Deviations from flat response? What do you prefer?

[olds1959special]

I have found that I like a little bass boost when I listen. Enough treble to balance that out is not a bad thing too. I think measurements only show half the picture. What we hear matters too. Perfectly flat response is better suited to the studio. At home, I don't mind a little more bass (and treble.) I've also tried to focus on decent physical acoustics (symmetry, sufficient space) over using EQ whenever possible.

 

[JSmith]

Perfectly flat response is better suited to the studio.

It's generally easier to EQ a speaker with a flat frequency response than one with a non-flat FR.


JSmith

 

[Chrispy]

What do you mean by flat response? I've seen some say it's just not using eq/tone controls, rather than some measured and arranged measured in-room response.

 

[Aryzon]

If by flat you mean the harman target then I find it to be too bright and slightly Vshaped I suppose.
If by flat you mean harman target with flat bass then I find it too bright and now definitely with not enough bass.
My target preference is a bass boosted Edition X. Which to some degree is what HE-1 is but with even more bass. And given the reputation of HE-1 and how much love the Edition XV has gotten, I think target specifically might have some merit.

 

[IngMishael]

I have found that I like a little bass boost when I listen. Enough treble to balance that out is not a bad thing too. I think measurements only show half the picture. What we hear matters too. Perfectly flat response is better suited to the studio. At home, I don't mind a little more bass (and treble.) I've also tried to focus on decent physical acoustics (symmetry, sufficient space) over using EQ whenever possible.

for speakers I like a simple -0.8dB/Oct Tilt from bass to treble.

for headphones and IEMs, I just like to EQ by ear and have become extremely adept at it

 

[solderdude]

I have found that I like a little bass boost when I listen.

Yep, its called personal taste/preference and is also highly recording quality dependent. It differs from person to person.

You should EQ/tone control the tonal balance(sound) the way you like it.
That's what tone controls are for... use them to your hearts content.
There is NOTHING wrong with that nor does it have anything to do with 'flat response' of electronics nor transducers.

 

[skankhobag]

I want all of my equipment to have a perfectly flat response 20-20k.

As far as EQing music, I EQ almost everything because the mixing and mastering of most recordings sucks.

For EQing, I run everything through Blue Cat's FreqAnalyst plugin. If you EQ your music to have a -3dB slope (like pink noise), that will give you an equal energy in each octave. So, that will give you an audibly flat response to your ears. You can set FreqAnalyst to give you the cumulative peak response of an entire song.

Most music mixes start rolling off the treble around 8-10kHz. Bringing it back up to a -3dB slope improves imaging (especially for percussion). I use a 20kHz parametric filter with level and Q set appropriately.

Depending upon the recording, I boost the low end to be flat to 80Hz with a low shelf filter and adjust the Q for -3dB slope starting there. I’ve found that most recordings will be a bit bass heavy if I run the boost all the way down to a Low B (31Hz).

This works really well. I consider it to be realtime remastering.

This methodology is very successful for modern, multitracked music. Other styles of recordings require you to rely more on your ears and less on the real time analyzer.

The improvements you can get by doing this are not subtle.

Again, totally flat system, lots of custom EQ on each song. Obviously, this is all done via playback on my Mac. I don’t play discs anymore. Everything gets ripped.

 

[sigbergaudio]

You should see this video which explains the misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding the term "flat response".

In short, flat response is only something to strive for in an anechoic chamber (so what manufacturers look for when designing a speaker).

A flat response is NOT the target for in-room response in your living room, and it's also NOT the target for in-room response in studios, with the possible exception of extreme nearfield.

 

[Keith_W]

^^^ exactly what Erin said. It's very important to specify what you mean when you say "flat response". Anechoic flat response = yes. In-room flat response = NO!

Anyway, you might ask - why is a speaker flat under anechoic conditions, but has a downward tilting curve when placed in a room? The answer, as you may guess, is: reflections. A speaker is omnidirectional at bass frequencies and becomes progressively more directional as frequencies go up. Because a bass driver has to radiate omnidirectionally, it has to generate more sound power to maintain a flat on-axis response. So, the more directional a speaker is, the less sound power is needed to remain flat on-axis. The moment this speaker is placed in a room, the greater sound power in bass with less sound power up high means that the overall response is tilted downwards.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Electronics: DACs, preamplifiers, power amplifiers should all have a fully flat amplitude response across the audible spectrum when set to defaults (e.g. EQ and tone controls disabled or set to middle position). Achieving this is simple these days. There's no excuse for not achieving this

Speakers should have an on-axis flat amplitude response across the audible spectrum with smooth off-axis response when measured in an ANECHOIC CHAMBER.

All recordings vary. Using tone controls to adjust for this is sensible. But if you ALWAYS want more bass and/or more treble for EVERY recording when listening at high-ish levels then your system (including the room) is unbalanced; or you need a hearing test; or you don't like how music actually sounds.

 

[Hear Here]

Speakers should have an on-axis flat amplitude response across the audible spectrum with smooth off-axis response when measured in an ANECHOIC CHAMBER.

That should surely not be the case.

For a speaker brand to sell his speakers, they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room. No owner has an Anechoic Chamber as his listening room! Brands will develop a new model based on theory of speaker building, anticipated price point, appearence, etc and will arrange listening tests of a number of prototypes at various typical locations with experienced listeners to finely tune their design before release. The same way a car maker will develop a new car or a soup brand will introduce a new flavour. Testing in the real world is the only way to create a product that will keep the brand in business. Chambers are used of course, but are not the ultimate testing ground.

 

[Keith_W]

That should surely not be the case.

For a speaker brand to sell his speakers, they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room. No owner has an Anechoic Chamber as his listening room!

Please read this post upthread or watch Erin's video. The aim is DEFINITELY a flat anechoic response. It seems as if you need to read a bit of Toole, you have some misconceptions about audio, and worse still, you seem rather dogmatic about it.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That should surely not be the case.

For a speaker brand to sell his speakers, they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room. No owner has an Anechoic Chamber as his listening room! Brands will develop a new model based on theory of speaker building, anticipated price point, appearence, etc and will arrange listening tests of a number of prototypes at various typical locations with experienced listeners to finely tune their design before release. The same way a car maker will develop a new car or a soup brand will introduce a new flavour. Testing in the real world is the only way to create a product that will keep the brand in business. Chambers are used of course, but are not the ultimate testing ground.

This is a complicated subject, but a flat anechoic response is a resonable starting ground for most speakers, depending on dispersion characteristics, etc. You say "they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room." - this doesn't necessarily conflict with having a flat response in an anechoic chamber (your post seems to imply that it does).

Beyond that I agree that testing in real rooms is also an important part of the process.

 

[Mart68]

or a speaker brand to sell his speakers, they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room.

A flat response in room sounds very bright. A speaker that has a flat response in an anechoic chamber will have a gradually tilting response in room - tilting down from low frequencies to high frequencies. Assuming no in room issues, this will give a balanced sound that is tonally accurate.

As per Erin's video this creates some serious misunderstandings as to what 'flat response' actually means, as you've just demonstrated. Context is very important.

 

[Mort]

That should surely not be the case.

For a speaker brand to sell his speakers, they must sound good (not necessarily dead flat) in a typical owner's listening room. No owner has an Anechoic Chamber as his listening room! Brands will develop a new model based on theory of speaker building, anticipated price point, appearence, etc and will arrange listening tests of a number of prototypes at various typical locations with experienced listeners to finely tune their design before release. The same way a car maker will develop a new car or a soup brand will introduce a new flavour. Testing in the real world is the only way to create a product that will keep the brand in business. Chambers are used of course, but are not the ultimate testing ground.

You might not understand what's being discussed.

 

[olds1959special]

"A flat response in room sounds very bright. A speaker that has a flat response in an anechoic chamber will have a gradually tilting response in room - tilting down from low frequencies to high frequencies. Assuming no in room issues, this will give a balanced sound that is tonally accurate."

Is that why my chart looks like this?

 

[olds1959special]

You should see this video which explains the misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding the term "flat response".

In short, flat response is only something to strive for in an anechoic chamber (so what manufacturers look for when designing a speaker).

A flat response is NOT the target for in-room response in your living room, and it's also NOT the target for in-room response in studios, with the possible exception of extreme nearfield.

Thanks for explaining this!

 

[olds1959special]

A flat response in room sounds very bright. A speaker that has a flat response in an anechoic chamber will have a gradually tilting response in room - tilting down from low frequencies to high frequencies. Assuming no in room issues, this will give a balanced sound that is tonally accurate.

As per Erin's video this creates some serious misunderstandings as to what 'flat response' actually means, as you've just demonstrated. Context is very important.

Thanks!

 

[Auditory Cortex]

If a flat response curve is not how your speakers should sound in your room, then how they should be? they never show that, people only show the flat response curve for the anechoic in-axis measurements, but nobody is saying or showing how the curve should look like when the speaker is the room, specially for music studios, which is opposite to what happens on Headphones where they do show how they should sound for the final user.

Now my answer to the question of the original post: after correcting my speakers to get a totally flat response "in-axis anechoic", another EQ for correcting the room modes for the low frequency range, another EQ for personal taste, and a 1/1 Smoothing in REW, this is the response curve I have in my room and which I am very satisfied with:

EDIT: Turns out my custom frequency response is very close to the universally prefered response curve:

 

[sigbergaudio]

If a flat response curve is not how your speakers should sound in your room, then how they should be? they never show that, people only show the flat response curve for the anechoic in-axis measurements, but nobody is saying or showing how the curve should look like when the speaker is the room, specially for music studios, which is opposite to what happens on Headphones where they do show how they should sound for the final user.

Now my answer to the question of the original post: after correcting my speakers to get a totally flat response "in-axis anechoic", another EQ for correcting the room modes for the low frequency range, another EQ for personal taste, and a 1/1 Smoothing in REW, this is the response curve I have in my room and which I am very satisfied with:

There is no universal "should", as the in-room response is a combined result of the speaker design, speaker placement, listening position, and your room.

Especially the bass will be heavily influenced by room and speaker placement (and listening position). Headphones are different since there's no room to mess up the result.

So if you have competent speakers, you should not EQ the response to a target, as there is a natural, correct response that automatically happens when the speakers interact with the room. Most "normal" speakers will show a slope with less energy in the top end compared to the bass. The bass level, say at 50hz (not including peaks in the response caused by the room) typically ends up somewhere around 3-10dB above the midrange/highs (2-5khz). As roughly indicated by the Harman graph you posted.