• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Dont like the sound of room correction

D

Deleted member 17820

Guest
I am setting up a 13ft by 16 ft room in my house for combined stereo and home theater use and I must say, finding the best balance of screen size, seating position and getting a great 2 channel sound stage has been hard but fun!
Based on trying out all different speaker positions I must say that there are room interections that create spacial information that room correction EQ just can duplicate.

PS, a reviewer on youtube said that his dayton sub correction can correct for boundry interference! IT MUST BE some3 magic box that can change reality! I tried to explain that increasing gain cannot fix nulls caused by boundry intererence but he said "No, these are FIR filters, they can do it..."
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Clearly a design flaw. Surely they would have recieved this kind of feedback from users and addressed it? Seemingly not.
It gets talked about a lot on various HT forums like AVS forums.
D-M, like all large corp's are slow to respond. Not a very likeable situation but just the way it is.
All we can do is keep hammering away.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
What you can do though is to sit closer, and lower the SPL to reduce reflected energy
I recently reduced my listening triangle to 7.5' on each side by moving speakers forward and in from the walls and I'm getting some beautiful details. They were there before, but everything is a little more separated from the reflections now.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
I recently reduced my listening triangle to 7.5' on each side by moving speakers forward and in from the walls and I'm getting some beautiful details. They were there before, but everything is a little more separated from the reflections now.
That's the advantage of nearfield listening, your taking a lot of the room out of the equation. Taken to the extreme is headphone listening, but to me, after a while the isolation becomes an unnatural aspect that is disturbing. YMMV
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl

ace_xp2

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
61
Your unimpressive combination of Appeal to Authority (especially when it is oneself) and ASS-U-mption-based ad hominem attacks, in bold above, constitute crooked debating tactics, where something other than facts are brought into a discussion. It is not appreciated, it is not helpful, and it makes you look bad in public.

This seems a little odd of a position to take given this is your initial rebuttal:

Perhaps read more widely then take the quote marks out of that question. How FIR works is widely known, and any idea that it is artefact-free is not realistic. Consider how pre-and-post-ringing are going to sum in one ear, when the deconvolution has been done for the other ear. Then also consider how humans can discretely perceive direct sound and summed reflected sound, and how the direct sound is affected when time-based corrections have been made for the summed sound — or vice versa.

As though it appeals to no authority also contains no more information, and indeed less, then his post. It also features no small amount of invective. Of the two of you, the egg is certainly not on his face at the moment.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,218
You haven’t gone back to source. If he knows as much as he now claims, he could have said something more here to demonstrate that there are no audible artefacts. If he really is the authority he now reveals himself to be, his putting quote marks around the term, audible artefacts, was totally unwarranted unless he has conclusive evidence that FIR artefacts are invariably inaudible, at least as used in popular room EQ software. So far, crickets. We now know that his question was bait, and a launch pad for ad hominem behaviour.

How could I have possibly known he is well versed on the EE (if not the psychoacoustics) from this? It surely suggested that he had no idea that FIR filter artefacts could be audible. Hence my suggestion, that he read up on it, was well-intended. Invective? Indeed not.

You know, stepping in like you have done is also unhelpful. You are keeping the wrong part of our exchange alive: the bit that isn’t about the audio technology and the audibility of its artefacts. Really looking forward to the hard evidence that FIR artefacts are completely inaudible as used in popular gear. My original assertion is innocently intended: if anyone can reduce the risk I allude to, by providing hard evidence that it is inaudible, as has been done for the phase changes in IIR, then I will be mightily pleased. It opens up my options for room EQ products quite a lot. Until then, it’s a big issue.

cheers
 

ace_xp2

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
61
You haven’t gone back to source. If he knows as much as he now claims, he could have said something more here

You mean this quote?

And what are those audible "inevitable artefacts" related to FIR filters?

The one where he's directly asking you to explain and you retort with effectively "look it up bub"/"pick up a book boy"? As per here:

Perhaps read more widely then take the quote marks out of that question.

That's definitely not helping your case. At this point, all you've done is made reference to an understanding you haven't shared but that is of course beyond the actual posted information. Whose making the authority driven argument again?
 
D

Deleted member 17820

Guest
You haven’t gone back to source. If he knows as much as he now claims, he could have said something more here to demonstrate that there are no audible artefacts. If he really is the authority he now reveals himself to be, his putting quote marks around the term, audible artefacts, was totally unwarranted unless he has conclusive evidence that FIR artefacts are invariably inaudible, at least as used in popular room EQ software. So far, crickets. We now know that his question was bait, and a launch pad for ad hominem behaviour.

How could I have possibly known he is well versed on the EE (if not the psychoacoustics) from this? It surely suggested that he had no idea that FIR filter artefacts could be audible. Hence my suggestion, that he read up on it, was well-intended. Invective? Indeed not.

You know, stepping in like you have done is also unhelpful. You are keeping the wrong part of our exchange alive: the bit that isn’t about the audio technology and the audibility of its artefacts. Really looking forward to the hard evidence that FIR artefacts are completely inaudible as used in popular gear. My original assertion is innocently intended: if anyone can reduce the risk I allude to, by providing hard evidence that it is inaudible, as has been done for the phase changes in IIR, then I will be mightily pleased. It opens up my options for room EQ products quite a lot. Until then, it’s a big issue.

cheers
I have been in live sound and some recording/mixing for over 20 years. And although I don't know much about filters I know source materiel quality is VERY important for how much EQ you can throw at something. If the source is pink noise or a sweep then the issues that rear their ugly head as you push further into cuts or boosts would likely show up.
However I can say that most EQs I have used in DAWs and live sound have issues when pushing past 5db of boost or cut, except for very narrow EQs for cutting.
 

tvrgeek

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
1,017
Likes
566
Location
North Carolinia
Just my experience. I have an Anthem running their ARC. It insists on adding a mid-base hump and the sub is always too loud. So I crank up the sub gain before measurement, and back down again. Nothing can be done about the broad 200 Hz hump. It does a good job across the critical mid-range though. I have a terrible room and being a guest room, no real ability to do a lot to it. The solution woudl be separate amps and adding my own eq in line, but I keep trying to simplify things, not add more boxes. For movies, the Anthem internal amps are good enough.

It uses their USB mic with a encoded cal file. If I could break their format, I could fool the mic file. Anyone crack their cal file?

Played with an Audessey, but a low end implementation I think. Hated it. Tried the Emotiva processor and it also was not very good. Anthem is better, but not right.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Just my experience. I have an Anthem running their ARC. It insists on adding a mid-base hump and the sub is always too loud. So I crank up the sub gain before measurement, and back down again. Nothing can be done about the broad 200 Hz hump.
Might it be trying to compensate a low mid dip resulting from front wall reflections? If so, how far are your speakers from the wall, and if it's more than a foot did you try moving them closer?
 

tvrgeek

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
1,017
Likes
566
Location
North Carolinia
Actually only about 8 inches as the temporary setup was to hang my "box" speakers on the wall. In the process of re-boxing them ( total new crossover of course) to be flush. No, the hump is embedded in their target curve and it dutifully does it. I asked them about it and they said " we think that sounds best". Well, not to my ears.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,863
Likes
2,215
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
Yes you can, and must when listening to everything in the room other than hifi with room compensation, like a piano and cello, frequently played here.
OTOH if you have 15dB peaks you have stupid loudspeaker locations so you deserve to have crap bass :) ;)
Oh, @Frank Dernie - you may have improved my marriage! My wife moved an old piano into my preferred listening room a while ago and the room has sounded like crap ever since. I had never thought of using room compensation to compensate for the piano; repositioning the speakers proved to be of limited value. I will have to give that a try!
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,155
Likes
1,665
Location
James Island, SC
Try the room correction from 500Hz down. I have Audessy, and out of the box I didn’t like the correction at all. Having to buy the stupid app did solve that though, as I can tweak the curve to my tastes.

i would think Dirac would be better than Audessy though.

Although at one time (late 80's-early 90's) I ran 5.2, now I run stereo and a stereo pair of subs. I like it much better. I was taught to EQ the SUB-bass & BASS first. Test some by listening and then, if you think it needs something else, try EQing above that. I can't say that I ever thought that the results from doing it that way were wrong.
 

Abe_W

Active Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
182
Likes
68
Location
United States
There is a reason i like to do things a bit more "old school"!! a.k.a take measurements and address inadequacies in a room with "physical room treatments". It takes time, some research and experience. You can save lots of cash if you are a handy man and can do some room remodeling, do some woodworking, etc by yourself. If you aren't, it's a good time to start and it's actually fairly easy.

I guess you learnt the truth about the Audyssey, Dirac etc a.k.a the quick dsp MAGIC fix!! the hard way...

P.S
Try to not start in a completely lousy room to begin with (if you have the choice).
 
Top Bottom