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

[Le Concombre]

This is (lower trace mixing with B&K circa 3K) the retro engineering of Audiophile Style's Chris Connaker's target by Mitch Barnett and how it compares to B&K and Toole's idealised steady state. Not recommended. Unless you have serious problems.

 

[Le Concombre]

As I said I'm not a big fan of the RR1. Especially with acoustic recordings but, even with pop, think of male vocals typically cut off under 100 Hz : seemingly bass heavier Harman is more respectful, more linear in the relevant region. Anyway I propose a new target in a set of 3, to take place between Harman and B&K. Essentially it's the fusion of RR1 up to 200 followed by HATS : a better fit to Trained Listeners only than RR1 while based on 2 pieces of Harman's stuff. I am a bit puzzled to depart from Floyd Toole's model of the idealised steady state with various bass responses via tone control but listening sessions confirmed, as far as I'm concerned, various right hand profiles with various bass responses as legit. Harman target following Toole's idealised ss, and the other right hand profiles showing more attenuation

 

[Le Concombre]

Get all based covered ! (and switch in player)

Top to bottom @ 100 Hz
Harman
HATS
RR1
Concombre's smoothing of Trained Listeners
Toole
B&K

Top to bottom @ 3 KHz
Harman
Toole
Hats + Concombre that superpose > 180 Hz
RR1 + B&K that superpose > 300 Hz

 

[Le Concombre]

I don't agree with everything in the pdf, most notably I don't eQ above 500 Hz, but the summary is quite brilliant :

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/a-...w-and-rephase-using-convolution-filters/90990

especially the modal filters generation trick but except, of course :"Find your speakers correct frequency response and equalize for that response curve" if he suggests to reproduce the anechoic response in your living room ; guess if you're here you rather eQ to targets

My addition : First compensate any large dips by 1 octave BW (Q 1.41) boosts anchored on a peak inside the dip regionband then modal cut the peaks hence generated + the preexisting ones

 

[Le Concombre]

Toole reinterprated

Remember that the idealised steady state by Lloyd Toole does not propose a profile below a mysterious 64 Hz ?
In my quiver my Toole set of filters extends flat below 64 and I apply a high shelf to compensate for distance and meet the target ; in the attached reinterpretation I don't use any filter above 484 (a cut) following Dr Toole's recommendation not to go over 500 Hz and as of bass I don't touch the in room response below 64 Hz ( though of course the L & R boosts I introduce respectively @ 88 & 73 Hz with a bandwidth of one octave extend below) but for modal cuts of about 3 dB around 38 Hz in order to stay within the Low End limit of Harman/Synthesis targets. Plus it places back the Low End Max SPL at No correction at all level. Since we listen with our brains, not measure instruments, keeping the enveloppe of the sound at the extremes might prove important since we analyse with our brains/ears the sound of our living rooms even when mo music is played.

Sounds quite good ; a keeper.

Images present:
Toole's idealised steady state
exemples of 100 K$ speakers in Stereophile's Michael Fremer's room
my per above explained corrected Cabasse in my room
L/R (lowered for better readability) , L+R per above explained corrected ; L+R (upper trace) is framed by HATS and Toole's "targets"

 

[Le Concombre]

In praise of imperfection, I'll stop this DRC crisis here.
Imperfections list :
1) / Toole ideal steady state : I choose the natural treble roll off over target matching
2) / 500 Hz limit rule : on the one hand I backed up from 484 to 347 for the Right channel for the peak does not show in Vector Average nor RMS FDW 3 and Direct sound primes ; on the other hand I made slight corrections between 457 and 610 Hz to the Left channel for turbulence showed in Vector Average as well as in FDW 3
3) I added Minimum Phase Linkwitz Riley 24 dB filters to tame the bass response, respectively @ 10 & 15 Hz L&R, to favour clarity over boom boom
4) Of course I don't fill dips that shouldn't
5) I indulged myself to follow "Trained Listeners" for the intermediate set, causing a slight accentuation between 64 and 128 Hz/ a strict Toole profile

Smoothing is 1/6 as in Stereophile's presentations
Framing "targets" are Toole's and HATS
I can hear differences between B&K and Toole but don't want to fiddle that obsessive
I take RR1 as a strong sauce to make bad palatable and readily reject it ; note that it's far far off anything mastered with a B&K or quite flat to at least 160 Hz (Harman HRR/Synthesis) target ; yes it follows B&K above 300 Hz but it is dramatically off in the critical 100 to 300 region (vocals, bass delineation etc etc)
I also finally reject Harman and Synthesis (HATS) targets for they are way too off Toole's ideal, and artificially so (cf my Cabasse or expensive speakers measured by Stereophile), between 64 and 128 while keeping a set of filters that reaches those targets at max value and respects the natural in (my) room gain

 

[Le Concombre]

A DRC crisis is hard to stop...
found a Harman target that enveloped quite nicely my max bass response introduced in #85 and then follows Toole's idealised steady state (I nevertheless leave untouched the response above 484 Hz, anechoic response @ 0 30 & 45 ° being nearly perfect)
Find it attached here for your consideration (should show off nicely with drums and bass) ; it's sourced from :
http://web.archive.org/web/20100305100511/http:/www.jblsynthesis.com/technology/tech3.aspx?Language=FR
I chose not to boost to fill the aire between 40 and 75 ( and of course respected my loudspeakers bass roll off and did not boost below the 38 peak ; I write of course but I have seen charlatanism at work, by guys who not only dare quote Dr Toole while being nevertheless targeted by Lloyd Toole's sentences : "their marketing philosophy is that their magic can make any loudspeaker in any room into a perfect system" or "The stated or implied sales pitch is: give me any loudspeaker in any room and my process will make it "perfect". A moment of thought tells you that this cannot be true.", but also endanger speakers and amps). I took the target as an asymptote to take maximum advantage of my in room response, cutting less than previously but not boosting.
So here is my new quiver

 

[Le Concombre]

Still very happy with that quiver presented L+R and framed by Toole and Harman curve "targets" (middle set is tailored after Trained Listeners for the bass)

The lower interwoven traces are L & R for the set tailored after Toole

last refinements were made using actual music to see if results obtained with Pink Noise were confirmed (some yes, some no) and with pure frequencies (https://www.geogebra.org/m/etj9BJ9f ) ; in exemple, the bump around 800 is only confirmed with prolonged shouting vocals but since frequencies around 836 are offending to my hearing I finally intervened

All 1/12

 

[Le Concombre]

Toole reinterprated

Remember that the idealised steady state by Lloyd Toole does not propose a profile below a mysterious 64 Hz ?
In my quiver my Toole set of filters extends flat below 64 and I apply a high shelf to compensate for distance and meet the target ; in the attached reinterpretation I don't use any filter above 484 (a cut) following Dr Toole's recommendation not to go over 500 Hz and as of bass I don't touch the in room response below 64 Hz ( though of course the L & R boosts I introduce respectively @ 88 & 73 Hz with a bandwidth of one octave extend below) but for modal cuts of about 3 dB around 38 Hz in order to stay within the Low End limit of Harman/Synthesis targets. Plus it places back the Low End Max SPL at No correction at all level. Since we listen with our brains, not measure instruments, keeping the enveloppe of the sound at the extremes might prove important since we analyse with our brains/ears the sound of our living rooms even when mo music is played.

Sounds quite good ; a keeper.

Images present:
Toole's idealised steady state
exemples of 100 K$ speakers in Stereophile's Michael Fremer's room
my per above explained corrected Cabasse in my room
L/R (lowered for better readability) , L+R per above explained corrected ; L+R (upper trace) is framed by HATS and Toole's "targets"

It's a real cool 1 single correction alternative to a quiver : Toole/B&K till 64, Trained Listeners till 48 (+- 1.5 dB) and reaching Harman for lowest bass guitar note. Not a target per se and you need to adapt to your speakers in your room

 

[FrancisCote37]

First time Im in house curving and I've created one that sound really great to my ears, not too much bass. REALLY SMOOTH.

Using minidsp 4x10 in a 4 way active crossover system.

I have a buttkicker this is why I put very low frequency high.

2 cerwin vega subwooger and my main.

4 amplifier - each speaker is crossovered actively

 

[Le Concombre]

First time Im in house curving and I've created one that sound really great to my ears, not too much bass. REALLY SMOOTH.

Using minidsp 4x10 in a 4 way active crossover system.

I have a buttkicker this is why I put very low frequency high.

2 cerwin vega subwooger and my main.

4 amplifier - each speaker is crossovered actively

Should be easy to try the Harman curve 2 target I introduced in post 87 ; you might actually prefer the bass response once it will be sculpted this way, offering more delineation and attacks. Curious to hear about your opinion once you will have tried

 

[Le Concombre]

IT is fully REW compatible yet but I transferred my data and replaced yours in your txt

Anyway your target looks pretty much OK, I'm puzzled that you align it with bass while you should align it with right hand of the spectrum and lower bass accordingly

 

[FrancisCote37]

I will try this one tommorow for fun.

I have find a way to use the one you share and I will test it too. I know why I wasnt able to use it before, it's because the SPL is too high on your curve,

 

[FrancisCote37]

I have test a new curve last night and WOW with my system it is really smooth, warm plenty sounding . I share with you.

The other "OLD" one has too much bass for me and I dont like that, but now this is differente, less agressive.

 

[Le Concombre]

I'm quite puzzled by your presentations but let's assume I might be helpful :
placement of "target" matters much.
Why would I want to mess with my in room response above 500 Hz ? because vs Toole's idealised steady state it peaks around 2K and treble isn't quite high enough ?
yeah but then
it fits nicely Bob Katz roll off (-7.26 @ 24 K ) except he starts @ 1K and my in response is flat to 2K which is nice with regards to EBU 3276 except EBU 3276 halves the roll-off

Is any of those references sacred ? No

So I just don't mess with my speakers' in room response above 500 Hz, as suggested by Dr Toole, and forget about full range "target"

So place the target to respect your speakers above 500

Below 500, I think that getting totally rid of the peak we all have, with full range speakers, around 40 depending on room's size, is a waste of good flattering bass : in the attached exemple I transient from flat to Toole for the Low end to keep some of that Low end rise (room gain). I even sometimes use a correction that leaves my below 40 Hz peaks uncorrected

 

[Le Concombre]

Note about the correction that leaves my below 40 Hz L & R peaks uncorrected : of course it would be bad if it was to create a 40 Hz peak in the music spectrum. The attached spectrum is quite typical : with stuff like Daft Punk it just extends, linearly, the bass response, maybe because the mastering monitors themselves had such a peak. And when such a peak occurs it has to be consistent, I think it is with Doin' it Right (still Daft Punk)

 

[escape2]

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. Floyd 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.

How can these target curve files be converted to a format that MathAudio Room EQ understands?

EDIT: Nevermind. One just needs to change the file extension.

 

[ernestcarl]

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

Spoiler: Comparison

View attachment 89076

I've slightly modified and simplified the same curve for my own purpose. The original file was 1.45 MB big!

 

[thewas]

I've slightly modified and simplified the same curve for my own purpose. The original file was 1.45 MB big!

View attachment 169212

Or even simpler use a 0,8 dB/oct target like I often do:

 

[ernestcarl]

Or even simpler use a 0,8 dB/oct target like I often do:

View attachment 169333

One would only need two lines in the text file to create that extremely simplified curve.

There is some question in the importance of the shape and location of those peaks and dips in these generalized target curves. For instance, there is a tiny hump in the low-mid area of the original extracted curve... does that mean the trained listeners actually preferred just a little bit more oomph in that band? And the dip at 8Khz was that intentional?