Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,955
- Likes
- 3,570
Barry White is alive, and he's on the forum.Using your voice to find room modes and resonances.
Barry White is alive, and he's on the forum.Using your voice to find room modes and resonances.
There should be no difference to equalization for music or movies. Good sound is good sound, and listeners tell us that the most preferred sound is "neutral".
yes Floyd Toole sums up very well here too
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...cal-music-pros-using.12225/page-4#post-358277
""The widespread belief that "room EQ" is the final arbiter of sound quality is the final nail in the coffin of standardized sound quality""
Correcting respoonse above modal region, or at least above 900Hz, based on in-room measurements is a tricky thing and this is where automated EQ solutions mostly fail as it is very hard to get correct speaker response in that range based on measurements taken from LP.
Just to give you an idea of what the effect can be in other settings; At home I use stand mount speakers with a 7" woofer. If you would hear them in my room I can guaranty you would be looking around to see where I've hidden the sub woofers. You won't believe what you're hearing. The bass you experience corresponds perfectly with the measurements, which show a broad 18dB peak at 32hz. Without DRC it's just impossible to enjoy music over here. And there's nothing exceptional about this type of room or speaker setup.I pretty well never use my room compensation when listening to music, only when watching films, it doesn't make that much difference anyway.
Which is the perfect example of a solution that would fail for sure. Been there, done that ...Marantz in 1994 released a product that could do all that and a whole lot more, right up to 16KHz.
https://audio-database.com/MARANTZ/etc/ax1000-e.html
https://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/marantz_ax1000_audio_computer/
Which is the perfect example of a solution that would fail for sure.
So I have tried now 5 differend avr/processor.
i have used audyssey, anthem room correction, Dirac with arcam now dirac with monolith.
i own Kef R series mains and center, kef in ceiling, kef rears T series (slim) and 2 rel T5i subs
despite multiple permutations and combinations, i still feel the natural sound coming from the Kef R series is still better than the same speaker with room correction of any type
does anyone have the same experience? Or is this nonsensical?
sound with all types of room correction doesnt sound as natural
and ive tries narrow windows with minimal correction vs full range
still feel same way
Well for the first 30 years I was putting speakers in my unexceptional rooms I would not have left speakers where they produced an 18dB peak, but I have an understanding wife.Just to give you an idea of what the effect can be in other settings; At home I use stand mount speakers with a 7" woofer. If you would hear them in my room I can guaranty you would be looking around to see where I've hidden the sub woofers. You won't believe what you're hearing. The bass you experience corresponds perfectly with the measurements, which show a broad 18dB peak at 32hz. Without DRC it's just impossible to enjoy music over here. And there's nothing exceptional about this type of room or speaker setup.
So tell me, what can it do that Dirac Live can't (regarding DRC, not talking about the reverb, dynamics and surround stuff)? Can it do FIR filter (linear phase filters) or time alignment? Can it make quasi anechoic loudspeaker measurements?Right. OK. If you'd used, or even seen one, you'd be singing a totally different tune. It cost 1.9million yen and all the resources of Philips and Marantz produced arguably the most sophisticated digital processing product ever, 26 years ago.
Go do some research.
Lucky you, but I'm not in a situation where I can build my living room around my hifi set. Which goes for most people I know.Well for the first 30 years I was putting speakers in my unexceptional rooms I would not have left speakers where they produced an 18dB peak, but I have an understanding wife.
Which overall target curve to apply is a separate discussion and to some extend a matter of preference. What we're trying to clarify here is the value of addressing the worst room modes.Later based on favourable impressions here I bought a Marantz processor. I have tried both DSPeaker anti-mode (which I didn't like) and Audyssey using the app to set the curve. The 5dB extra level in the frequently recommended curve completely muddies the sound of the music I listen to so I just leave the B&K like slope I have been targeting for decades.
I have done it by speaker positioning for the last 50 years. Everybody had to in the past, and that goes for everybody I know.Lucky you, but I'm not in a situation where I can build my living room around my hifi set. Which goes for most people I know.
Which overall target curve to apply is a separate discussion and to some extend a matter of preference. What we're trying to clarify here is the value of addressing the worst room modes.
Everyone you know has the freedom to place his speakers and/or listening position more than meter from any room boundaries? Are you a royalty?I have done it by speaker positioning for the last 50 years. Everybody had to in the past, and that goes for everybody I know.
Everyone you know has the freedom to place his speakers and/or listening position more than meter from any room boundaries? Are you a royalty?
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm active on different forums and every week there are new topics of people struggling with their setup because moving everything around or installing acoustic treatment is simply not an option. I've seen more than a hundred pictures and floor plans. It even has a name now; 'Wife Acceptance Factor' (WAF). So we probably agree on how it should be fixed in an ideal world, but in practise DRC is the only effective option for most people (in Europe at least). And for room modes it actually is a very good option (the main drawback being it is restricted to a certain listening area).Nowadays I only know a couple of people who are still into hifi and care what the sound quality is like. Most of my old friends and my children's generation are unwilling to make any of the visual or spatial sacrifices we used to make.
It used to be the only option when I started and anybody not prepared to do it didn't want high quality music reproduction enough.struggling with their setup because moving everything around or installing acoustic treatment is simply not an option
I don't think that how FIR works is "widely known". As a BScEE I learned about FIR during my college education but I had to learn more later on when I needed to use it in practice - so it's defintely a no, the way how FIR works is not widely known.
Take you, for example.. You don't seem to understand the difference between FIR and IIR filters. You also don't seem to know there are minimum-phase and linear-phase FIR filters, and that in the case of former no pre-ringing is introduced at all. You also don't seem to know that correction of speaker's phase doesn't affect it's amplitude response. Finally, you don't seem to understand that amplitude and phase correction equally affect direct sound and reflected sound, meaning that if you, for example, apply a filter to a speaker and then measure it's spinorama curves again you will find that ON, LW, ER and SP are equally affected by the filter.
Btw, pre-ringing and post-ringing do not "sum", they are perceived separately and while the latter is masked with the signal the former is of course not, so use of linear phase filters and/or phase correction should be done very carefully in order to avoid audible pre-ringing.
I advise you to read this post where I explained and showed pre-ringing and post-ringing effects with minimum-phase and linear-phase FIR filters.
P.S. I especially liked the part when you said "deconvolution has been done for the other ear". Do you care to elaborate what is that exactly supposed to mean? Are you aware that convolution is a process where input signal is multiplied with filter impulse response? So, in that context, what would "deconvolution for the other ear" mean?