Do they? Yet so very few manage it.
An anechoically fine measuring design will always sound better than a poorly measuring unit whatever the room.
Keith
-
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!
Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?
- Thread starter aeroborne
- Start date
An anechoically fine measuring design will always sound better than a poorly measuring unit whatever the room.
Keith
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,750
- Likes
- 42,010
There is data to indicate otherwise. Making a speaker that is on axis perfectly flat is maybe not too hard. Making one that is flat on axis and has appropriate off axis directivity is a bit more involved. Above 500 hz the speaker's intrinsic qualities are more pronounced. Digital eq cannot fix off axis directivity issues. So starting with a good well behaved speaker is smart.
MAB
Major Contributor
I disagree with very easy, even if limited to on-axis only. To do it with decent on- and off-axis directivity performance is incredibly difficult. And actually impossible with many of the design decisions many companies make.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 2,482
- Likes
- 3,898
In the last year I've started using a small amount of PEQ from the ADI 2 to knock down a couple of resonances I can't otherwise fix. Until then, no digital EQ for me either.
You can have the finest measuring loudspeakers extant but put them into a room.
Keith
But not many speaker designers actually show proper measurements of their speakers. (Remember, ANSI/CTA-2034-A specifies 1/20-octave or better frequency resolution.) Before they make such claims, why don't they first demonstrate that they can actually measure.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
I know... should have bought a different room.
I bought several tried them and returned them within the 30 day period.
Seriously though this is exactly where ‘contemporary actives’ have a real advantage, cardioid, constant directivity built in tone and peq, you can achieve a really decent result no matter how unhelpful the room* is
*Turkish baths excluded.
Keith
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,107
- Likes
- 5,215
Until you raise your standards, I can't think of one single reason.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,107
- Likes
- 5,215
And many speaker designers don't deserve the title. BTW it's very easy if you use a one-octave smoothing, and impossible with unsmoothed measurements.
And what about lateral axes? Still very easy? They are important too. Sounds like you have been listening to the wrong people.
Goodness, that is a very poorly-informed view.
Firstly, the room's effect is strongest in a specific frequency band known as the sub-transition frequency range. That is where EQ is almost mandatory. Above that, it can do harm.
Secondly, colourations in sound can often be due to resonances in the speaker itself, for which post-purchase EQ is not a great treatment. Much better to eradicate it in the design stage.
Thirdly, a good speaker designer might use EQ intelligently to obtain a performance outcome, and be successful. But that is not the same as you or I trying our hands post-purchase at home.
Conclusion: speaker measurements should very much influence one's choice.
cheers
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,750
- Likes
- 42,010
I think this is one of the better pages explaining and illustrating Schroeder frequency and the transition zone from the room modal region (lows where subs work), and reverberant zone.
Divide and Conquer - The Schroeder Frequency | Prosoundtraining
Not all sound energy in a room is reverberation. The Schroeder frequency divides the spectrum based on sound wave behavior.
www.prosoundtraining.com
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
- Messages
- 128
- Likes
- 90
Now that I'm relying on measurements more, I believe that in a real way, they are everything if you want true HiFi listening. Without measurements, it's not possible to guess at what needs to be done to make any stereo system big or small sound pristine.
This is my definitive example. There's no way I could have imagined that what I'm about to share was possible or would sound as incredible as it does. Keep in mind, mixing is what I love, and I go to great lengths to take care of my hearing.
I recently measured the stereo system in my SUV using REW and My macbook's microphone. Rudimentary I know, but the more I measure speakers with my macbook, the more I find it's a surprisingly reliable tool.
I have a 2007 Equinox that I've had for about 10 years. It has a pioneer sound system that on it's own, sounds ok but is bassy in all the wrong places and harsh. but it has a good midrange otherwise and the speakers are capable of really pushing low end air. I've listened to it a billion times, and I developed a curve by ear that I've used in EQ apps on my phone to try to deal with the issues. But I was never completely happy. I came the closest using wavelet's basic graphic EQ.
So, after capturing a single sweep from 20-20khz, I used the EQ functions in REW to generate a target eq profile (hours of obsessive tinkering go by) ... I exported that and converted it to wavelet (obsessive tinkering resumes) and I finally imported it successfully into Wavelet on my phone.
The resulting Graph looked positively insane. I thought there was no way it would work. And I was right ... there were some crazy resonant frequencies in the low mids, but other than that it was surprisingly nice sounding.
I went back to the data and realized my mistake. I needed to consider the room. I decided to use AI to help me figure out a solution. The one settled on was halving the boosts between 20-300hz while making sure that cuts didn't deepen as a result, and adjusting as needed. these frequencies don't need to be eliminated from the source, just tamed at the source to help with the resonance. I also ultimately decided to use the same idea across the whole frequency spectrum as reflections in the car are inevitable and that would be reflected (ha ha) in the frequency response capture.
EQs and microphones are not discriminatory: the microphone captured resonance and reflections, and REW interpreted it all as simple frequency response. But we know from the research that anything below the room transition frequency is controlled by the room. And anything above there is subject to reflections - the closer they are, the more of an issue they can be.
This is the final EQ profile ... and I was certain it would sound positively horrifying.
Guess what? It sounds INCREDIBLE! Everything I throw at these speakers now punches and booms in all the right places, and the top end is airy and smooth, with excellent clarity.
Are measurements everything? That's a false dilemma. We NEED measurements, and by extension, the Math behind them. But we can't experience the visceral joy of good measurements (and corrective actions) unless we use our ears to hear the results ... see the irony? We don't always know what sounds right unless we can hear it. It took me hearing the weird resonance to clue in to the fact that my process was flawed. So, at the end of it all, knowledge is power. But knowledge is fickle. We are always growing and learning.
Still, If I only trusted only my ears and prior knowledge, I would have been stuck with "just ok". But after hearing the results of fidding with measurements and crafting mathematical solutions to convert Hz, Gain and Q to a 127 band graphic EQ, my mind is blown wide open. This EQ curve should not sound good by conventional wisdom standards. But it does. NOt only that, it sounds positively incredible. And if I had a real measurement microphone, and the ability to take the time to EQ each individual speaker, I'm positive that a car audio HiFi experience would be possible from anywhere in the vehicle.
This is my definitive example. There's no way I could have imagined that what I'm about to share was possible or would sound as incredible as it does. Keep in mind, mixing is what I love, and I go to great lengths to take care of my hearing.
I recently measured the stereo system in my SUV using REW and My macbook's microphone. Rudimentary I know, but the more I measure speakers with my macbook, the more I find it's a surprisingly reliable tool.
I have a 2007 Equinox that I've had for about 10 years. It has a pioneer sound system that on it's own, sounds ok but is bassy in all the wrong places and harsh. but it has a good midrange otherwise and the speakers are capable of really pushing low end air. I've listened to it a billion times, and I developed a curve by ear that I've used in EQ apps on my phone to try to deal with the issues. But I was never completely happy. I came the closest using wavelet's basic graphic EQ.
So, after capturing a single sweep from 20-20khz, I used the EQ functions in REW to generate a target eq profile (hours of obsessive tinkering go by) ... I exported that and converted it to wavelet (obsessive tinkering resumes) and I finally imported it successfully into Wavelet on my phone.
The resulting Graph looked positively insane. I thought there was no way it would work. And I was right ... there were some crazy resonant frequencies in the low mids, but other than that it was surprisingly nice sounding.
I went back to the data and realized my mistake. I needed to consider the room. I decided to use AI to help me figure out a solution. The one settled on was halving the boosts between 20-300hz while making sure that cuts didn't deepen as a result, and adjusting as needed. these frequencies don't need to be eliminated from the source, just tamed at the source to help with the resonance. I also ultimately decided to use the same idea across the whole frequency spectrum as reflections in the car are inevitable and that would be reflected (ha ha) in the frequency response capture.
EQs and microphones are not discriminatory: the microphone captured resonance and reflections, and REW interpreted it all as simple frequency response. But we know from the research that anything below the room transition frequency is controlled by the room. And anything above there is subject to reflections - the closer they are, the more of an issue they can be.
This is the final EQ profile ... and I was certain it would sound positively horrifying.
Guess what? It sounds INCREDIBLE! Everything I throw at these speakers now punches and booms in all the right places, and the top end is airy and smooth, with excellent clarity.
Are measurements everything? That's a false dilemma. We NEED measurements, and by extension, the Math behind them. But we can't experience the visceral joy of good measurements (and corrective actions) unless we use our ears to hear the results ... see the irony? We don't always know what sounds right unless we can hear it. It took me hearing the weird resonance to clue in to the fact that my process was flawed. So, at the end of it all, knowledge is power. But knowledge is fickle. We are always growing and learning.
Still, If I only trusted only my ears and prior knowledge, I would have been stuck with "just ok". But after hearing the results of fidding with measurements and crafting mathematical solutions to convert Hz, Gain and Q to a 127 band graphic EQ, my mind is blown wide open. This EQ curve should not sound good by conventional wisdom standards. But it does. NOt only that, it sounds positively incredible. And if I had a real measurement microphone, and the ability to take the time to EQ each individual speaker, I'm positive that a car audio HiFi experience would be possible from anywhere in the vehicle.
Last edited:
Old_School_Brad
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 598
- Likes
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
- Messages
- 128
- Likes
- 90
Measurements and Hearing are two sides of a coin with Audio. The measurements are useless if we can't hear the results. So what I am proposing is that we rely on good measurements as a starting point, not our ears. Our ears and experience can provide secondary confirmation about whether measurements are helpful or not.
As it relates to ASR, I trust the measurements to give me a solid baseline from which to experiment with further and make decisions on.
That depends if your goal is the road (to the perfect sound) itself. Not the sound.Until you raise your standards, I can't think of one single reason.
Yes if you aren’t interested in high-fidelity, then low-fi.
Keith
Keith
Which is fine, as long as you don’t spend too much for poor engineering dressed as ‘musicality’.
Keith
Keith
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
- Messages
- 128
- Likes
- 90
This is what I would advocate against.
The methods being used need to be proven to be repeatable across multiple systems to achieve at least similar results, and confirmed to be great by people who can hear tonality differences and can recognize correct tontality.
This is not as tall an order as it might seem - I've found people in my immediate circles who can hear good tonality and recongnize when somethign sounds weird. That sense gets heightened once they hear the correct tonality of a tuned pair of headphones or speakers.
As I've blind A/B technically correct tonality with stock response, the EQ'd version has so far always won (I think because I've taken the time to make sure it's mathematically coherent and accurate within a lot of variables).
I won't spend too much for good engineering which will not sound good for my ears
Sorry but if all amps should sound the same (same room, same speakers etc.) then why so many audio shops says that for example Yamaha is on the bright side and Denon is on the warm side of the sound and I should not use Klipsch with Yamaha?
Similar threads
