• 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!

All room corrections are detrimental to sound clarity for me

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,289
Likes
2,037
Yes, it is absolutely anti "audio science". But this works/translates best for me.
Didn't you mention listening in near field? In that case there shouldn't be to much of a slope, as your mainly listening to the direct sound. Nothing "anti science".
 
  • Like
Reactions: czt
OP
czt

czt

Active Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
103
Likes
63
Didn't you mention listening in near field? In that case there shouldn't be to much of a slope, as your mainly listening to the direct sound. Nothing "anti science".
We absolutely agree, hence the quotation marks.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,289
Likes
2,037
I come from a live audio background, and I know for tuning PA systems that flattening out every single little peak and dip would be a mistake
That totally depends on the system and situation. You do whatever it takes. If you as a sound system engineer don't tune the system, than the guest mixers will do it anyway. Live sound has come a long way. Nowadays a few minor corrections might do, but you would be shocked to see what a system EQ looked like 20 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: czt

Matthias McCready

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Messages
198
Likes
243
That totally depends on the system and situation. You do whatever it takes. If you as a sound system engineer don't tune the system, than the guest mixers will do it anyway. Live sound has come a long way. Nowadays a few minor corrections might do, but you would be shocked to see what a system EQ looked like 20 years ago.
I do agree that live sound technology has changed drastically in the last several decades (mostly due to measuring).

I would disagree that a lot of system EQ is normatively helpful (there are always exceptions to any rule, audio is a game of compromises). Small Q moves might help in one area, but they will usually be extremely detrimental to the rest of the seats. Some small Q moves might be "helpful" across the board; however in such cases those are usually acoustical problems in the room. EQ doesn't "fix" that problem, it just doesn't overly excite.

However good practices today would still be good practices 20 years ago. Granted you may be talking about a DIY roll-your-own systems, which is how pro-audio started; in which case I would still classify that as "speaker processing."

Speaker processing: This is what makes the box sound like the box. This is why D&B, L-Acoustics, and Meyer Sound are so well regarded; they lock down their processing (you cannot buy a speaker without the amp). This should not be open to the user to be modified, to much room for someone to tinker thinking they are smarter than the engineering department who designed the speaker. ;)

I would like to differentiate, "tuning" vs "toning"

By "tuning" I want everything to play well together. That is getting things time aligned, and to make sure that every sub-system gives the same rough sonic picture of the mains (front fills, side fills, in fills, delay towers etc).

This way when the guest engineer applies a system EQ, that artistic decision is reflect upon every aspect of the system, rather than just where they are.
 

mightycicadalord

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
542
Likes
521
Yes, it is absolutely anti "audio science". But this works/translates best for me.

I don't really see what's anti-science about it.

I still wouldn't last a second in a room with that response. I've had that response and it's like instant fatigue. To each his own.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,289
Likes
2,037
Small Q moves might help in one area, but they will usually be extremely detrimental to the rest of the seats.
If you start with a perfect speakers, which PA speakers are certainly not. Or "were not", until the manufacturers start using build in EQ-ing (in actieve speakers, or in system processors or their own line of amps).

This is why D&B, L-Acoustics, and Meyer Sound are so well regarded; they lock down their processing (you cannot buy a speaker without the amp). This should not be open to the user to be modified, to much room for someone to tinker thinking they are smarter than the engineering department who designed the speaker.
Such companies hired me to do tuning.
 

mightycicadalord

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
542
Likes
521
When I did a good job guest engineers don't touch the system EQ.

Some even apply no eq to anything at all lol. Only ran into this once, guy was engineer for orchestra in Indiana, 14 mics and zero eq and it sounded awful.
 
OP
czt

czt

Active Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
103
Likes
63
I don't really see what's anti-science about it.
Just taking "preventive measures" ("everybody" slopes, except me).
I still wouldn't last a second in a room with that response. I've had that response and it's like instant fatigue. To each his own.
Yes, as to each their own monitors, room size, listening distance, SPL...

(This is why I like this forum. Made a temporary mistake with my target, and we already discussing a wide spectrum of audio science out of it.)
 

Head_Unit

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
967
Likes
476
very helpful for me too in the days without the subwoofer
Well, with some luck in the room and speakers placements, it's conceivable that fiddling with highpass and lowpass and levels could end up with a fairly flat response and you don't need correction so much and/or you don't notice remaining peaks/dips.

We haven't used the EQs you mention, but have good results from Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the App, and now with ARC. Left Focal 936 is out alone against a wall, the Right is in a corner. Bass sweeps are markedly smoother with either EQ, it's very obvious. We haven't noticed any detrimental effect to clarity.
 
OP
czt

czt

Active Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
103
Likes
63
We haven't used the EQs you mention, but have good results from Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the App, and now with ARC. Left Focal 936 is out alone against a wall, the Right is in a corner. Bass sweeps are markedly smoother with either EQ, it's very obvious. We haven't noticed any detrimental effect to clarity.
Yes, I'm back to using ARC, because of the phase correction of MultEQ ("natural phase" mode) with which it obviously surpasses all of the other minimum or linear phase "alternatives".
 

chych7

Active Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Messages
187
Likes
304
I had looked at clarity with respect to room correction (No Correction, Dirac Live, Audyssey XT32) here:


Note that my room is treated. The REW clarity metric compares the direct vs. reflected sound, and is one way of quantifying it.
There is some impact of room correction on this metric.
 

Head_Unit

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
967
Likes
476
Yes, I'm back to using ARC, because of the phase correction of MultEQ ("natural phase" mode) with which it obviously surpasses all of the other minimum or linear phase "alternatives".
Uh...I think you miswrote something? This sounds contradictory: back to ARC because MultEQ obviously surpasses? I feel I misunderstand.
 
Top Bottom