I read where people are using the downward spectral tilt of the expected in-room measurement as a target for automated DSP room correction.
But I’m missing something. I understand from Toole that the tilt is not a target, which I interpret to mean an objective to be attained, but rather an outcome of other attributes.
Toole tells us that equalizing to force a speaker to overcome room issues (in the region above ~400 Hz) is a fool’s errand, because people hear through those room resonances naturally, and forcing it electronically may make a good speaker bad. He insists that EQ should only be applied to correct anechoic frequency response, not in-room response, except in the bass region.
As I read it, downward tilt is an outcome of a speaker’s tendency to have reduced high frequencies off-axis. Flat on-axis response mixes with treble-shy off-axis response to create something in between. If the mixed tilt is too steep, the speaker may have poor high-frequency dispersion or the first reflections may be too dominant. Toole tells us this cannot be repaired with electronics, and we need to damp first reflections or get better speakers.
He likens it to adding another layer of the circle of confusion. He concludes we should only equalize to flatten the on-exis anechoic response, particular for good speakers that have similar frequency response shapes off-axis.
Therefore, the downward tilt simply can’t be a target for automated room processing. At best, it’s a validation of room treatments, speaker selection and placement. But it seems to me that a speaker with infinite directivity might have little or no downward tilt in the room and still be ideal.
The bass region is a whole other topic, of course.
Do I have that right?
Rick “worshipping at the Floyd Toole altar at present” Denney
But I’m missing something. I understand from Toole that the tilt is not a target, which I interpret to mean an objective to be attained, but rather an outcome of other attributes.
Toole tells us that equalizing to force a speaker to overcome room issues (in the region above ~400 Hz) is a fool’s errand, because people hear through those room resonances naturally, and forcing it electronically may make a good speaker bad. He insists that EQ should only be applied to correct anechoic frequency response, not in-room response, except in the bass region.
As I read it, downward tilt is an outcome of a speaker’s tendency to have reduced high frequencies off-axis. Flat on-axis response mixes with treble-shy off-axis response to create something in between. If the mixed tilt is too steep, the speaker may have poor high-frequency dispersion or the first reflections may be too dominant. Toole tells us this cannot be repaired with electronics, and we need to damp first reflections or get better speakers.
He likens it to adding another layer of the circle of confusion. He concludes we should only equalize to flatten the on-exis anechoic response, particular for good speakers that have similar frequency response shapes off-axis.
Therefore, the downward tilt simply can’t be a target for automated room processing. At best, it’s a validation of room treatments, speaker selection and placement. But it seems to me that a speaker with infinite directivity might have little or no downward tilt in the room and still be ideal.
The bass region is a whole other topic, of course.
Do I have that right?
Rick “worshipping at the Floyd Toole altar at present” Denney