First attempt at manual EQ - opinions appreciated

[KenMasters]

My only comment would be that the response slope seems too steep. On balance, the upper end is attenuated way too far.
You've seemed to notice that as well by your comments. I don't think anything should "stand out" in your impressions of the overall sound. If it does, it still needs work.

The response slopes down from about 4kHz (as you can see in the graph of my first attempt), in order to chase the curve I was after, I dropped all frequencies by 4dB to give me room, bumped up 1kHz by 2dB and built up (or rather down) from there.

I did feel it was a bit strong though, first I dropped the subs by 3dB but then I ended up going back in and rebalancing the upper bass through midrange anyway:



Still in the process of listening, learning and tweaking, thanks for the feedback!

 

[sigbergaudio]

That looks like less bass than most would prefer.

 

[KenMasters]

That looks like less bass than most would prefer.

Maybe I'm just used to the way Audyssey used to set it, but listening to tracks I'm very familiar with, it was coming across as too bass heavy to my ear before.

I think what I'll try today is get rid of the boost at 1kHz and bring the low through upper mid region down a bit:



I feel like I'm zeroing in on a sound I like, but I'm aware it's getting flatter and flatter - I do sit very close to the speakers, perhaps that plays into it (along with what my ears have grown accustomed to)?

It's been a good experience though - I thought I knew my system pretty well, but it's quite striking how much you can change its character with seemingly small adjustments of the EQ.

 

[dualazmak]

Hello OP @KenMasters,

I am very much impressed by your efforts and results in comparison with my (almost) best tuned DSP(XO/EQ/delay) based multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier stereo audio setup.

The general tendency, in 20 Hz to 5 kHz, of your wonderful tuning looks quite similar to mine; I too do it manually subjectively, and confirming by measurement microphone at listening position.

Just for your possible interest and reference, in my setup, I have flexible upward slope from about 6 kHz (to 22 kHz) compensating my (our) slight age dependent hearing decline in high Fq beyond 6.5 kHz. (You would please find details of my latest system setup here on my project thread.)

As shared here in detail, such upward slope can be flexibly controlled/adjusted on-the-fly (while listening to music) depending on the preferences of audience, genre of music, and/or age-dependent hearing decline.

 

[KenMasters]

Thanks for the input @dualazmak, I do find however I Iike the more mellow character of the downward slope at the high-end.

Impressive looking research you've done, though much of your methodology is way beyond my understanding.

Perhaps you could help me understand something. I see when I measure L+R combined, the response diverges from L+R measured separately, with a steeper downward slope starting from 1.5kHz - ending at 20Hz some 3-4dB lower?

 

[dualazmak]

Just for your further reference, I actually measured Fq responses in various "stages" of my multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier active stereo setup, as summarized here.

 

[dualazmak]

I see when I measure L+R combined, the response diverges from L+R measured separately, with a steeper downward slope starting from 1.5kHz - ending at 20Hz some 3-4dB lower?

That would be much depending on room acoustics, I assume. My post here would be of your interest.

 

[KenMasters]

That would be much depending on room acoustics, I assume. My post here would be of your interest.

Thinking about it, could it not be that the L+R speakers sum to a point, but then as the speakers begin to beam more, that summation tapers off?

 

[dualazmak]

And, that would be possibly also depending on precision "time alignment" between L and R.

I would like to suggest/recommend you to establish 0.1 msec precision time alignment between all the SP drivers as well as L-to-R.
I did it through my rather naive but highly reliable reproducible validated methods;

- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-1_ Precision pulse wave matching method: #493
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-2_ Energy peak matching method: #494
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-3_ Precision single sine wave matching method in 0.1 msec accuracy: #504, #507
- Measurement of transient characteristics of Yamaha 30 cm woofer JA-3058 in sealed cabinet and Yamaha active sub-woofer YST-SW1000: #495, #497, #503, #507

If you would be seriously interested in using all the test tone signals I prepared and used, please simply PM me writing your wish.

 

[dualazmak]

OK, please just simply try this music; what would be the "extent" of disappearance of your L & R speakers all the way through the music? Does the trumpet always stay at the upper-center? (please refer to my post here.)

 

[KenMasters]

It looks very interesting, but well beyond what I'm willing to tackle at this point. The way in which I time aligned the speakers was by establishing the delay for my centre channel, then using REW's Overlays panel to align the initial impulse responses.

OK, please just simply try this music; what would be the "extent" of disappearance of your L & R speakers all the way through the music? Does the trumpet always stay at the upper-center? (please refer to my post here.)

That video is not available in my region, but I don't feel I have any issues with the L/R balance - I've had people over at my place that mistakenly believed my centre channel was active when listening to stereo.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Thanks for the input @dualazmak, I do find however I Iike the more mellow character of the downward slope at the high-end.

Impressive looking research you've done, though much of your methodology is way beyond my understanding.

Perhaps you could help me understand something. I see when I measure L+R combined, the response diverges from L+R measured separately, with a steeper downward slope starting from 1.5kHz - ending at 20Hz some 3-4dB lower?

Measuring both speakers at once you get interference between them. You will typically get more accurate results by measuring them separately and then using the average-function in REW to combine them.

With regards to your adjustment at 1khz I would agree that I'd try to drop that and try to not add any EQ above say 500hz, and see if that sounds better / more natural.

In terms of flatness / bass boost, you're the boss - set a target curve / bass level that sounds right to you

 

[dualazmak]

Please simply PM me, if you would be seriously interested in all the intact tracks of my "audio sampler/reference playlist" as summarized here and here.

 

[dualazmak]

Measuring both speakers at once you get interference between them. You will typically get more accurate results by measuring them separately and then using the average-function in REW to combine them.

Yes, I partly agree with you.

There would be always issues and discussions, however, what kind of objective measurement would properly reflect (and/or reproduce?) our actual hearing/listening sensations with ears and brain (brain as averaging-function, may vary person to person) at listening position while L-SPs and R-SPs are singing together (which is our usual music enjoyment situation)...

I feel/assume we have no complete/perfect solution, and therefore subjective listening (trust our ears and brain) would be similarly (or more?) important together with objective measurements.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yes, I partly agree with you.

There would be always issues and discussions, however, what kind of objective measurement would properly reflect (and/or reproduce?) our actual hearing/listening sensations with ears and brain (brain as averaging-function, may vary person to person) at listening position while L-SPs and R-SPs are singing together (which is our usual music enjoyment situation)...

I feel/assume we have no complete/perfect solution, and therefore subjective listening (trust our ears and brain) would be similarly (or more?) important together with objective measurements.

Yes, I typically both measure L+R + Average, and also measure them together and try to get make sense of that, and also obviously most importantly actually listen

 

[KenMasters]

Okay, so reporting back - at the end of the day I decided not to EQ the speakers at all and stick to just the subs, which ended up only taking four PEQ blocks.

I ended up changing the side firing orientation of my subs to front firing, which completely eliminated the extreme low end gain I was experiencing and gave me significantly more output from 100Hz up. I also figured out the crossover transition was smoother with the Meta's port bungs inserted and with those two changes got better results changing the crossover to 150Hz.

I decided not to EQ the speakers as, between direct measurement and 90 degrees, I was getting conflicting readings and had no confidence any tweaks would be an improvement over the natural in-room response - for this same reason I went lightly on the sub EQ.

At the end of the day, with the adjustments to the physical setup, I ended up with something very similar to the heavily EQ'd response I managed previously, but with a less severe tilt (though I'm still going back and forth on the level of bass):



Thanks everyone for your help!

 

[sigbergaudio]

Looks good, if you are able to keep it light on the EQ it will typically also sound better and more natural! Well done again

 

[dualazmak]

Looks very good, congraturations!

As I pointed, "tuning" of room acoustics and SP (sub-woofer and main SP) physical alignments should have higher priority than manipulating DSP XO/EQ!
In my system too, I have actually no fine EQ but only XO (low-pass, high-pass) filters and delay configurations by DSP EKIO.

Yes, I agree with you and @sigbergaudio's approach and stance of "the simpler, the better"; I am also in the same league; for example I shared here on my thread where, at the end of the post, I wrote "the simpler, the better" and "the simplest, the best".

In any way, we had/have very nice tuning example case and invaluable discussions here on this short thread, I believe.