• 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!

Keith_W DSP system

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
812
Likes
690
Location
Eugene, OR
BTW, I do a lot of experiments with DSP to satisfy my own curiosity, and sometimes this involves deliberately ignoring Toole and doing the opposite of what he says. I can tell you that the result isn't as disastrous as it's made out to be, but there is a niggling feeling of discomfort at the back of my head that comes from ignoring the experts. The reason I choose a FDW of 15/5 is to alleviate that discomfort.
That's the nice thing about having so much control over your system. You can try things just to see, (or hear) and then put it back later. My experience is similar to yours. Bad directivity doesn't necessarily sound so bad, can be intriguing at times. Better directivity seems more versatile, best overall effect with the most recordings.
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
812
Likes
690
Location
Eugene, OR
- The Brueggemann target was felt to be "shouty" by one listener. The other was neutral about it. This is my preferred target, it has a nice midrange fullness and enough bass without sounding excessive.
I like a bold midrange. That whole range between 100 and 1000, (or maybe I should extend that to 3500) needs to be adequately prominent, and I think it won't sound shouty if the bottom end of it is not under represented. It'll sound bold and rich, solid, full, but not necessarily the clearest and most detailed. If there's anything I percieve to be a common error with most systems I've set up and others I've heard in people's homes, trade shows, high end shops, etc., it's that they're too thin in that range to sound realistic. The thing is, it can quickly get murky and chesty too if there's a little too much, or the room is causing problems. I think a lot of people inadvertently or on purpose cut in the lower part of that range because of room issues, and that resulting thinness in tone has become a practical hallmark of the sound of stereo to me. And I'll have to say, if I can't get that fullness without it sounding murky and chesty, then I'll go with the thinness. It's a practical compromise. Actually, I will tolerate a small amount of murkiness. I'm really liking what my system is doing right now, and it's because I boosted the range between 200 and 800 Hz by a couple dB over what measured to be a fairly flat room curve with about 0.7 dB/ octave slope. It's hard to tell in that range because the room response is rough through there.

I can back up that people cut in that range from conversations I've had with various clients who buy our products, working in mixing and mastering, and also talking to my co-workers about adjusting their systems. They frequently tell me that the range around 200-300 Hz is often problematic to their ears.
 
Last edited:

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
I believe that preferred target curves can vary because of:

1. Different directivity characteristics of different speakers + room reflections. If your speaker has wonky directivity characteristics like mine, some target curves just don't work.
Exactly, that's why Toole also says that "correcting" a listening position response to such a predefined targets doesn't guarantee anything, as people prefer loudspeakers with flat direct sound and smooth directivity, the curves at the listening positions measured from such are results but not targets. That's why he also says that there is no such predefined "Toole target curve" and reacts allergic when people come up with such.
More reading material about it:
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
Also since direct sound dominates our perception above room transition frequency it might be interesting to see the corresponding direct sound curves with the LP correction curves you used and examine how well they correlate to the perceived tonalities and rankings.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,930
Likes
4,132
Location
Sweden, Västerås
Yes a result , the preferred speakers have roughly anechoic flat response on axis but in room due to their directivity properties the results are like these curves .

As your brain+ears listen primarily to direct sound above the transition region means that if the speaker does not naturally conform you have to botch the direct sound to get the reflected sound just right to conform to these curves ? you might like it but that not the point at all with these curves .

If you now the anechoic response you can maybe adjust for that above the transition region .

I also adjust to taste a tad warmer more bass, but its just me :)

Edit . Thanks for the test anyway it's still very interesting
 
OP
Keith_W

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,857
Likes
6,570
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Also since direct sound dominates our perception above room transition frequency it might be interesting to see the corresponding direct sound curves with the LP correction curves you used and examine how well they correlate to the perceived tonalities and rankings.

I am sorry, I am not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to see the uncorrected curves vs. the corrected curves?
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
812
Likes
690
Location
Eugene, OR
I am sorry, I am not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to see the uncorrected curves vs. the corrected curves?
What I read him to say, and what I agree would be interesting to see, is the direct sound AFTER you made the room correction EQ. The direct sound dominates above the transition frequency, so it's interesting if altering it from flat ever consistently creates a preferred overall sound when the directivity is not smooth.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
I am sorry, I am not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to see the uncorrected curves vs. the corrected curves?
The direct sound or listening window (so for example a gated response or a nearfield MMM) of your loudspeakers after the correction with all those LP targets you used. If you have it already without EQ of course no additional measurements are necessary as you could convolve them with your used filters.
 
OP
Keith_W

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,857
Likes
6,570
Location
Melbourne, Australia
The direct sound or listening window (so for example a gated response or a nearfield MMM) of your loudspeakers after the correction with all those LP targets you used. If you have it already without EQ of course no additional measurements are necessary as you could convolve them with your used filters.

Ah, I see. I am sorry, I don't have them. I generated all those filters in one sitting without doing any verification measurements. I only have sims, but I have found that the sims look very close to the actual verification measurement. I can show you the sims if you want. A nearfield MMM will look very different to a MLP verification measurement (or a sim of the MLP verification) but I am sure you knew this already. I am still not sure what you mean by "without EQ" and "after correction with targets" because it seems contradictory? By definition, after I correct it to a target, it has EQ applied? I think I am still misunderstanding you.

1715655413093.png


In any case, this is the "before" (red) vs. "after" (green) of the left channel only. The brown curve is the sim. I am continually amazed by how close the prediction matches reality. You can also see that I cut the peaks, left the dips alone, and applied "broad tone controls" to the upper frequencies.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
These are measurements at the listening position so contain also some non direct sound parts, to get a mainly the direct sound you need to usually to get closer and use gating.
I am still not sure what you mean by "without EQ" and "after correction with targets" because it seems contradictory? By definition, after I correct it to a target, it has EQ applied? I think I am still misunderstanding you.
As written if you know or had measured the gated/anechoic response of your loudspeakers you can apply on it the filter functions that you generated to see how the direct sound of them after your EQ will look like.
 
OP
Keith_W

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,857
Likes
6,570
Location
Melbourne, Australia
These are measurements at the listening position so contain also some non direct sound parts, to get a mainly the direct sound you need to usually to get closer and use gating.

As written if you know or had measured the gated/anechoic response of your loudspeakers you can apply on it the filter functions that you generated to see how the direct sound of them after your EQ will look like.

The measurements I showed do have gating, AKA windowing. Both the before and after.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
The measurements I showed do have gating, AKA windowing. Both the before and after.
I know, per Acourate measurements always do, but even for example with the typical values like 5-15 cycles they include a significant portion of reflected sound if they are taken at the LP and not close(r) to the loudspeakers.
 

UliBru

Active Member
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
126
Likes
342
I know, per Acourate measurements always do, but even for example with the typical values like 5-15 cycles they include a significant portion of reflected sound if they are taken at the LP and not close(r) to the loudspeakers.
Even with just 3 cycles the sound of a 50 Hz sinewave will travel already 20 m. So how do you exclude a reflected sound in a normal listening environment?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,954
Likes
17,228
Even with just 3 cycles the sound of a 50 Hz sinewave will travel already 20 m. So how do you exclude a reflected sound in a normal listening environment?
Exactly, that's why closer measurements with a gate before the first reflection are more useful for the region where we care more about the direct sound, that is above room transition frequency.
 
Top Bottom