Is EQing worth it or is there caveats?

[Sedaxel]

Some of the wise mates here gives us great EQ corrections for every reviewed speaker. That's fantastic because the preference score gets a noticeable improvement. In some cases, the score jumps a lot!

However, I've read here and there that EQing leads to phase issues, and that you fix one thing just to screw another thing.

Now my question: What's best? Is EQ correction worth it for the sake of a slightly better preference score or is it better just to leave it as is?

 

[levimax]

Some of the wise mates here gives us great EQ corrections for every reviewed speaker. That's fantastic because the preference score gets a noticeable improvement. In some cases, the score jumps a lot!

However, I've read here and there that EQing leads to phase issues, and that you fix one thing just to screw another thing.

Now my question: What's best? Is EQ correction worth it for the sake of a slightly better preference score or is it better just to leave it as is?

If you are correcting a"minimum phase" issue like a room mode peak below Schroeder then correcting the amplitude also corrects the phase so these corrections are almost always a net positive. Beyond that you have to use some wisdom, some "dips" can be filled by boosting and some can't and most are "in between". These corrections have to be tested subjectively. Beyond that you can try to use phase and timing to flatten response but again those need to be listened to to confirm an improvement. Some of the automatic systems, especially the MIMO based ones like DIRAC ART, seem to do a good job in magnitude and phase and even reducing decay.

For almost all domestic systems a well executed DSP correction will offer a meaningful improvement and it would not be wise to "just leave it alone". On the other hand more DSP is not always better so it take some skill and experience. The automated systems with their "default" settings can be a good place to start.

 

[DWPress]

If you've already invested in a decent playback system then getting a measurement microphone and an interface isn't a whole lot more $$. Learning how to use software and interpreting the results takes time but worth the effort. OCA's GSonic is a great little automated tool that takes hardly any time to do and generally gives good results but you'll need an app to host the FIR filters. Otherwise, judicious use of PEQ from REW measurements are pretty straightforward too.

 

[Sedaxel]

If you are correcting a"minimum phase" issue like a room mode peak below Schroeder then correcting the amplitude also corrects the phase so these corrections are almost always a net positive. Beyond that you have to use some wisdom, some "dips" can be filled by boosting and some can't and most are "in between". These corrections have to be tested subjectively. Beyond that you can try to use phase and timing to flatten response but again those need to be listened to to confirm an improvement. Some of the automatic systems, especially the MIMO based ones like DIRAC ART, seem to do a good job in magnitude and phase and even reducing decay.

For almost all domestic systems a well executed DSP correction will offer a meaningful improvement and it would not be wise to "just leave it alone". On the other hand more DSP is not always better so it take some skill and experience. The automated systems with their "default" settings can be a good place to start.

Thanks for your help, mate.

I've got a pair of Adam D3V which I find fantastic for my home. When I apply the EQ correction from Spinorama, there's an audible difference. Slight, but audible. Difficult to compare on the go because it applies a -2db preamp, so the perceived volume drops. When I try to go to 0db quickly, the difference is very very subtle.

Using them on near field desktop use, and listening to reference tracks for mixing, I think I could use them perfectly for the task.

However...

I've got a borrowed pair of Genelec 8030A in my studio (not at home). They of course sound fantastic uncorrected. Still going through the process of measuring the room, etc... But those speakers are going to fly away, since they're not mine.

And, in near field use, I just don't feel a world of a difference between those. Granted, I didn't ABed then because of different locations.

When I've got to buy monitors for the studio, I wonder if I can go for a (much) cheaper pair and optimise it through EQ corrections, since there are some that get a really high score after correction. For instance, the Behringers B2031A get a ridiculous score... And can be found for dirt cheap. M-Audio BX8 D3 too.

I guess the score doesn't tell the whole story...

 

[DWPress]

Applying the EQ from the spinorama measurements is only part of the process. It is very useful information to aid and correct what a speaker actually does in YOUR room which will be wildly different from the anechoic data. The only way to understand what is happening in YOUR room is to measure it - a room mode or reflection will change the response but the anechoic information can help you determine what to try to fix and what to leave alone.

 

[levimax]

Thanks for your help, mate.

I've got a pair of Adam D3V which I find fantastic for my home. When I apply the EQ correction from Spinorama, there's an audible difference. Slight, but audible. Difficult to compare on the go because it applies a -2db preamp, so the perceived volume drops. When I try to go to 0db quickly, the difference is very very subtle.

Using them on near field desktop use, and listening to reference tracks for mixing, I think I could use them perfectly for the task.

However...

I've got a borrowed pair of Genelec 8030A in my studio (not at home). They of course sound fantastic uncorrected. Still going through the process of measuring the room, etc... But those speakers are going to fly away, since they're not mine.

And, in near field use, I just don't feel a world of a difference between those. Granted, I didn't ABed then because of different locations.

When I've got to buy monitors for the studio, I wonder if I can go for a (much) cheaper pair and optimise it through EQ corrections, since there are some that get a really high score after correction. For instance, the Behringers B2031A get a ridiculous score... And can be found for dirt cheap. M-Audio BX8 D3 too.

I guess the score doesn't tell the whole story...

Below "Schroeder Frequency", which for most rooms is around 200 to 300 Hz, is where EQ shines. Above that you are usually better off with "good speakers" like Genelec or similar that have flat on and off axis response and smooth directivity. For monitoring good monitors are tough to beat, you most likely don't have to EQ them above 300 Hz. EQing speakers with poor measurements is not usually as successful as the "after correction score" would lead you to believe because it is only looking at an "on axis" correction and response. The off axis and directivity behavior will oftentimes be worse and these problems can color the sound. Bottom line is good monitors with some good EQ below Schroeder are going to be the most reliable way to accurate sound.

 

[thewas]

Also above Schroeder frequency there exists not one single correct filter curve as even maximising the Toole score is just one approach and compromise not only regarding the target itself but also since no real loudspeaker has perfect directivity. So when listening in nearfield someone might want to weigh more the listening window response while when listening at high distances and reflective rooms more the sound power response.

 

[NTK]

Note that the quality of the measurements data in spinorama.org is low. It's calculated "preference scores" are therefore far less reliable, and cannot be fairly compared to speakers measured using the Klippel NFS.

 

[Sedaxel]

You guys know a lot of stuff!

I "know" preference score is not the one thing to take into account... I just get a little confused because some times it seems it's an almost useless indicator!

For instance, consensus of quality between, say, Kali LP-6 V2 and IN-5 is that the latter is much better. However, the score tells the contrary...

So, why to even consider the score? I guess I'm not the only newbie wondering this.

 

[ace_xp2]

I may be missing what's being stated in the initial post. But if you're asking if the eq changes done in the reviews based on Amirs data (i.e. Klippel data) work, then yes they certainly should. It seems like most of the answers you've gotten here are about eq in room. Which is very different from eq based on Amir's klippel data.

Now that doesn't fix "the room", but it does essentially correct the speakers response. It can make a speaker with response issues sound much closer to one without. It cannot fix poor directivity or distortion issues, so if that's what your facing then it won't help.

 

[NTK]

You guys know a lot of stuff!

I "know" preference score is not the one thing to take into account... I just get a little confused because some times it seems it's an almost useless indicator!

For instance, consensus of quality between, say, Kali LP-6 V2 and IN-5 is that the latter is much better. However, the score tells the contrary...

So, why to even consider the score? I guess I'm not the only newbie wondering this.

The "score" was more or less created as an academic exercise. Once that was done to prove a point at the time (early 2000's, that the Consumer Report published loudspeaker ratings were bogus), even its creators do not use it but interpret the measurement results from the spinorama charts directly. So don't overly rely on the scores but study the charts carefully.

If you don't have Dr Toole's book, you can read up on how to use these spinorama charts with the presentation in this post.

Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

Your wife's suggestion would cause you to miss a bunch of useful stuff:(. Sorry about the problem. Only the publisher can help. Go to Routledge.com, scroll down to the very bottom - the dark blue area - and click on customer service. Good luck. Good news, I followed the same steps on my PC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Redacted]

I just can't be bothered with EQ - I have a very forgiving room and basic speakers, albeit with a huge amount of setup involved (mentioned elsewhere), but I totally understand why it's important for many listeners.

So the thread is about "is EQ'ing worth it...?" and I'd say to that "how much money and/or effort is worth it?"....

Bear in mind your most noticeable room resonances are dealt with by electronic means by essentially knocking holes into various parts of the spectrum going to your speakers (unless you have a big active array of 'cancellation speakers', and I bet some people really do!) And that EQ mechanism may be essential in some circumstances, as I say. But before spending too much money, quite a lot can be achieved by first trying out some positioning of speakers, subs and furniture - then, if you still get horrible booms or suckouts then you need get your credit card out!

 

[90sNintendoKid]

I agree that correcting above the Schroeder frequency is bad when using only MLP measurements.

I disagree that correcting above the Schroeder frequency is bad when using a combination of near field (pseudo anechoic) and MLP measurements using the Moving Mic Method.

 

[mmares056]

Below "Schroeder Frequency", which for most rooms is around 200 to 300 Hz, is where EQ shines. Above that you are usually better off with "good speakers" like Genelec or similar that have flat on and off axis response and smooth directivity. For monitoring good monitors are tough to beat, you most likely don't have to EQ them above 300 Hz. EQing speakers with poor measurements is not usually as successful as the "after correction score" would lead you to believe because it is only looking at an "on axis" correction and response. The off axis and directivity behavior will oftentimes be worse and these problems can color the sound. Bottom line is good monitors with some good EQ below Schroeder are going to be the most reliable way to accurate sound.

In my experience, doing full range speaker frequency correction is what sounds best in my room with my equipment after comparing to EQing below the transition region only. Even the great Anthony Grimani is on record recommending full range correction. I use per speaker custom correction curves where a unified bass target curve is applied below the transition region and per speaker correction curves applied above the transition region. My custom targets are basically the room transfer function and doing full range correction make the speaker sound neutral in my less than ideal, asymmetrical, non dedicated home theater room. I have began the transition to an all KEF Q series setup by updating my L/R with the Q11 Metas and the Q11s sound fantastic with full range correction. With all that said, it all comes down to personal preference as it is the case in this beautiful hobby.

 

[witwald]

When I've got to buy monitors for the studio, I wonder if I can go for a (much) cheaper pair and optimise it through EQ corrections, since there are some that get a really high score after correction. For instance, the Behringers B2031A get a ridiculous score... And can be found for dirt cheap. M-Audio BX8 D3 too.

Adding EQ corrections can and often does help to remediate the problems in a monitor that are associated with its frequency response. However, cheaper monitors will potentially have drivers that are not as low in distortion as those in a more expensive system, especially at more elevated listening levels. Cheaper drivers are also potentially more likely to suffer from cone/dome break-up modes that are less well controlled. Then there is the issue of amplification, where more expensive systems have greater clean headroom for the reproduction of peaks afforded by more powerful amplifiers. How well the drivers in a less expensive monitor respond when reproducing such peaks may also be a potential problem. In any case, there seem to be quite a few monitors that are good value for money, and sometimes applying a bit of EQ to them will produce a better end result. However, going for a (much) cheaper pair of monitors with significant problems and then trying to "fix them in the mix" , so to speak, seems to be somewhat counterproductive.

 

[NotInYourHead]

Room EQ is absolutely essential IMO because we live in imperfect spaces (like small rooms) and listening position/speaker position is often less than optimal. Boomy one-note bass is just bad for SQ.

Speaker EQ is also important, but I find that you don't need to go strictly by what Spinorama suggests all the time; be flexible and try +/- 1db for each filters, especially in the highs. I frequently deal with speakers with a upward tilt in the treble which is fatiguing to listen to. Dialing in Spinorama EQ as-is seems to overcorrect and takes out all the "air" and "details" of the sound. In such case I reduce the treble filters by 0.5 or 1db.

 

[90sNintendoKid]

In my experience, doing full range speaker frequency correction is what sounds best in my room with my equipment after comparing to EQing below the transition region only. Even the great Anthony Grimani is on record recommending full range correction. I use per speaker custom correction curves where a unified bass target curve is applied below the transition region and per speaker correction curves applied above the transition region. My custom targets are basically the room transfer function and doing full range correction make the speaker sound neutral in my less than ideal, asymmetrical, non dedicated home theater room. I have began the transition to an all KEF Q series setup by updating my L/R with the Q11 Metas and the Q11s sound fantastic with full range correction. With all that said, it all comes down to personal preference as it is the case in this beautiful hobby.

I use the same method as @mmares056

 

[Tell]

EQ is more or less essential if you're interested in good sound quality.

 

[Auditory Cortex]

From my personal experience: YES, it helps a lot for both Music listening & production.

I am in an untreated room and in a bad spot, but I can't move from here until I get the necessary capital. So, meanwhile, I am using EQ to enhance my audio response with my T7V & T10S. After applying the EQ's from Spinorama, and after months of listening to music and tweaking and moving the filters little by little, I finally got the to sound great, without distortion, without annoying frequencies, without bumps or nulls, and that was only possible with such extreme EQ.

In the future, when I get the proper room, the proper spot, and the proper acoustic absorbers, the EQ then should become flatter, especially in the low end.

 

[NotInYourHead]

From my personal experience: YES, it helps a lot for both Music listening & production.

I am in an untreated room and in a bad spot, but I can't move from here until I get the necessary capital. So, meanwhile, I am using EQ to enhance my audio response with my T7V & T10S. After applying the EQ's from Spinorama, and after months of listening to music and tweaking and moving the filters little by little, I finally got the to sound great, without distortion, without annoying frequencies, without bumps or nulls, and that was only possible with such extreme EQ.

In the future, when I get the proper room, the proper spot, and the proper acoustic absorbers, the EQ then should become flatter, especially in the low end.
View attachment 546211

I guess your room is small and has similar dimensions across W, H and L? I also have a PK -20db @ 55Hz because the room would literally fall apart when there're strong bass notes