Minor vs Major Improvements

[_B_]

After getting a decent system (once you have the source to amp sorted the only real variable are the speakers) the most important consideration is the room you use the system in.

Size, shape, ambient noise, positioning of speakers and listening chair, room treatment, DSP/EQ, subwoofers. And you being comfortable and not distracted when listening.

Once you've done your best in this area, you can consider the much smaller improvements that might be had from upgrading power supply set up and anti-vibration devices. In my experience (I have no measurements) these can give subtle improvements (less smeared transients) which are difficult to get elsewhere. Quite frankly though, it is probably likely that money invested in these would be better spent on improved speakers.

Funny you should mention, between tinnitus and that god damned refrigerator I struggle to realize the benefits of improvements.

 

[raistlin65]

Thanks Steven, one of my concerns is that I will absolutely foul things up with manual room correction. That is why I like the idea of Elac AutoEQ and Dirac in the box. I have my eye on NAD C658. My theory "Dirac smarter than I am".

There is a MiniDSP model with Dirac Live https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24

 

[StevenEleven]

If you are going to mess with room EQ, automated or not, probably best to read this along the way:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Including this quote from Floyd Toole (I bought the book, and it has greatly shortened my list of things that I think will provide major improvememts):

Conclusion: full bandwidth equalization may not be desirable, especially if any significant portion of the target curve is flat. On the other hand, some amount of bass equalization is almost unavoidable, and will be most effective in multiple sub systems (Chapter8). It is useful if the EQ algorithm can be disabled at frequencies above about 400-500 Hz. There should be no difference to equalization for music or movies. Good sound is good sound, and listeners tell us that the most preferred sound is "neutral". Because of the circle of confusion, some tone control tweaking may be necessary to get it at times.

When I read the manuals for some room EQ systems, they usually offer suggested target curves. If they happen to work, fine, but if they don't, they often provide user friendly controls to adjust the shape of the target curve. This is nothing more than an inconvenient, inflexible tone control. It is a subjective judgment based on what is playing at the moment. It is not a calibration.

 

[Snarfie]

Is this approach exclusive to Mathaudio?

The frequency response of your room is very different in every point of the room. "Good" equalization in one point can worsen the sound in the neighboring point. Single-point equalization is not reliable and cannot be used in a professional room correction system. On the other hand, the multipoint equalization is not simple: both the volume and the phase of the testing signal are very different in different points of the room. Simple averaging is not applicable. MathAudio Room EQ applies a state-of-the-art multipoint correction algorithm which ensures the best possible improvement in every point of the listening area. (https://mathaudio.com/why-room-eq.htm )

Good questions i don"t know. Thats why i suggested in other topics on ASR to do a comparison test between most used dsp software like Mathaudio REW dirac etc so you know what to aspect from those solutions. That explanations/description as you/Mathaudio describe here above are quite complex to fully understand or compare IMO atleast for me. Regarding the measurmernt i'm doing with Mathaudio is a 9 point measurment 50cm each for my close monitor setup a 1 meter listening distance and a 25 point measurment for my full range setup 2,5 meter listening distance. After Many Measurements this works for me the best.

 

[audiophile]

Including this quote from Floyd Toole (I bought the book, and it has greatly shortened my list of things that I think will provide major improvememts):

Conclusion: full bandwidth equalization may not be desirable, especially if any significant portion of the target curve is flat.

I agree with Toole's statement. Tried full-band EQ, different target curves and did not like the result subjectively. Decided to only EQ subwoofers below 80Hz - this is where EQ is almost unavoidable if you want to get a great sound, especially in small rooms. Added bonus: I do not have to go through an additional ADC-DAC conversion in miniDSP for the main speakers.

 

[_B_]

If you are going to mess with room EQ, automated or not, probably best to read this along the way:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Including this quote from Floyd Toole (I bought the book, and it has greatly shortened my list of things that I think will provide major improvememts):

Conclusion: full bandwidth equalization may not be desirable, especially if any significant portion of the target curve is flat. On the other hand, some amount of bass equalization is almost unavoidable, and will be most effective in multiple sub systems (Chapter8). It is useful if the EQ algorithm can be disabled at frequencies above about 400-500 Hz. There should be no difference to equalization for music or movies. Good sound is good sound, and listeners tell us that the most preferred sound is "neutral". Because of the circle of confusion, some tone control tweaking may be necessary to get it at times.

When I read the manuals for some room EQ systems, they usually offer suggested target curves. If they happen to work, fine, but if they don't, they often provide user friendly controls to adjust the shape of the target curve. This is nothing more than an inconvenient, inflexible tone control. It is a subjective judgment based on what is playing at the moment. It is not a calibration.

Considering F. Toole, what would you regard as major improvements?

 

[Hipper]

Is this approach exclusive to Mathaudio?

The frequency response of your room is very different in every point of the room. (https://mathaudio.com/why-room-eq.htm )

This is true.

Play some music, particularly with strong bass, then move your listening position, walk around the room, raise your head up and down, and listen to the bass. It sounds different in different locations.

That is why moving your speakers and listening chair (ears) has such an impact of what you hear. There is likely to be one, maybe two, best positions for more even bass reproduction.

It is also why DSP/EQ is only really best at one position. As I understand it, the multiple point measuring DSP methods use an algorithm designed to include considering reflections etc. in a typical room and average the sound at multiple locations. Clearly there is an element of compromise in this method. This could lead to a reasonably good result in multiple positions in a typical room but I would think not the best. Perhaps there isn't a 'best' for multiple locations.

 

[Snarfie]

I agree with Toole's statement. Tried full-band EQ, different target curves and did not like the result subjectively. Decided to only EQ subwoofers below 80Hz - this is where EQ is almost unavoidable if you want to get a great sound, especially in small rooms. Added bonus: I do not have to go through an additional ADC-DAC conversion in miniDSP for the main speakers.

First of all I'm not a quite knowledgeable regarding room correction theories what i do is listen with an whiteout using room correction in this case Mathaudio Room EQ.
I read a lot about that using room correction let say between 20 an 500 Hz is worthwhile correcting. Have a look at mine found acoustic graph measured by Mathaudio Room EQ.

I can tell you looking to the found (Grey line) frequency response there are sometimes in the mid & high frequencies almost 15 db of difference. Listening to this original frequency response it sounds harsh basically the mids an highs are dominating the lower frequencies quite dramatically. Yes if you listen to this for many years you get used to it an you are thinking sounds fine but time to add sub-woofers. The horizontal line (subjectively my favorite i really don't need any target curve) changes the sound dramatically the bass is completely back an voices are sounding as they should be (Barry With does not sound anymore as a high-hat an end every sentence with an ssssss). So I'm not agreeing that it does not make sense to NOT correct frequencies above 500 Hz. It could be that Mathaudio does/use a specific algorithm that take care of different sort of issues than other room correction software but the results (in my case an subjective opinion) are profound it sound compared with the original/bypass signal totally balanced a band sound like a band interacting with each other your feet go's up & down not quite scientifically approaches but listening to music is much much more fun an for many friends/relatives that listens to the difference come to the same conclusion. I came to the conclusion that I was addicted to this original frequency curve (my horrible room acoustic) it took a ½ hour to come to the conclusion that the flat frequency curve is the way to approach the music it was way less fatigue. By the way I changed this flat line many many times again an again. After any alteration I always came back to the flat line.

It could be that other software will do a better job Thats why I urge to do a comparison between all kind of room correction software. Problem will probably be that you must hear it so quite subjective. Because of that I like the slider build in Mathaudio Room EQ you can choose/adjust how much room correction you want to use. For me the white horizontal line a flat frequency response i realy don't need any subs. I'am curious if others have the same experience.

 

[StevenEleven]

Considering F. Toole, what would you regard as major improvements?

I’m about as far from an expert as you can get. You’re probably best off getting his book and putting in a little study time.

You can read here and learn a lot, but some of it‘s probably wrong, even offered by super-bright people (not me).

This is not an area where someone just walked in and made up the rules, and it’s not all that intuitive. Ironically, though, for the end user, when you get down to it, it can be a lot simpler than some really smart people seem to make it.

What worked for me is adding two subwoofers and upmixed surround sound, crossovers at 80z, calibrating by decibels the output from my speakers and subwoofers from the listening position (my receiver allows for generating the pink noise for this and I use a decibel meter), tweaking the output level to my subwoofers from the receiver remote by ear from the listening position until everything sounds just so, moving or rotating my speakers and subwoofers a few inches here or there, and as a sanity check asking my family how it’s sounding when they use the system. That’s really it, that’s the big stuff for me. If things are a little dull or bright for you, you can use a smooth treble tone control to get it just so. I kind of like everything set at zero right now.

The better your system, the more room EQ can mess it up, because in a nice system your speakers will have a flattish frequency response in the mids and treble that you don’t want room EQ messing with.

The speakers are really where it’s at. When this place ( @amirm ) informs me by objective evidence of a better set of speakers than I have at a modest price point, I plan on upgrading my speakers. : ) I’ll do the bass-only room EQ I think after I get the new set of speakers.

 

[Kasper]

Funny you should mention, between tinnitus and that god damned refrigerator I struggle to realize the benefits of improvements.

A friend of a friend was an appliance repairman and he put his compressor in the basement so they wouldn't hear it.

If you search for refrigerator with remote compressor you may get some ideas.

 

[Snarfie]

The better your system, the more room EQ can mess it up, because in a nice system your speakers will have a flattish frequency response in the mids and treble that you don’t want room EQ messing with.

I'm also not An expert but what you stated is it not the opposit. The better your room acoustic is the less room eq you need. You are using pink noise is that not more or less making user of room eq?.
If i'm correct a good speaker measurd flat in a anchoric room where they mostly are tested. But than you put it compared with a anchoric room in your own room which is not flat (see my graph some where here above). It's that inefficiëny that you want to correct. One of the reasons that i bought Vandersteen speakers each one is tested in an anchoric room and measurs reasonble flat. But despit i have a nice system in my mancave it is far from flat. My room correction (room eq) software and placed absorption pannels (for taking care of first reflections) corrected it for the most part no subs needed any more.

 

[StevenEleven]

I could tell you what I think the answers are but it wouldn’t be worth much. Better for you to read F Toole’s book and interpret it yourself than have me try to interpret and paraphrase it. I’m no F. Toole.

 

[Hipper]

Considering F. Toole, what would you regard as major improvements?

1. Flattening the frequency response at your listening chair (ears), particularly up to around 300Hz.

2. Reducing the decay times accoss the whole frequency range to around 200ms (some may debate other figures).

3. A more personal choice, but for me, reducing reflections from anywhere including sidewalls.

4. This will all result in smooth bass response (the most difficult task), and clear detailed mids and highs with a strong phantom image and any spatial information if the recording has it.

5. Finally the outcome will be enjoyable music where you can listen to the whole, or separate it into its constituent parts - harmony singers, rhythm guitar, detailed and subtle percussion.