- Joined
- Jul 12, 2024
- Messages
- 2,446
- Likes
- 3,669
Stated that way, I think you would find broad agreement here.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Invest in better measuring speakers or room equalisation ? When does one or the other make a bigger difference in your experience ?
- Thread starter Marc v E
- Start date
-
- Tags
- avr room equalization speaker
I think this is a major factor in the dsp hate of the supposed high end crowd. Plus OCD of the precious signal
No matter how good the DSP is at the end of the day it is limited by the speakers. For low to moderate SPL, where even if there was real LF content, powerful full range speakers or capable subs don't make much of any difference compared to a good small speaker because we can't even hear 20 Hz until it reaches about ~78 db. Very few "full range" speakers or even subs for that matter can actually reproduce clean and loud LF content. The CEA-2010 subwoofer standard allows ~35% distortion @ 20 Hz for "passing" which even though we are less sensitive to LF distortion 35% is very audible. So it really is not a choice of "DSP or speakers", rather it is what SPL and LF extension do you want/need and what speakers do you need to deliver it which is completely independent of DSP.
When you try to frame a complex question into a simple pool then you get the jungle jumping up and down. Monkeys jumping and shaking trees and lions roaring down below. Usually does not bother elephants though as they just chill through.
Not simple and depends. I would not put anything in place without top room correction system, but perhaps there is a system out there where money would be better spend towards the speakers. Also greatly depends on any future upgrade plans, or lack of those. So I have no idea even how to respond but good luck if you have to choose between the two.
Not simple and depends. I would not put anything in place without top room correction system, but perhaps there is a system out there where money would be better spend towards the speakers. Also greatly depends on any future upgrade plans, or lack of those. So I have no idea even how to respond but good luck if you have to choose between the two.
There is a problem inherent in the original question/premise of this thread...
The constant conflation of "Room Treatment" and "Equalisation"
Equalisation is the modern DSP equivalent of using a traditional analogue equaliser:
(Image borrowed... I used to lust after this specific component, which was way outside my budget at the time!)
But what DSP also brings to the party, is sophisticated bass management, and (in the last couple of years only!) the ability to "treat" room effects electronically.
So DSP today includes EQ (which can and should be expanded slightly to include phase/timing effects, as even the basic analogue EQ's had such effects, but in todays digital versions we can consciously control phase seperately from amplitude...), bass management (crossovers, but also the ability to distributed non localised bass frequencies to multiple speakers to both share the load but also reduce the impact of room nodes through the use of multiple sound source locations), and room treatment (reducing room nodes/modes and reducing decay).
It is worthy of note that the latter 2 functions (bass management and room treatment) do not inherently involve EQ at all... although they are invariable mated to EQ capabilities...
So today when someone colloquially says "Room EQ" we have to ask - what do you mean by that term, do you really mean EQ, or EQ + Bass Management, or EQ + Bass Management + Room Treatment? And is DSP Room Treatment alone considered part of your "Room EQ" category?
As an example - many people use DSP to provide a bass management function and intentionally eschew any EQ especially above the Schroeder frequency (circa 500Hz... room dependent), intentionally seeking to avoid any EQ'ing while using solutions that are generally considered to be part of the "Room EQ" category!
I use Dirac Live- but I intentionally minimise any EQ adjustment to the voicing of my main speakers (although I use it to improve timbral matching with my surrounds and heights).
I also use Dirac ART - this I use to direct bass to all bass capably speakers, leveraging capabilities that are otherwise impossible without the addition of multiple subwoofers, but with far fewer speakers/subs, and I use it to remove a lot of the decay/reverb in the room - no EQ involved at all.
A speakers sound can be substantially altered by moving them closer or further from walls / room boundaries, in room performance can be adjusted with sound absorbers, bass traps, curtains etc... all of this can be considered "Room Treatment" - we are altering the sound that is produced by the speaker and reaches our ears... as of the last couple of years, we can add DSP room treatment to this category. And this category has NEVER been considered to be part of the "EQ" category.
EQ has become a trivial task (technically speaking) in this day and age of digital DSP - any component can have it built in relatively easily, and it is now just as ubiquitous as the bass and treble adjustment knobs once were on amplifiers. (and in reality is merely an extension/elaboration of the bass/treble knobs!)
The debate over the use of bass/treble is as old as the Audio hobby... with purists arguing that the signal should be simply amplified and not messed with... (while completely ignoring the massive tonal impact of speakers and room!)
Today I have the tools with which to use DSP to treat my room without applying any EQ at all.
Also when considering speakers, we are typically purchasing a complex electro-mechanical-acoustic system, which the designer has tuned, using onboard EQ (AKA crossovers) in an attempt to produce a specific voicing result... in todays environment, we, the end user, can get directly involved in that EQ, where in the past for most users you got what you purchased and that was the end of it.
So returning to the core question of the thread (and my interpretation thereof)
We have to start with high quality speakers, having the capability to reproduce the source signal with minimal levels of distortion, and a dispersion profile that (ideally) does not alter the timbral quality of the speaker at differing dispersion angles (we can debate "controlled dispersion" vs omni and semi-omni till the cows come home - but varying timbral quality with differing angles from a speaker is a negative under all circumstances.
The speakers are the single most imperfect component in our setup (aside from the room itself!) - and getting speakers that can truly achieve THD <1% is often a challenge!
Typically the speaker challenge can be adequately resolved in the $2k to $10k price range (for a stereo pair....)
Room Treatment (old style) comes next... but this category has a very very broad price range ranging from basic furnishings and curtains, to custom construction from $$$ to $$$,$$$+
DSP Room Treatment software is typically in the $$$ range, but may require the purchase of an appropriate platform to run on which would be $$$ to $$,$$$
In value for money terms - getting the speakers and an appropriate amp/receiver comes first - with greatest value acruing to integrated components, especially those that may support DSP Room Treatment software.
Then there is the basic room layout / treatment / furnishings in the $$$ range
Then DSP Room Treatment (which by default will include EQ... but the EQ function is the least important!), within a $$$ budget
Further improvements beyond this stage are likely to be small, incremental, and expensive. This is where diminishing returns kick in quite viciously.
The constant conflation of "Room Treatment" and "Equalisation"
Equalisation is the modern DSP equivalent of using a traditional analogue equaliser:
(Image borrowed... I used to lust after this specific component, which was way outside my budget at the time!)
But what DSP also brings to the party, is sophisticated bass management, and (in the last couple of years only!) the ability to "treat" room effects electronically.
So DSP today includes EQ (which can and should be expanded slightly to include phase/timing effects, as even the basic analogue EQ's had such effects, but in todays digital versions we can consciously control phase seperately from amplitude...), bass management (crossovers, but also the ability to distributed non localised bass frequencies to multiple speakers to both share the load but also reduce the impact of room nodes through the use of multiple sound source locations), and room treatment (reducing room nodes/modes and reducing decay).
It is worthy of note that the latter 2 functions (bass management and room treatment) do not inherently involve EQ at all... although they are invariable mated to EQ capabilities...
So today when someone colloquially says "Room EQ" we have to ask - what do you mean by that term, do you really mean EQ, or EQ + Bass Management, or EQ + Bass Management + Room Treatment? And is DSP Room Treatment alone considered part of your "Room EQ" category?
As an example - many people use DSP to provide a bass management function and intentionally eschew any EQ especially above the Schroeder frequency (circa 500Hz... room dependent), intentionally seeking to avoid any EQ'ing while using solutions that are generally considered to be part of the "Room EQ" category!
I use Dirac Live- but I intentionally minimise any EQ adjustment to the voicing of my main speakers (although I use it to improve timbral matching with my surrounds and heights).
I also use Dirac ART - this I use to direct bass to all bass capably speakers, leveraging capabilities that are otherwise impossible without the addition of multiple subwoofers, but with far fewer speakers/subs, and I use it to remove a lot of the decay/reverb in the room - no EQ involved at all.
A speakers sound can be substantially altered by moving them closer or further from walls / room boundaries, in room performance can be adjusted with sound absorbers, bass traps, curtains etc... all of this can be considered "Room Treatment" - we are altering the sound that is produced by the speaker and reaches our ears... as of the last couple of years, we can add DSP room treatment to this category. And this category has NEVER been considered to be part of the "EQ" category.
EQ has become a trivial task (technically speaking) in this day and age of digital DSP - any component can have it built in relatively easily, and it is now just as ubiquitous as the bass and treble adjustment knobs once were on amplifiers. (and in reality is merely an extension/elaboration of the bass/treble knobs!)
The debate over the use of bass/treble is as old as the Audio hobby... with purists arguing that the signal should be simply amplified and not messed with... (while completely ignoring the massive tonal impact of speakers and room!)
Today I have the tools with which to use DSP to treat my room without applying any EQ at all.
Also when considering speakers, we are typically purchasing a complex electro-mechanical-acoustic system, which the designer has tuned, using onboard EQ (AKA crossovers) in an attempt to produce a specific voicing result... in todays environment, we, the end user, can get directly involved in that EQ, where in the past for most users you got what you purchased and that was the end of it.
So returning to the core question of the thread (and my interpretation thereof)
We have to start with high quality speakers, having the capability to reproduce the source signal with minimal levels of distortion, and a dispersion profile that (ideally) does not alter the timbral quality of the speaker at differing dispersion angles (we can debate "controlled dispersion" vs omni and semi-omni till the cows come home - but varying timbral quality with differing angles from a speaker is a negative under all circumstances.
The speakers are the single most imperfect component in our setup (aside from the room itself!) - and getting speakers that can truly achieve THD <1% is often a challenge!
Typically the speaker challenge can be adequately resolved in the $2k to $10k price range (for a stereo pair....)
Room Treatment (old style) comes next... but this category has a very very broad price range ranging from basic furnishings and curtains, to custom construction from $$$ to $$$,$$$+
DSP Room Treatment software is typically in the $$$ range, but may require the purchase of an appropriate platform to run on which would be $$$ to $$,$$$
In value for money terms - getting the speakers and an appropriate amp/receiver comes first - with greatest value acruing to integrated components, especially those that may support DSP Room Treatment software.
Then there is the basic room layout / treatment / furnishings in the $$$ range
Then DSP Room Treatment (which by default will include EQ... but the EQ function is the least important!), within a $$$ budget
Further improvements beyond this stage are likely to be small, incremental, and expensive. This is where diminishing returns kick in quite viciously.
Last edited:
This is true. My Revel Concerta F12 has the same tone as my Revel Salon2. Using an F113 sub to help with the bass, the F12 is remarkably good and is very enjoyable to listen to. It’s in my man cave where I spend a lot of my time since I have a computer desk there so it’s like my man cave/home office. Without the sub the sound is good and the bass is not bad but it does feel more like $1500/pair speakers vs something that cost much more. The F113 makes a huge difference.
That said, the salon2 produce such amazing sound (with no subs), from top to bottom, yes same tone, but different quality. Add the overkill Gotham subs, i told someone that I have a poor man’s Sonus Faber Suprema lol. But just for the record, the pair of Gothams make a smaller difference because the salons’ bass is already so good. But I’m stuck with them since they weigh 360 lbs each and are hard to sell.
Room correction done right can help at all levels but I think it helps more with cheaper speakers that need more help.
@Floyd Toole posted this article early this year in one of the other threads..
Among other things (and its core topic of Stereo vs Mono) it discusses the quandaries we have to weigh up and balance when setting up / selecting our room and speakers.
Among other things (and its core topic of Stereo vs Mono) it discusses the quandaries we have to weigh up and balance when setting up / selecting our room and speakers.
Weeb Labs
Addicted to Fun and Learning
One consideration that I rarely see mentioned is the listening distance. Directivity is certainly a critical characteristic but it is less important for near field listening where the DRR is much higher. In my experience, almost any speaker can well corrected given near field placement and the absence of other obnoxious defects such as loud cabinet or waveguide resonances.
Keith_W
Master Contributor
How do you measure the DRR? As far as I know, the formula is:
DRR (dB) = 10 * log (SPLdirect / SPLreverb)
The question is: how do you measure SPLreverb?
Using the first row in the Genelec chart as reference, in a treated room of 65 m³ (∼ 26 m² × 2.5 m), RT60 of 0.22 s (a pretty dead room), the critical distance is ~ 1.7 m.
Therefore, to listen in a typical domestic room in a predominantly direct field (DRR ≥ 1), it will be with a desktop type setup.
https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors
Therefore, to listen in a typical domestic room in a predominantly direct field (DRR ≥ 1), it will be with a desktop type setup.
https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors
Easier implementation. When you add a sub, you become a speaker designer, having to integrate that while fighting room modes. It is tough to get right for music consumption.
No such system sounds correct in any domestic room. Simple frequency response measurement would show large variations below a couple of hundred hertz. This results in boomier bass and exaggeration of some notes. All of which will be different than what was heard when the music was produced. DSP is mandatory in any proper system.
I do prefer good options for eq. I think starting with a good set of mains is good, but so are good subs and tools to integrate them so for a system....depends. Don't know what costs your chart refers to particularly either, tho. Good setup within the room for both speakers and seating and the room's furnishings can make a difference, too.
They should never be mutually exclusive, I'd make sure the budget includes both going forward. And great speakers are not as expensive as they used to be, plenty of awesome tests on this site.
Especially in rooms that require major WAF, room optimization can deliver absolutely amazing results.Those of us that set up our rooms tastefully but without having to please anyone else also benefit from it, especially with bass tuning.
And something like Dirac isn't that expensive and we all have computers, I fail to understand why anyone interested in SQ would NOT get it. It's a great tool to have in many ways. Also helps one understand one's personal preferences systematically.
PS: I don't EQ my main system because I love how it sounds and measuring it confirmed my preferences (and the fact deviations from neutral are smallish and happen to trend towards my established preferences), but the optimization of the sub positioning and config help was awesome.
Especially in rooms that require major WAF, room optimization can deliver absolutely amazing results.Those of us that set up our rooms tastefully but without having to please anyone else also benefit from it, especially with bass tuning.
And something like Dirac isn't that expensive and we all have computers, I fail to understand why anyone interested in SQ would NOT get it. It's a great tool to have in many ways. Also helps one understand one's personal preferences systematically.
PS: I don't EQ my main system because I love how it sounds and measuring it confirmed my preferences (and the fact deviations from neutral are smallish and happen to trend towards my established preferences), but the optimization of the sub positioning and config help was awesome.
Last edited:
obsessive9119
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2024
- Messages
- 337
- Likes
- 428
To directly answer your question - you might never be able to make cheap speakers great with EQ, but you can make them a *lot* better than they are out of the box. For example, if I could have a $150 set of desktop speakers with EQ or a $300 set without EQ, I’d take the cheaper ones. That is, you can get a lot of bang for buck out of EQing lower end speakers.
With room correction as cheap as it is, I don’t see any reason to exclude it at any price point (at least for stereo). So buy the best speakers you can afford, after you’ve budgeted for a WiiM or equivalent.
Of course you could put a ton of time and money into room treatments, but for anyone with aesthetic considerations (your own and/or your partner’s) it’s often a non-starter (and you still might not end up with as a good of a result as you’d get with EQ).
With room correction as cheap as it is, I don’t see any reason to exclude it at any price point (at least for stereo). So buy the best speakers you can afford, after you’ve budgeted for a WiiM or equivalent.
Of course you could put a ton of time and money into room treatments, but for anyone with aesthetic considerations (your own and/or your partner’s) it’s often a non-starter (and you still might not end up with as a good of a result as you’d get with EQ).
Dirac ART has wrought magic!
(although to be fair, I did have to add a 2nd sub to enable this... but it still surprised me!)
In my experience, full range correction, e.g. done with Dirac, has this effect. Limit your correction below, say, 300Hz (plus/minus), adjust the bass level (now without resonances) to taste and enjoy.
Another great feature - at least for me - is a properly implemented loudness function which is great for listening below reference SPL. Adds "body" and "soul" to the music at low listening levels.
This might be true, however, it is so damn ugly and very difficult to add to a living room with existing furniture and paintings on the wall... Requires a whole new interior design.
Most listening rooms with substantial treatment are - please forgive me - visually unappealing and unacceptable as a living room - at least for me. That is where smart solutions like DSP (relatively unexpensive) and cardioid speaker design (relatively expensive) can be a big benefit.
I am going slightly off-topic here, however, let me tell you my latest experience of audio myth preventing the user from best possible audio quality: I subscribed to Qobuz (quit Spotify long ago, using Tidal since) as I like their music curation and payment of artists best. However, Qubuz does not offer - even optionally - a normalized loudness based on EBU R128. Neither in their Windows app, nor their Android app, not in Qobuz connect. So, no way to use it with a loudness functionality, and no way to just listen to a playlist without constantly adjusting the volume.
Their justification for this missing functionality: Bit perfect transmission of the music to keep its "purity". What a pity!
This - sorry - stupid rejection of the benefits of modern DSP keeps us in the "stone age" of audio playback for no good reason.
The same applies for rejection of proper bass DSP for managing room modes - and now the circle closes...
The acoustic treatment can easily be made to look like art objects. I have an absorption panel that looks like a painting, which I have personally chosen the motive for, and it looks really great. I like the look of all the panels I have on the walls in the living room, the color I chose (rost) for them has a good loking contrast to the “coffee” brown wallpaper. The room looks better with the panels than without them.
