Invest in better measuring speakers or room equalisation ? When does one or the other make a bigger difference in your experience ?

[dlaloum]

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.

You can opt to manually specify a target curve which follows the measured response of the speaker - ie: you set the target so there is no EQ!

The advantage of this is that Dirac in addition to doing amplitude EQ to match the target curve, also does phase and impulse correction - the net effect is enhanced clarity - particularly in the midrange (from my own experience).

If you use the curtains to avoid applying any changes above 300Hz, you will end up having to do without the phase and impulse correction - which is in the time domain not the amplitude domain - and that would be a shame, as there is a noticeable improvement to be gained!

 

[Sokel]

Old habits die hard I guess.

I do have a dedicated but these days we're finishing the top floor which is basically a living room.
Fairly minimal as you can imagine by my comments all this time, imagine a big T shape room which creates essentially two boxes at the front ending up to what I can describe as a crystal wall (which can be opened, completely, high view is nice) .

So no where to place speakers as "rules" dictate other than in the middle of this opening (imagine the upper section of the T) which is out of the question of course.
Still...

You can guess that the dedicated 20A lines are in place at the side of one "box" and most likely it well end up in a thing having a wall on one side and a crystal on the other
I guess something minimal will work there , at the 5 x 6 meters that create this virtual box I don't dream of 200 lit. mains monitors. Also treatment is out of the question, curtains as well.

Will that stop me setting up something half-decent so the place can be alive and show that actual people living in? Nope!
So, it does make sense to get a decent speaker and correct as much as I can down low with DSP. Speaker must be able to help with this though.
And if it has the meat at mid-bass that I value, even at lower SPL even better!

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Of course, no DSP can correct the room – we all know that. All it can do is mess with your amp's nice flat frequency response to pander to the speaker or the room's acoustic failures. That’s undeniably how these DSPs work, isn’t it?

Perhaps best to resolve these issues by other means in my view.

Yes, that is how they work, though I do see it and interpret it a bit differently. I think of it more as seasoning. If a dish has too much salt, adding sweet+hot+sour can bring it into balance and save the meal. DSP is my seasoning to bring things into line.

I do agree that other means would be preferred, but absent a dedicated listening room, that's going to be impossible to take to the highest level. Have I corrected some room issues with treatment? Sure, rugs and pads, a few other things. Have I purchased speakers with the room and two main speaker positions I use in mind? Sure. But absent selling my 100 year old house, nothing along those lines is going to fix things.

DSP brings the spice level to spot on.

Plus, there is another advantage. If I de-tune the DSP just so, things go from "I am there with the musicians" to "the musicians are in my living room". As in the back deck sounds like the alley behind the club, the back porch sounds like the back hallway, the kitchen sounds like the bar, and the living room sounds like the main stage. It feels and sounds like walking into a live venue the back way.

Because my room does things, and if I can make it sing and not scream, those things are amazing.

So while I agree in principle with your stance, as a practical matter it is not a path I choose to walk.

 

[Keith_W]

The purpose of discourse is to exchange ideas and challenge your own understanding. If you are wrong, indefensible beliefs need to be rejected and you need to come to a better and more reasoned position. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Time to educate myself. There is no shame in it, it's an opportunity for self-improvement.

I can also recognize when other people are not entering discourse with the same mindset. They are there to proselytize, they may be locked in by ideology, by refusal to change, by inflexibility, and most commonly by limited intelligence. They come across as dogmatic and confident. They lack the self-reflection necessary to doubt their own position or examine their own beliefs. This is because their beliefs were not arrived at through reason, it was the nearest comforting crutch they could find. They respond with things like "everybody knows" or through emotional appeals and deflection.

It is very simple: deviations from the frequency response are caused by the speaker-room-listener interaction. The solutions are: (1) change the position and response of the speaker, or sometimes change the speaker, (2) modify the room, (3) change the position of the listener. That's all there is to it. Refusing to DSP and relying on the latter two methods alone is removing a valuable tool from your arsenal. I can understand that DSP is an arcane subject, and not everyone is interested in learning how it works. But to reject it outright is dogmatism.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

What are you considering in that price range?
New speakers for less than 1500/2000$ won’t give you detail, resonance free sound, linear dispersion… and none of this will be cheated with DSP.
For used speakers… maybe 500/1000$ will be the lower range.
Cheapest DSP implementation would be raspberry pi 4 with camillaDSP. 100$ but you’ll require a DAC (100$), a Streamer (80$) and an amp (200$) plus 70$ cabling… at least 550$ for new gear.
Nice bass will require at least a nice and fast Subwoofer… at least 500$ for a SVS 1000.

Passive speakers with bass and DSP will range from 2500$ for new gear… and I would suggest other 500$ in acoustic treatment ( bass traps, difussion, absortion…)
Active speakers or pro solutions could be a bit cheaper and used gear would be even cheaper.

For less than 3000$ you will always have less bass, less precision, worst dispersion, worst linearity, that could be cheated by DSP, but no real performance.

 

[Mort]

I would skip acoustic treatment myself. There is a lot of confirmation bias in consumer reports and tests are very inconclusive about preference and audibility.

 

[FrantzM]

I don't mean to be hypothetical.
What I experience is that a low cost speaker that is well designed sounds in tonality much like its state of the art brothers. Certainly when using with an avr and subwoofer.

But ymmv, I accept that.

This has been my experience for the past 8 years ( Thanks ASR). I was an ardent subjectivist audiophile and High End Audio fanatic for almost 40 years ..
My current system , which by the way, is the best I have had in all those years , cost if you just isolate the 2-channel audio section, less than $2500. That would have been the cost of what I considered a "decent" speaker cable then.
Repeating it JBL LSR308 for mains in 2-channel mode
2 Subs
Denon AVR-X3400H
miniDSP 2x4 HD

With Audyssey MultEQ-X + REW + MSO
This combo is the best system I have had in my 50+ year s of being an audiophile and it measured well too: plus or minus 2 dB, Flat 18 to 20,000 Hz. Capable of 110 dB (measured and shared here on ASR) in HT mode at the Main Listening Position

Recently about 6 months ago, I discovered @OCA Scripts. I use currently his latest, the Acoustix. The niniDSP was removed, Nor Do Iuse MultEQ-X anymore. Just the AVR and the speakers + 2 Subs. These scripts deserve to be better known by the audiophile community: Game changer, almost transformational.
I am pleased , happy. Wondering how much should I spend on speakers to enjoy a substantial improvement. Any speakers better than the LSR308 cost multiple of its price. Would it be Kef R series? Q Series, Revel ? F206, 208, 228 Be or BMR Philharmonic Tower or Genelec? Or Neuman? AsciLab? What else.. Perhaps a jump in Revel Salon 2 or Kef Blade 2? Salon 2 is definitely in my mind just because you can find some bargains here and there, with HEA audiophiles constantly dumping gear and the Revel Salon 2 is after all 18 years removed, so for many HEA audiophiles a vintage product I also think about moving to Kef R11 non Meta because they are on eBay, sometimes, at great prices ... so ...On the fence but not worried ...

I became about 5 years ago, convinced that that an AVR must be the heart of any Audio system, be it 2-ch or multi channel.Don't care anymore about separates, although for some speakers, external more powerful amplifers could be warranted. On that, I think Denon/Marantz represent the audiophile best bet. They seem to be the only AVR to offer Audyssey (Better than most people realize) and Dirac (I have no experience with it but by many accounts it is good , especially the ART). The baseline in my book for AVRs is the Denon X-3800 , it offers the higher version of Audyssey, can run all Dirac varieties including the ART, has pre-out and 4 (independent) subwoofer outputs...I believe it, now has Auro-upmixing.
For those audiophiles with the means and the will, there remains the superlative Trinnov and Storm Audio Pre/Proand the Monoprice HT-1 an outlier with its own DSP feature set. I have heard good things about it but have no experience with it.

Anyway my quest for endgame would go through a Denon or Marantz AVR, not caring about their Pre/Pro/AVP, which are usualyl their TOL AVR with amps removed ... and are more expensive to boot... for basically the same set of features

 

[Hear Here]

It is very simple: deviations from the frequency response are caused by the speaker-room-listener interaction. The solutions are: (1) change the position and response of the speaker, or sometimes change the speaker, (2) modify the room, (3) change the position of the listener. That's all there is to it. Refusing to DSP and relying on the latter two methods alone is removing a valuable tool from your arsenal. I can understand that DSP is an arcane subject, and not everyone is interested in learning how it works. But to reject it outright is dogmatism.

I agree with all you say and the solutions you suggest are the most important ones to get right first. DSP has its place, but not in my view as the first or most important aspect in achieving best sound. In most cases, attending to these other solutions should obviate the need to consider DSP. Perhaps DSP is best thought of as "if all else fails, then DSP should be considered". rather than "don't worry about poorly chosen and set up speakers, or neglected room treatment, the magic of DSP will sort it all out".

 

[Flaesh]

just never going to be an option, likewise multiple sub-woofers dotted about.

Let them install their subwoofers in an array on the front wall. And on the back wall too. If they're not allowed to have massive absorbers on the back wall.

 

[Mnyb]

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.

Yes good speakers with controlled directivity , some smartly done adjustments in the bass to swat most room modes

And if lost ”slam” just add back more bass with a shelf

 

[FrantzM]

What are you considering in that price range?
New speakers for less than 1500/2000$ won’t give you detail, resonance free sound, linear dispersion… and none of this will be cheated with DSP.
For used speakers… maybe 500/1000$ will be the lower range.
Cheapest DSP implementation would be raspberry pi 4 with camillaDSP. 100$ but you’ll require a DAC (100$), a Streamer (80$) and an amp (200$) plus 70$ cabling… at least 550$ for new gear.
Nice bass will require at least a nice and fast Subwoofer… at least 500$ for a SVS 1000.

Passive speakers with bass and DSP will range from 2500$ for new gear… and I would suggest other 500$ in acoustic treatment ( bass traps, difussion, absortion…)
Active speakers or pro solutions could be a bit cheaper and used gear would be even cheaper.

For less than 3000$ you will always have less bass, less precision, worst dispersion, worst linearity, that could be cheated by DSP, but no real performance.

......
I had to address these. You may need to read some of the review here.

New speakers for less than 1500/2000$ won’t give you detail, resonance free sound, linear dispersion

I can cite from memory a few speakers that achieve this at less:
ASciLab C6B @ $1200/pair
Kali Audio Project Lone and Independence speakers, starting at $250 per speakers
JBL LSR 305, 306, 308, starting at $150 per speaker
BMR True Mini Monitor $420 /pair
There are too many to research but you are wrong and this, factually.

As for the notion of "fast" subwoofer, can we, please, put it to rest?

and

Price doesn't have much correlation with performance: ASR proves it routinely...

 

[Miniyouuuu]

I would skip acoustic treatment myself. There is a lot of confirmation bias in consumer reports and tests are very inconclusive about preference and audibility.

To prevent big boosts from room modes, DSP can be a great tool. Placing subs correctly can help fill in those frequency gaps. However, these solutions are usually limited to specific areas. If you move to a different spot, the room’s irregularity can create new highs and lows.

Acoustic-treated rooms are more balanced, so DSP works even better, and the overall sound quality improves.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

......
I had to address these. You may need to read some of the review here.


I can cite from memory a few speakers that achieve this at less:
ASciLab C6B @ $1200/pair
Kali Audio Project Lone and Independence speakers, starting at $250 per speakers
JBL LSR 305, 306, 308, starting at $150 per speaker
BMR True Mini Monitor $420 /pair
There are too many to research but you are wrong and this, factually.

As for the notion of "fast" subwoofer, can we, please, put it to rest?

and

Price doesn't have much correlation with performance: ASR proves it routinely...

Indeed, price does not necessarily correlate with performance.
I lack experience with active speakers.
The passive speakers I tested exhibited minor issues below $1,500, but I have not yet tested the speakers you mentioned. I trust you and this forum, which suggests that these speakers could offer exceptional value for their price and specifications. However, as you have already cited, the speakers recommended by Erin (excluding AsciLab) typically range from $1,500 to $2,500 for a pair (Kef, Linton, Mofi 8…).

Regarding the “fast” subwoofer, prior to purchasing my SB-2000, I experimented with several low-cost subwoofers priced under $400. While they did add bass, the bass was lacking in definition and control. It is possible that I am a sealed subwoofer enthusiast, which may explain my recommendation for the SVS SB-1000 as a reasonably priced subwoofer.

 

[Buckchester]

Since I joined ASR I keep wondering about this question.

Sure, a well measuring speaker is a prerequisite to having a good sound, that can be equalised. However, ime, a fantastic in room response can be achieved with an avr costing about 1000, some bookshelve speakers costing about half of that and a sub costing about the same as the speakers.
A sota speaker like from genelec gives better imaging; a bigger speaker can fill a bigger room...but what else?

Then what gains can you expect when investing in better measuring or bigger speakers?
What if instead of upgrading speakers without equalisation you invest in an avr and subs?

To me the room plays such a big part, that room equalisation should be top priority at any price.

The in-room frequency response of a speaker should only be EQ’d below the room transition frequency. Anything above that needs to be based on an anechoic response. And no EQ can fix directivity problems. That can only be fixed with a better speaker.

You don’t have to spend a lot of money to get a speaker with a good frequency response. But if you want one that can play loud without too much distortion, then you might depending on how big your room is and how loud you want to play.

 

[Keith_W]

I agree with all you say and the solutions you suggest are the most important ones to get right first. DSP has its place, but not in my view as the first or most important aspect in achieving best sound. In most cases, attending to these other solutions should obviate the need to consider DSP. Perhaps DSP is best thought of as "if all else fails, then DSP should be considered". rather than "don't worry about poorly chosen and set up speakers, or neglected room treatment, the magic of DSP will sort it all out".

I agree with you. When I help people DSP their systems, I try to obtain the best result possible without DSP. In the real world, people are limited by where they can put their speakers, where they can sit, how much room treatment can be applied, their budget, and so on. Then DSP is used to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the system that is possible, within their limitations. The improvement it makes can be pretty dramatic. In some cases, it is equal to a speaker upgrade.

 

[Buckchester]

I agree with all you say and the solutions you suggest are the most important ones to get right first. DSP has its place, but not in my view as the first or most important aspect in achieving best sound. In most cases, attending to these other solutions should obviate the need to consider DSP. Perhaps DSP is best thought of as "if all else fails, then DSP should be considered". rather than "don't worry about poorly chosen and set up speakers, or neglected room treatment, the magic of DSP will sort it all out".

No. DSP is always necessary below the room transition frequency. If you fail to do this, you will surely be “neutering” your sound.

 

[Multicore]

Invest money in speakers and time in room eq and treatment.

I gave this a like because it gets very close to my understanding in a nicely concise statement. But the word "invest" doesn't sit quite right. There are speakers that don't cost enough to be called an investment good enough to use with room correction. Within the set of well-engineered speakers systems it's clean bass SPL that demands investment.

 

[Multicore]

Trying to address what I guess OP's title, post and poll are driving at, I would say

1. There are plenty of speakers that perform so inconveniently that there's little or nothing to be accomplished by EQ. If you have such speakers then you need to "upgrade". But price is no indicator. There are good and bad speakers all across the price range.
2. If you have decent speakers then it makes sense to work on your room EQ regardless of their price. It may cost no more than a measurement mic or a WiiM and the time to learn and tinker to get better sound.
3. If you have decent speakers but want MOAR (bass, SPL, more perfect Spinorama, bragging rights, brand ...) then that's another good reason to "upgrade".

 

[mcochris]

I would skip acoustic treatment myself. There is a lot of confirmation bias in consumer reports and tests are very inconclusive about preference and audibility.

I don’t think DSP or speakers alone can control the naturally occurring echo and reverberation in an untreated room. I use both Dirac and Neumann DSP processors (not at the same time), and while they’re effective at managing frequency response, as far as I know they don’t address room echo or reverberation.

Perhaps the reports and tests you’ve seen refer to less effective room treatments, such as foam or thin panels with a low NRC (Noise Reduction Coefficient).

 

[markstein]

You can opt to manually specify a target curve which follows the measured response of the speaker - ie: you set the target so there is no EQ!

The advantage of this is that Dirac in addition to doing amplitude EQ to match the target curve, also does phase and impulse correction - the net effect is enhanced clarity - particularly in the midrange (from my own experience).

If you use the curtains to avoid applying any changes above 300Hz, you will end up having to do without the phase and impulse correction - which is in the time domain not the amplitude domain - and that would be a shame, as there is a noticeable improvement to be gained!

Evidence of this claim would be interesting. Science seems to show that "phase correction" is not or only barely audible (simplified statement), and I am skeptical that Dirac is able to correct the anechoic phase response of the speakers when measured in room with only one microphone (direct sound and reflections cannot be separated).