets.png


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.
 

Attachments

  • Speaker Targets.zip
    604.5 KB · Views: 2,074
Last edited:

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,757
Likes
10,569
I had also collected and digitised Harman loudspeaker target curves from different publications and averaged them (black line):

1601771763596.png


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/
 

Attachments

  • Harman average target.txt
    3.4 KB · Views: 1,393

Snarfie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
912
Likes
723
Location
Netherlands
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.





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.
 
Last edited:
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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.
 
Last edited:
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
"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.
 
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,757
Likes
10,569
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.
 
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,164
Likes
4,864
Location
UK
Does anyone have the trained listener curve as a target? Or does one of these match it?
 
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,164
Likes
4,864
Location
UK
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.
 
OP
staticV3

staticV3

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
2,039
Likes
2,912
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

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
674
Likes
554
Location
ACT, Australia
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.

target.jpg
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,245
Likes
1,620
Location
Canada
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:

1603284883927.png


1603284889719.png


1603284895426.png


1603284899929.png


1603284966848.png


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.
 
Last edited:

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,245
Likes
1,620
Location
Canada
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...
1603287401542.png


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:

1603290981993.png


1603291046673.png


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.
 
Last edited:

gorman

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
84
Likes
58
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.


1603295543275.png
 

DeLub

Active Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
117
Likes
146
Location
The Netherlands
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?
 
Top Bottom