• 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!

Equalizing loudspeakers based on anechoic measurements (community project)

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,020
Likes
6,882
Location
UK

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
EQ's done by @ flipflop and put together on github by @ pierre
Raw data: https://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/tree/develop/datas/eq
or represented in a more user-friendly way on https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/eqs.html
I'm currently using the EQ filters for my JBL 305P MKII and it sounds awesome!

For the JBL, TimVG also made a set of filters : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-monitors-review.10811/page-26#post-345828
I did too : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...5p-mkii-equalization.10874/page-2#post-463092

EDIT : oops ! I didn't remember that I already gave these two links to daftcombo 4 months ago ;)
 
OP
TimVG

TimVG

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,201
Likes
2,652
For the JBL, TimVG also made a set of filters : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-monitors-review.10811/page-26#post-345828
I did too : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...5p-mkii-equalization.10874/page-2#post-463092

EDIT : oops ! I didn't remember that I already gave these two links to daftcombo 4 months ago ;)

I'd update it in accordance with the blind tests I've performed testing various EQ for different speakers - but I can't find the 305p spin file anywhere. If someone could upload it I could adjust the filters.
 

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
I'd update it in accordance with the blind tests I've performed testing various EQ for different speakers - but I can't find the 305p spin file anywhere. If someone could upload it I could adjust the filters.

If you make a new set of filters, keep in mind that the variations above 4000 Hz in the measurements must be ignored.
We can see here, comparing my filters and the measured result after the application of these filters, that the corrections at 5500 Hz, 8500 Hz and 9200 Hz were not needed. The resulting curve is nothing else than the correction itself !


03 MMM full eq.png


Edit : the difficult part in ignoring part of the frequency response is to find a replacement for the ignored part.
A common mistake is to draw a straight line from the last valid measurement point, from 4 kHz to 20 kHz, but this is not correct. The line doesn't have to, and in general shouldn't, start from the last measurement point.
The level of that target line above 4 kHz should be set according to the average level of the measurement in this frequency zone if we want to ignore the variation. This average level has no reason to be equal to the measurement point at 4 kHz exactly.

Worse : if the variations in the measured frequency response are caused by interferences on an object (which is the case here, the object was the anti-shock system of the Klippel microphone), then the true level before interferences is generally not halfway between the minima and maxima of the curve.
 
Last edited:

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
686
Likes
1,142
Location
Chicago, IL
A bit of an update and food for thought. I've been experimenting a bit more with the R3 and EQ from here and also the official KEF measurements. What prompted me to try them is my in room MMM measurement actually showed quite a bit in common with the KEF measurements, they may not be as much of marketing as many people thought. Oddly my EQ based on the KEF measurements sounded more balanced than the ASR measurements but I also wanted to try just using the in room measurement to compare and was surprised that I think I like that the best of the 3.

My question to my fellow EQ'ers is what if a proper MMM measurement is actually better than using a Spin to EQ our speakers? I know it's a bit taboo but since the early reflections are so important and the in room response is supposed to match it very closely, I feel like if we had a good MMM measurement, it should be almost the perfect early reflection graph for your particular room and setup right? The Spin is an estimate based on the average room so it should be close but it won't be perfect for many rooms and setups. Of course the directivity determines how good this method would be, just like using the listening window to EQ, if a speaker has good directivity then this method should also make the on-axis sound very good.

Anyway here is my MMM measurement without EQ, the ASR Spin and the KEF measurement show some similarities and differences but I have to say after comparing the different EQ's over the past few weeks, smoothing my in room response seems to sound better than the EQ based on the ASR and KEF measurements. My MMM measurement shows that they still need a slight boost in the 1200-2300Hz range and a broad cut centered close to 3k. Also note that unlike the ASR measurement, the highs actually spike up around 18k just like the on-axis KEF measurement.

R3 MMM.jpg
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,905
Likes
16,956
Anyway here is my MMM measurement without EQ, the ASR Spin and the KEF measurement show some similarities and differences but I have to say after comparing the different EQ's over the past few weeks, smoothing my in room response seems to sound better than the EQ based on the ASR and KEF measurements.
I also did similar comparisons again recently with my LS50 and had similar experiences to yours, I prefer my MMM based correction to anechoic based ones like ASR or KEF even above the transition frequency but when I find and use an optimal target curve (one that matches the dispersion characteristics of the loudspeaker, reverberation of the room and of course the personal listening preferences).
 

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
686
Likes
1,142
Location
Chicago, IL
I also did similar comparisons again recently with my LS50 and had similar experiences to yours, I prefer my MMM based correction to anechoic based ones like ASR or KEF even above the transition frequency but when I find and use an optimal target curve (one that matches the dispersion characteristics of the loudspeaker, reverberation of the room and of course the personal listening preferences).

Yes that's a good point, it helps to know the directivity of the speaker. Since I know the R3 actually gets stronger off-axis in the 2-4k range, I actually split the difference between what REW wanted me to cut since it is a good compromise between the on axis and early reflection response, the LS50 don't have that issue so no need for that. Using in room also helps for people who may not have anechoic measurements of their speakers, it will certainly get you in the ballpark.
 
Last edited:

akarma

Active Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
100
Likes
74
My question to my fellow EQ'ers is what if a proper MMM measurement is actually better than using a Spin to EQ our speakers? I know it's a bit taboo but since the early reflections are so important and the in room response is supposed to match it very closely, I feel like if we had a good MMM measurement, it should be almost the perfect early reflection graph for your particular room and setup right? The Spin is an estimate based on the average room so it should be close but it won't be perfect for many rooms and setup

I can't see how it could be in other way. You should consider speaker-room as a whole and EQ accordingly. You can do that only with real measurements in your room. I have equalized a lot of different speakers and my experience firmly proves that statement
 

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
686
Likes
1,142
Location
Chicago, IL
I can't see how it could be in other way. You should consider speaker-room as a whole and EQ accordingly. You can do that only with real measurements in your room. I have equalized a lot of different speakers and my experience firmly proves that statement

No not really, the whole theme of this thread is to use proper CTA-2034 style measurements to make the Spin measurement "perfect" through EQ, this is what Dr. Toole actually recommends above the transition frequency. I'm not disputing that method, I was just saying if you don't have measurements or your in room measurements aren't showing what you expect, you could use an MMM measurement to get a good idea of the early reflections and kind of work backwards. If you only use in room measurements you have no idea the proper slope you should make it or what your EQ is doing to the on-axis response. I'm still using anechoic measurements to get this needed information but as you can see from my in room measurement above, there is a broad region of excess energy centered at 3k that isn't shown in the early reflections, it does appear in the sound power though.
 

akarma

Active Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
100
Likes
74
If you only use in room measurements you have no idea the proper slope you should make it or what your EQ is doing to the on-axis response.

It is wrong. Only room+speaker will give proper information about EQ exactly in your room.
 

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
I have compared two kinds of correction : full-band EQ from listening position vs flat speaker.

I use Neumann KH-120 speakers, in an average room, at a distance of 2.1 meters. Here is the spinorama of the KH-120.

1591701867277.png


And here are the measurements from my listening position, with no correction, and with my usual correction :

155_PleineBande_Pio.png


As you can see, above 800 Hz, the speakers are uncorrected. Which means that, according to the spinorama, their frequency response is completely flat.
I am not sitting right in their acoustic axis, but rather 12° aside and 7° above.

This correction sounds perfectly balanced to my ears. There was no target curve for the correction below 800 Hz, though. Everything have been progressively adjusted by ear, week after week, on various musical styles.

Now, here is a full band correction calculated for me by a professional, according to the measurements that I sent him. He chose a target curve according to the type of speakers, the listening distance, the room size, and the decay time measured from the listening position.

156_PleineBande_Ohl.png


We can see that it is not as accurate as my own correction in low frequencies, because this is a FIR filter limited to 6000 taps.
We can see also that above 1600 Hz, it is completely flat from the listening position.

However, the curve that we can see above is too high above 1600 Hz.
Since we are going to compare the two corrections, let's try to match their levels.

157_PleineBande_OhlPio.png


We can see that if we ignore the 54 Hz peak, and try to match as well as possible the levels below 1000 Hz, then they clearly mismatch above.

The audible result confirms this : the full band correction sounds brighter than my correction (and we can also hear that the low frequency is uncorrected). Impossible to compare them beyond this. It doesn't sound more or less neutral, it just sounds brighter.

Let's apply a high shelf correction so that the two results have the same overall tilt :

158_PleineBande_OhlMod.png


Now we can compare the two methods ! Does it sound better with the speakers completely flat (blue curve), or completely corrected from the listening position (purple curve) ?

I listened to one of my reference tracks, the part Quia Respexit, that begins at 5:28 in this video :


With the level correction, the brightness of the full range correction is eliminated, and they now both sound well-balanced.
My first impression is that the blue correction sounds a bit more realistic than the purple, full band one. However, I have been listening to the blue correction for so long that I might just have become used to it.

I decided to perform an ABX comparison between the two versions.
Before that, I started to ABX an intermediate version of the full band correction, that has a -1.2 dB correction instead of the final -1.6 dB correction. The difference between these two seemed more important, and thus easier to ABX. Then I would ABX the two real corrections.
Unfortunately, I failed this preliminary test !

I nonetheless loaded the two final files in the ABX comparator. Comparing two completely different corrections might, after all be easier than comparing two versions of the same one.
But comparing A and B, the main difference that I can hear between the full-range correction and the flat speaker correction is in the low-mids, where the two corrections differ slightly. Now I don't hear any significant difference in treble !

After all this, I'm not sure anymore that the blue correction sounds more realistic than the purple one. I could try to ABX them relying on the differences that I can hear in the low-mids, but it would be pointless.

My conclusion is that the choice between a full range correction or a correction that makes the speaker's anechoic response flat doesn't make much difference.
Creating a room correction, besides the obvious low frequency problems, the first and hardest difficulty is to find a target curve that sounds right. Choosing to equalize the speaker alone first doesn't help. At best, it can show you the overall tilt from 1000 to 10000 Hz, but here, this tilt was right to begin with in the full range correction.
Balancing the 100 - 800 Hz range vs the 1600 - 8000 Hz range is another matter. It is a very difficult question for whatever kind of correction.

In comparison, choosing between a complete correction from the listening position or a flat speaker uncorrected above 1000 Hz seems quite unimportant... at least with the Neumann KH-120 monitors... 2 meters away... in an average room.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,905
Likes
16,956
Can confirm most of your experiences, good loudspeakers don't really need a correction above approximately 1 kHz which also can be seen when measured via MMM, the reason also why Genelec's GLM also doesn't correct above.

I use my pair of KH120 as nearfield desktop system and only correct them till 1 kHz, as above they match my preferred target curve very well except their 1dB vertical sound power dip at their 2kHz crossover:

1603180970242.png


You use yours at a higher listening distance where the little sound power problems become more dominant though.
 

digitalfrost

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,542
Likes
3,173
Location
Palatinate, Germany
I was opposed to the idea of not EQing after ~1khz, but after looking at my older measurements, I noticed that the differences above 1khz are small indeed:


So I just created a correction file only up to 1khz and started switching between this and my old one (20khz). Stopping at 1khz is a tad brighter, because I have a quite a lot of downward tilt in my target curve, but the differences are so small, it's more a matter of taste than really a huge change.

Interesting.
 

tecnogadget

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
1,012
Location
Madrid, Spain
I was opposed to the idea of not EQing after ~1khz, but after looking at my older measurements, I noticed that the differences above 1khz are small indeed:


Yeahh no doubt the differences look small since you are using a 110db to 0db scaling, and don’t know hoy much smoothing has been applied.
To make sure the variations are indeed small, check out the measurement but with a maximum of 50dB scaling (from 60dB to 10dB in your case).
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,301
Likes
2,775
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
wow. I missed this topic.
I am expirimenting with EQ only direct sound above 1000Hz atm.
I wonder how (above 1000Hz) a nearfield corrected speaker compares to a (LP) direct sound corrected one. has anybody a chart?
 

Pio2001

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
317
Likes
507
Location
Neuville-sur-Saône, France
Here are my measurements for both kind of equalization.

JBL eq full vs eq bass.png


Neumann eq full vs eq bass.png


We can see that according to the speaker, an equalization from the listening position can lead to a result very close to an ideal flat speaker response (JBL)... or very different (Neumann).
The factor that causes these different behaviours is the power response of the speaker. The power response curve of the JBL 305 is smoother that the KH-120's.

The two speakers equalized to the same target from the listening position sound almost the same... except in very high frequencies, where the JBL sounds shiny, while the Neumann sound dull.

Listening position correction leads to a very balanced sound, left / right asymmetry is easily corrected. But the sound has a kind of artificial feeling. And the low frequencies need separate correction if the FIR filter has not enough taps.

Direct sound correction is much more difficult to balance, as we have no reference target for the 40 - 800 Hz range. But it sounds more natural. Human voices sound "real".
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,301
Likes
2,775
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Here are my measurements for both kind of equalization.

View attachment 109394

View attachment 109391

We can see that according to the speaker, an equalization from the listening position can lead to a result very close to an ideal flat speaker response (JBL)... or very different (Neumann).
The factor that causes these different behaviours is the power response of the speaker. The power response curve of the JBL 305 is smoother that the KH-120's.

The two speakers equalized to the same target from the listening position sound almost the same... except in very high frequencies, where the JBL sounds shiny, while the Neumann sound dull.

Listening position correction leads to a very balanced sound, left / right asymmetry is easily corrected. But the sound has a kind of artificial feeling. And the low frequencies need separate correction if the FIR filter has not enough taps.

Direct sound correction is much more difficult to balance, as we have no reference target for the 40 - 800 Hz range. But it sounds more natural. Human voices sound "real".


I feel like that when we acept that we hear through the room above 1000Hz-ish, the in-room graph in that range is then irelevant.
my currect EQ I did looking at direct sound FR only.
this is a linear phase correction done with http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/
this is the flattest I can get with this software because equalizing those 2 dips caused by the crossovers further would result in pre-delay (fun fact: they disapear in the normal curve).
it shows 1/48 but is actualy a 5 cycles frequency dependent window.


fjj.jpg



I guess I now will meassure the speaker with the filter in the nearfield to findo out the diference.

I think equalizing the speaker in the nearfield above 1000Hz will give diferent results in the LP with diferent distances....but this could sound "more natural" in a way that many mastering engeniers will have comparable setup.
anyways, if I see a difference after meassureing this setup nearfield I might try the nearfiled correction next.


just for the info, this is the normal windowing var smoothed response of the above graph. IMPORTANT: my room is pretty absorbive....I have a lot of material here. in a "normal room" the HF will be tilted.
my rooms seams to have the most reflections between 400-7000HZ, while a normal room the most reflective energy will be below 1000Hz; this will then add into a HF dip

fdfefe.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom