Dont like the sound of room correction

[Chromatischism]

Secondly, I have very flat speakers (JBL M2) with decent off-axis dispersion and acoustical treatment both on the ceiling and behind the listening position. The biggest bumps in the response above 800 hz comes from reflections from the couch and microphone stand, and that makes no sense to correct at the cost of direct sound accuracy.
If you have speakers with bigger direct-sound compromises you might end up in a situation where the room correction actually improves the direct sound, and then it's a different proposition entirely.

I think what you're getting at is more speaker correction than room correction. I think we could say that the M2's are nearly perfect and don't need additional EQ beyond what JBL has already done for their anechoic performance. However if you will always sit in that spot where the couch causes a highlight, it might make sense to put a towel where your body will be to prevent the system from padding the highs to compensate. Wrapping the mic stand with something soft and avoiding placing it in the speaker's direct path may also be a good idea.

 

[QMuse]

Too much risk of the inevitable artefacts being audible. Unlike IIR, where the phase artefacts are generally proven with psychoacoustics and audio research listening experiments to be inaudible.

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

 

[Frank Dernie]

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

My experience is that room compensation makes the biggest difference with speakers (and or listening position) which are unfortunately positioned.
If the speakers are well positioned (which may be impossible in a living room) it only makes a small difference IME and it is debatable whether it is better here, some people think so, some don't.
I believe in listening through the room. There at=re several reasons I believe this, not least how very different measurements are when one moves the microphone but how very minimal the sound changes when you move your ears - the sound is changing a lot, we know this from the measurements, but we don't notice it anywhere as much because we listen through the room.
I don't equalise a cello playing in here either, and it still sounds like a cello.

I do have the ability to use room compensation but rarely do, personally. Mind you I listen in a dedicated room so normal domestic pressures on speaker location don't exist.

 

[Chromatischism]

Right. The idea of Room Correction is to address what the room does to the frequencies in the modal region and the frequencies in the stochastic region. The latter would be caused by irregular placement, ie a wall on only one side, or a window, or other non-symmetrical placement issues. It can also do speaker correction but the system's ability to understand that is limited due to the nature of the in-room measurement. Therefore, everyone benefits from correcting the modal region, while those who benefit from full-range filters depends on the setup.

 

[Newman]

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

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.

 

[RichB]

I like to try is to limit the correction to very low frequencies, below 25 Hz and compare it to a Pure/Direct unprocessed mode. With the XMC-1 I found a loss of focus with the no-correction REQ case. A couple of PEQ filters to address some room modes had some effect but less overall change in the soundstage. At least with this product, I view REQ as a cost benefit.

Currently, I am only applying bass management to the Voice2 and leaving the Salon2s full range. Its hard to get motivated because I am very pleased with the sound. I have two custom Rythmik E22 subs from Salk sound on order. After they arrive, I will give Dirac2 and PEQ to address room modes.

With REQ and PEQ it can hard to resist perusing the perfect graph.

Here is a video by Lonnie from Emotiva discussing over use of PEQ.

- Rich

 

[Geert]

My experience is that room compensation makes the biggest difference with speakers (and or listening position) which are unfortunately positioned.
If the speakers are well positioned (which may be impossible in a living room) it only makes a small difference IME and it is debatable whether it is better here, some people think so, some don't.

You can't listen through room modes. As room modes can easily cause 15dB peaks so the effect of treatment with DSP is enormous. That's where DRC shines.

 

[QMuse]

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.

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?

 

[QMuse]

Do the artifacts show up in the FR?

Pre-ringing associated with use of linear-phase filters and/or excessive phase correction doesnt' show in FR, it shows in step response.

 

[Geert]

Not to mention the hearing thresholds for pre-ringing.

 

[QMuse]

Not to mention the hearing thresholds for pre-ringing.

Unlike GD, pre-ringing is an artifact which doesn't exist in nature and as such we are quite sensitive to it. As an illustration and some kind of rough guidance, you can expect step response like the red one to be audible and the green one to be inaduible.

 

[Geert]

Unlike GD, pre-ringing is an artifact which doesn't exist in nature and as such we are quite sensitive to it.

Yes we're sensitive to it, I just wanted to point out that certain hearing thresholds have been established. People tend to go overboard the moment you mention pre-ringing, but if you keep the effect under control you probably won't hear it.

Referring to work on ‘temporal masking’ done by the Stanford University: “All pre-ringing artefacts, that fall into the interval of 20ms prior to the onset of the masker (and most effectively from 5ms) will not be audible due to pre-masking effect”.

And the work done by Elliott LL.:

 

[QMuse]

Yes we're sensitive to it, I just wanted to point out that certain hearing thresholds have been established. People tend to go overboard the moment you mention pre-ringing, but if you keep the effect under control you probably won't hear it.

Referring to work on ‘temporal masking’ done by the Stanford University: “All pre-ringing artefacts, that fall into the interval of 20ms prior to the onset of the masker (and most effectively from 5ms) will not be audible due to pre-masking effect”.

View attachment 85830

And the work done by Elliott LL.:

View attachment 85829

I wasn't aware of this very usefull research, thank you posting it!

 

[Frank Dernie]

You can't listen through room modes. As room modes can easily cause 15dB peaks so the effect of treatment with DSP is enormous. That's where DRC shines.

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

 

[Geert]

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

No you can't. Hearing through a room means your hearing can differentiate the influence of the room from the direct sound (thanks to time and directional information). That's something else than just ignoring the sound is crap.

Any idea how many people have no other option than putting their speakers close to the wall, even in corners maybe, and have their listening position close to the back wall? They all 'deserve crap bass' because they're not rich enough?

 

[QMuse]

No you can't. Hearing through a room means your hearing can differentiate the influence of the room from the direct sound (thanks to time and directional information). That's something else than just ignoring the sound is crap.

Any idea how many people have no other option than putting their speakers close to the wall, even in corners maybe, and have their listening position close to the back wall? They all 'deserve crap bass' because they're not rich enough?

Oh, so you've met Frank..

You can try asking him to post his frequency response but I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Absolute]

They all 'deserve crap bass' because they're not rich enough?

No, because they don't have balls to place themselves and the speakers in a good-sounding manner

 

[restorer-john]

I believe in listening through the room.

Absolutely true.

When taking the same speakers to several different rooms and listening to them, you very rapidly learn (and never forget) how to listen through any room. Also, the characteristics of the individual room itself are learned and more useful speaker selections can be made without trial and error.

We did this all the time when doing installations and selling gear that worked in the spaces/rooms. No such thing as room correction back then- it was graphic/parametric eq's at most.

Walking around a room, clapping your hands at different locations and listening. Using your voice to find room modes and resonances.

I have no interest in room "correction" as I have way too many speakers I like to play with. I like each any every pair for what they bring to the party, not what a microphone and DSP thinks needs fixing. Variety is the spice of life, not conformity.

 

[Frank Dernie]

No you can't. Hearing through a room means your hearing can differentiate the influence of the room from the direct sound (thanks to time and directional information). That's something else than just ignoring the sound is crap.

Any idea how many people have no other option than putting their speakers close to the wall, even in corners maybe, and have their listening position close to the back wall? They all 'deserve crap bass' because they're not rich enough?

I think if you read my original post you will see that loudspeaker location was one of the points I made. Didn't you notice the wink emoji with the crap bass comment?
Room correction also means anybody can get a half reasonable sound in a crap layout without any knowledge of dynamics and acoustics, which is a good thing, a bit like autofocus takes the knowledge and skill out of photography most of the time.
Whether room modes get much excitation, of course, also depends on their frequency and Q, if they don't coincide with a standard pitch of western music and are peaky they may never be much excited by music, as opposed to test signals and film sound effects.
I pretty well never use my room compensation when listening to music, only when watching films, it doesn't make that much difference anyway.

 

[QMuse]

No, because they don't have balls to place themselves and the speakers in a good-sounding manner

LOL

But seriously, in a typical room it is practically impossible to find place for speakers and yourself where at least one room mode won't be excited, so @Geert is absolutely right.