Adam T7V, Spinorama and EQ inside

[Maiky76]

Hi,

After analyzing the results produced by the Adam T8V https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/adam-t8v-studio-monitor-review.17118/page-3#post-553687 I was curious about the T7V.

@amirm hasn’t measured it yet (but it on the errands list, I believe) but Audioholics did and provided graphs that I digitized and subsequently used to design some EQs as per usual.

Adam T7V, 250USD/unit street price
Review from Audioholics
https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/adam-audio-t7v

An other data point can be found on their own website.
https://www.adam-audio.com/content/...dio-monitor-review-sound-and-recording-en.pdf
It seems to bode well with the synthesized curve I came up up with with broadly the same features.
The scanned data can be accurate to +/-0.15 (in terms of score) see there:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...anovic-rtm10-monitor.16905/page-4#post-557012
But it can also deviate more (more on that latter)...

When the NFS data is available I will be able to check what a I do compared to the real thing.
In particular the resolution below 1000Hz might be too coarse because of the windowing technics used and consequently the peaks/deeps in that range might be underestimated.
No information is available regarding linearity.
The Spinorama data of the speakers is attached for whom it may be useful, unzip it.

Notes on the limits of the exercise:

• I have spliced the LF of the ON to the other curves and simulated the directivity, so it's probably not perfect but, I hope, a reasonable approximation. TBC
• The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse, especially since we have no information regarding the calculation of the ER which may or may not be off like for the NFS’.
• The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.

Here is the synthesized Adam T7V Spinorama with no EQ,
score 4.51; with sub: 6.70

The frequency response looks rather ragged and uneven but not too dissimilar to the JBL 305p MKII.
I wish that the the range under 1000Hz was smoother thought.
The ERDI looks very smooth which is great for media use.
The SPDI looks like the speaker will respond to the EQ well. Spoiler, it did indeed…

EQ design
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one would be similar to what I would usually do without over doing things. Similar number of biquads I used for the JBL 305p mkII that I used as a reference.
• The second one is a bit Over-The-Top (OTT) as it was tantalizing close to break the 7/9 mark. Adam themselves provide a 2dB boost at LF so why not…

The EQs tend towards tilting slightly the LW frequency response.
This is the only deviation from the flat seed.

Score EQ: 6.89; with sub: 9.08 (!)
Score EQ OTT: 7.11; with sub: 9.17 (!)

Adam T7V APO EQ 96000Hz
November052020-122728

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 89 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 1.41
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 521 Hz Gain -2.28 dB Q 7
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 669 Hz Gain 1.66 dB Q 2.48
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 776 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3266 Hz Gain -2.25 dB Q 3.47
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3994 Hz Gain 1.75 dB Q 8.25
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 6335 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 3.25
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 8371 Hz Gain -2.36 dB Q 0.91

Adam T7V APO EQ OTT 96000Hz
November052020-122829

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 46 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 1.66
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 87 Hz Gain -3.23 dB Q 1.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 668 Hz Gain 1.71 dB Q 2.48
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 777 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6.08
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3278 Hz Gain -2.17 dB Q 3.47
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3990 Hz Gain 1.77 dB Q 7.61
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 6317 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 3.25
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 9808 Hz Gain -2.34 dB Q 0.67
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 12135 Hz Gain 1.48 dB Q 4.59
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 17731 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 3.09

Spinorama EQ

Spinorama EQ OTT

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal flat after EQ

Radar: a lot of efforts for the EQ but big pay off!

Here is the comparison with the JBL 305p mkII, EQ published there:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-monitors-review.10811/page-29#post-547172

The LF driver size is different but I thought it could be of some interest for some. It was for me at least.
Out-of-the-box the tuning looks similar. Is there cross pollination going on or is this an optimal response curve?
The JBL looks smoother

With a similar EQ complexity:

The OTT EQ on the Adam
I am curious to know how the differences in the PIR translate during a listening test.

I can’t say that the out-of-the-box performance is what I consider state-of-the-art, some monitors measure better without any EQ (Kali LP8 as an example), but if the EQed version lives up to the number that could be a great buy. So better than the JBL? not sure but a good reference point.

For those interested there is also some data available for some other 8inch monitors:
Kali LP8 vs Presonus Eris E8 XT, Spinorama and EQ design inside

 

[ernestcarl]

How is this "with sub" score figured out? I'm just wondering... I mean there are big subs, small subs, expensive and cheapo ~$100+ subs -- there's also the thorny issue of achieving "perfect" system integration -- some studios' MLP bass response look compromised from the get go regardless of the price of monitors being used...

There are always other variables that's going to skew these somewhat enticing, rosy scoring predictions.

Still, it would be sweet if someone directly compared (listening in-person) different speakers, but, with very similar EQ'd spin response predictions... providing their own in-room measurement results besides listening impressions pre- and post your EQ correction settings.

 

[Maiky76]

How is this "with sub" score figured out? I'm just wondering... I mean there are big subs, small subs, expensive and cheapo ~$100+ subs -- there's also the thorny issue of achieving "perfect" system integration -- some studios' MLP bass response look compromised from the get go regardless of the price of monitors being used...

View attachment 91602
There are always other variables that's going to skew these somewhat enticing, rosy scoring predictions.

Still, it would be sweet if someone directly compared (listening in-person) different speakers, but, with very similar EQ'd spin response predictions... providing their own in-room measurement results besides listening impressions pre- and post your EQ correction settings.

I just started to add the sub score as I have been asked several times was it was after EQing.
I don't really see the point of it or least the way I interpret it seems different.

Here is the calculation I perform, which seems to match what others are doing:
PPR_LF = 12.69 - 2.49*NBD_ON - 2.99*NBD_PIR - 4.31*log10(14.1) + 2.32*SM_PIR
see there for some details:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urements-community-project.14929/#post-467858

This assumes:
- Frequency response 14.1Hz @-6dB. 14.1Hz is chosen so the theoretical max score is 10 although nothing prevent a system from achieving better performances and therefore the score could exceed 10; this is the first issue.
- Perfect integration whatever that might mean, which is the second issue and where I don't quite adhere to the concept.

The idea, I guess, is to compare speakers if the LF extension is literally taken out of the equation, akin the pound-for-pound rating.
To me it would make more sense to use it this way rather than thinking "if I buy a sub then I'll get the astonishing system predicted by the sub score". That is just not going to happen: sub or not the room will still determine the system LF response.

Each room/speaker location will have a different LF signature and a different reflection pattern.
The PIR (Predicted In-room Response) is supposed to be a reasonable estimator of the actual in-room response, at least in the frequency range where the speaker is dominating.
The EQ I provide are targeted at maximizing the *speaker* performance to give the user a decent starting point for the final in-room integration that will undoubtably require additional EQing to deal with the room/speaker location LF contribution.
Contrary to some, I perform an almost full band EQing as I don't see how leaving a big bump or though in the 50Hz - 500Hz range, when we know it's there and we can correct it, can be beneficial even if subsequent EQ in the same range will be applied during room integration.
I'd rather start with as clean a (speaker + anechoic EQ) system as possible before dealing with the room, but that's me.

Regarding the scoring method itself, models in general, not just in audio, are judged with two main criteria:
- Can it describe what we observe reasonably well?
- Do the predictions derived from the model hold against new observations?
The first criterium is covered in the original paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Ratings_of_Around-Ear_and_On-Ear_Headphones

I agree with you we need more data for the second criterium to be more understood.
We have some data point from the Harman team comparing different speakers with different PIR shapes and EQing targets but this not as detailed as the first paper.
And you are right that it would be great if we could compare different EQ strategies:
example of a possible way can be found here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-zero-speaker-review.13717/page-9#post-504910

 

[infinitesymphony]

Just wanted to carry over a comment from someone in the T8V review thread who said that the T7V exhibited hiss that the T8V did not have. If anyone can verify that, it may exclude this monitor from contention for sensitive people.

I had the t7v some time ago, but i wouldn't recommend them for nearfield listening, you can clearly hear the hiss from about 1.5m away. So more for midfield use i would say.

 

[ernestcarl]

The idea, I guess, is to compare speakers if the LF extension is literally taken out of the equation, akin the pound-for-pound rating.

I see your point and that totally makes sense.

Contrary to some, I perform an almost full band EQing as I don't see how leaving a big bump or though in the 50Hz - 500Hz range, when we know it's there and we can correct it, can be beneficial even if subsequent EQ in the same range will be applied during room integration.

There is one other potential issue with these predictive corrections that's not easy to see without actually taking more measurements and listening tests post EQ... distortion and certain resonances may be accentuated by completely flattening out the FR.

For example, I attempted to 'fix' those two dips in the on- and off-axis measurements below in various degrees:

My own amateurish experimentation and measurements I've partially documented here.

Turns out that those two dips may have been intentionally left there in place...

It looks somewhat innocuous, but as you turn the up the volume, I see substantially increased higher order distortion around the 800Hz and even more pronounced peak around 5kHz.

Correcting the magnitude of the FR may cause non-linearities elsewhere.

Although as far as I'm aware the scoring system doesn't really take such considerations fully into account.

 

[MZKM]

Here is the calculation I perform, which seems to match what others are doing:
PPR_LF = 12.69 - 2.49*NBD_ON - 2.99*NBD_PIR - 4.31*log10(14.1) + 2.32*SM_PIR
see there for some details:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...urements-community-project.14929/#post-467858

This assumes:
- Frequency response 14.1Hz @-6dB. 14.1Hz is chosen so the theoretical max score is 10 although nothing prevent a system from achieving better performances and therefore the score could exceed 10; this is the first issue.

I think you mean ~14.5Hz, as that’s even what your linked explanation says and it’s what it is (~14.5349) when calculating everything else as perfect.

 

[hamanas]

Hi,

After analyzing the results produced by the Adam T8V https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/adam-t8v-studio-monitor-review.17118/page-3#post-553687 I was curious about the T7V.

@amirm hasn’t measured it yet (but it on the errands list, I believe) but Audioholics did and provided graphs that I digitized and subsequently used to design some EQs as per usual.

Adam T7V, 250USD/unit street price
Review from Audioholics
https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/adam-audio-t7v

An other data point can be found on their own website.
https://www.adam-audio.com/content/...dio-monitor-review-sound-and-recording-en.pdf
It seems to bode well with the synthesized curve I came up up with with broadly the same features.
The scanned data can be accurate to +/-0.15 (in terms of score) see there:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...anovic-rtm10-monitor.16905/page-4#post-557012
But it can also deviate more (more on that latter)...

When the NFS data is available I will be able to check what a I do compared to the real thing.
In particular the resolution below 1000Hz might be too coarse because of the windowing technics used and consequently the peaks/deeps in that range might be underestimated.
No information is available regarding linearity.
The Spinorama data of the speakers is attached for whom it may be useful, unzip it.

Notes on the limits of the exercise:

• I have spliced the LF of the ON to the other curves and simulated the directivity, so it's probably not perfect but, I hope, a reasonable approximation. TBC
• The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse, especially since we have no information regarding the calculation of the ER which may or may not be off like for the NFS’.
• The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.

Here is the synthesized Adam T7V Spinorama with no EQ,
score 4.51; with sub: 6.70

The frequency response looks rather ragged and uneven but not too dissimilar to the JBL 305p MKII.
I wish that the the range under 1000Hz was smoother thought.
The ERDI looks very smooth which is great for media use.
The SPDI looks like the speaker will respond to the EQ well. Spoiler, it did indeed…
View attachment 91540
EQ design
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one would be similar to what I would usually do without over doing things. Similar number of biquads I used for the JBL 305p mkII that I used as a reference.
• The second one is a bit Over-The-Top (OTT) as it was tantalizing close to break the 7/9 mark. Adam themselves provide a 2dB boost at LF so why not…

The EQs tend towards tilting slightly the LW frequency response.
This is the only deviation from the flat seed.

Score EQ: 6.89; with sub: 9.08 (!)
Score EQ OTT: 7.11; with sub: 9.17 (!)

Adam T7V APO EQ 96000Hz
November052020-122728

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 89 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 1.41
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 521 Hz Gain -2.28 dB Q 7
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 669 Hz Gain 1.66 dB Q 2.48
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 776 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3266 Hz Gain -2.25 dB Q 3.47
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3994 Hz Gain 1.75 dB Q 8.25
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 6335 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 3.25
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 8371 Hz Gain -2.36 dB Q 0.91

Adam T7V APO EQ OTT 96000Hz
November052020-122829

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 46 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 1.66
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 87 Hz Gain -3.23 dB Q 1.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 668 Hz Gain 1.71 dB Q 2.48
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 777 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6.08
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3278 Hz Gain -2.17 dB Q 3.47
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3990 Hz Gain 1.77 dB Q 7.61
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 6317 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 3.25
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 9808 Hz Gain -2.34 dB Q 0.67
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 12135 Hz Gain 1.48 dB Q 4.59
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 17731 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 3.09

View attachment 91533
Spinorama EQ
View attachment 91539
Spinorama EQ OTT
View attachment 91534
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 91535
Regression - Tonal flat after EQ
View attachment 91537
Radar: a lot of efforts for the EQ but big pay off!
View attachment 91536

Here is the comparison with the JBL 305p mkII, EQ published there:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-monitors-review.10811/page-29#post-547172

The LF driver size is different but I thought it could be of some interest for some. It was for me at least.
Out-of-the-box the tuning looks similar. Is there cross pollination going on or is this an optimal response curve?
The JBL looks smoother
View attachment 91568
With a similar EQ complexity:
View attachment 91567
The OTT EQ on the Adam
I am curious to know how the differences in the PIR translate during a listening test.
View attachment 91566

I can’t say that the out-of-the-box performance is what I consider state-of-the-art, some monitors measure better without any EQ (Kali LP8 as an example), but if the EQed version lives up to the number that could be a great buy. So better than the JBL? not sure but a good reference point.

For those interested there is also some data available for some other 8inch monitors:
Kali LP8 vs Presonus Eris E8 XT, Spinorama and EQ design inside

1. I have Adam T7V, can I enter this setup in ROON's EQ settings?

2. I don't understand preamp values - 0.7dB or/and -1.3dB, what do they mean?

TNX

 

[sweetchaos]

1. I have Adam T7V, can I enter this setup in ROON's EQ settings?

Manually....one filter at a time.

2. I don't understand preamp values - 0.7dB or/and -1.3dB, what do they mean?

Here's Maiky's 1st PEQ profile:

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 89 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 1.41
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 521 Hz Gain -2.28 dB Q 7
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 669 Hz Gain 1.66 dB Q 2.48
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 776 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3266 Hz Gain -2.25 dB Q 3.47
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3994 Hz Gain 1.75 dB Q 8.25
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 6335 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 3.25
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 8371 Hz Gain -2.36 dB Q 0.91

PK = peaking filter
FC = frequency

So if you see:

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 89 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 1.41

This means its a 'peaking filter' with Frequency of 89hz, with -2.85 dB gain, and q-factor of 1.41.


Here's Maiky's 2nd PEQ profile (you can try this alternatively, to the 1st profile):

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 46 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 1.66
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 87 Hz Gain -3.23 dB Q 1.41
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 668 Hz Gain 1.71 dB Q 2.48
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 777 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 6.08
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1216 Hz Gain -1.85 dB Q 9.99
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1837 Hz Gain -2.87 dB Q 2.39
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3278 Hz Gain -2.17 dB Q 3.47
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3990 Hz Gain 1.77 dB Q 7.61
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 6317 Hz Gain -1.7 dB Q 3.25
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 9808 Hz Gain -2.34 dB Q 0.67
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 12135 Hz Gain 1.48 dB Q 4.59
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 17731 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 3.09

What's the difference between 1st and 2nd profile?
Maiky wrote:

• [*]The first one would be similar to what I would usually do without over doing things. Similar number of biquads I used for the JBL 305p mkII that I used as a reference.
  [*]The second one is a bit Over-The-Top (OTT) as it was tantalizing close to break the 7/9 mark. Adam themselves provide a 2dB boost at LF so why not…

 

[hamanas]

Manually....one filter at a time.


Here's Maiky's 1st PEQ profile:



PK = peaking filter
FC = frequency

So if you see:

This means its a 'peaking filter' with Frequency of 89hz, with -2.85 dB gain, and q-factor of 1.41.


Here's Maiky's 2nd PEQ profile (you can try this alternatively, to the 1st profile):


What's the difference between 1st and 2nd profile?
Maiky wrote:

Tnx a lot!

 

[DIEGO COLOMBO]

Sorry im new here i,m reading a lot these days , fisrt question : I have 3 new Adam T7v for my 5.1 , where is best to put the Eq corrections ? Audio Interface virtual mixer , Protools ?

 

[elak]

Sorry im new here i,m reading a lot these days , fisrt question : I have 3 new Adam T7v for my 5.1 , where is best to put the Eq corrections ? Audio Interface virtual mixer , Protools ?

Have You found Your answer? I'm also wondering, what is the easiest way to make eq given above. Do I understand correctly, that I don't have to make measurements, just do equalisation, and sound will be so much better?

 

[Maiky76]

Please report your findings, positive or negative!


The EQ can be implemented with APO config files are attached, VST pluging can also be used but you'll have to input manually.

The EQs are “anechoic”, to get the speaker right before room integration. They should already provide some improvements.

If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

 

[Auditory Cortex]

Thank you for the EQ's, I am using them on my Eq APO, and I think they indeed sound slightly better, the highs are more controlled too. I will be using these monitors in my music studio so its good to make them sound more precise.
I am also using an Adam Audio T10S and I already did some calibration with it so I will turn off the EQ parameters of the low end from your config files

 

[Brian like sushi]

Nice work，wish your date can upload to spinorama.org. t7v’s date on spinorama is wrong.

 

[Auditory Cortex]

Nice work，wish your date can upload to spinorama.org. t7v’s date on spinorama is wrong.

I think you are right. I was checking the Adam Audio T7V on Spinorama.org and it says it has a tonality score of 1.1, but in the @Maiky76 original post here says:

Here is the synthesized Adam T7V Spinorama with no EQ,
score 4.51; with sub: 6.70

That's a big difference, considering also that in the same website the T5V has a tonality score of 4.1 and the T8V 4.7
Or is it actually the score they get from a "Low" quality measurement data?