Need help for EQ solution

[Amateur2020]

Hello,
I have a second set based in 2 x DALI Zensor 1 in a room W 3,00 m x D 2,36 m x H 2,50 m. the loudspeakers are in the middle of W side and separated 1,40 m. I use DBX PA2 EQ and I get the following graphic:
orange line is the target, flat response
grey line is the room
white line is the PEQ
Green line is the result

My question is if you can help me in zones 1 and 2 with some acoustic advise to use the PEQ filters of this part of the graph to use them to fullfil this other target

I only have 8 x PEQs and I prefer to use them below 500 Hz but the upper frequencies are not good.

Is there any "easy" acoustic treatment to flatten zone 1 and 2?

Thank you,

 

[Amateur2020]

Hello,
I don't know if zone 1 and zone 2 mean that there is too much reflection, maybe something to absorb sound in the wall?

 

[Amateur2020]

Mybe should be osted in Audio Newbee thread...sorry I don't know how to move it...

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

My question is if you can help me in zones 1 and 2 with some acoustic advise to use the PEQ filters of this part of the graph to use them to fullfil this other target

The green line shows perfectly fine response.

The goal of EQ is to get an audible improvement, not chase every little ripple in response trying to get a pretty graph. The deviations in those two areas are so small that trying to flatten them will not result in anything that will sound better.

I’ve come across a couple of relevant quotes lately from various Forums:

“The reality is 90%+ of the benefit occur simply by knocking off the room resonance peaks below 500 Hz. The rest is all looking at charts and overthinking it for dubious benefit.”

“I’ve had the feeling that my overzealous EQ attempts fixed the graphs but killed the sound.”

My question to you is, does the EQ you’ve implemented so far actually sound better than what you had with no EQ?

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Amateur2020]

Hello Wayne,
Thank you for your answer. Yes, The EQ makes it sound much better without any doubt. The question, that you have answered at the beggining is that I prefer the second graph target with more bass. To achieve this I need to use the PEQ that now flatten zone 2 which is above 500 Hz. So if I can concentrate below 500 Hz without care of zone 2 maybe I can get this bass improvement. I will try and tell.
Thanks again.
Best regards,

 

[boXem]

Hello Wayne,
Thank you for your answer. Yes, The EQ makes it sound much better without any doubt. The question, that you have answered at the beggining is that I prefer the second graph target with more bass. To achieve this I need to use the PEQ that now flatten zone 2 which is above 500 Hz. So if I can concentrate below 500 Hz without care of zone 2 maybe I can get this bass improvement. I will try and tell.
Thanks again.
Best regards,

If, instead of boosting the bass in your target curve, you would attenuate the highs, the overall balance would be the same, but it seems you would make a better use of the 8 PEQs. Just my 2c.

 

[Amateur2020]

Maybe. At the moment I will make 2 as it is. Lets see what happens. In any case I try not to over EQ that's why I ask.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Hello Wayne,
Thank you for your answer. Yes, The EQ makes it sound much better without any doubt. The question, that you have answered at the beggining is that I prefer the second graph target with more bass.

It looks to me like you’ve already boosted below 80 Hz as much as you reasonably can. You’re going to need speakers with bigger woofers or an additional subwoofer if you want more bass.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Amateur2020]

Hello,
Thanks again all for your help. I took some PEQs over 500 Hz and use them in the (0 and 200 Hz and I got a better aproach, but boomy:

but then I did also with the flat target and now the sound is much better:

and seems to be what you say over EQ around 80 Hz. I have noticed that with a gain bigger than 6 dB I get bad sound.
Now I will try to tune F EQ with the GEQ.
Thanks a lot. The thing is that some months ago I had a similar problem with my main set and the answer was also to concentrate below 500 Hz which was a very good advise (thanks again).
The thing is that I was wondering if there is any "aoustic" solution to improve the bass zone beside using bigger woofers or subs which I can't because there is no space.
But the improvement is really a lot.
Best regards,

 

[zermak]

You should work with the target curve the opposite way; meaning to set at 0dB gain the bass target (looking at your response I would say around 90/100Hz) and let the EQ lower the other frequencies and try to ger rid of the peaks/dips with less gains

 

[win]

Hello,
I have a second set based in 2 x DALI Zensor 1 in a room W 3,00 m x D 2,36 m x H 2,50 m. the loudspeakers are in the middle of W side and separated 1,40 m. I use DBX PA2 EQ and I get the following graphic:
orange line is the target, flat response
grey line is the room
white line is the PEQ
Green line is the result
View attachment 76398
My question is if you can help me in zones 1 and 2 with some acoustic advise to use the PEQ filters of this part of the graph to use them to fullfil this other target
View attachment 76399

I only have 8 x PEQs and I prefer to use them below 500 Hz but the upper frequencies are not good.

Is there any "easy" acoustic treatment to flatten zone 1 and 2?

Thank you,

I have a similar XO, the dbx venu360.

I found the best results by first individually tuning each channel/loudspeaker. Then, tune the whole system using the autoeq module. But do it manually, it tends to overcorrect stuff beyond 200 hz or so. Avoid any db boosts on the autoeq and channel modules. Tune these all to be flat below your rooms Schroeder frequency, which can usually be eyeballed on a frequency response graph taken from multiple positions.

having db boosts killed my headroom.

After you're tuned to flat, set up a peq curve on the input mix for your target listening curve.

I also found much better results using mono subs instead of stereo, not for lack of trying.

 

[win]

Now I will try to tune F EQ with the GEQ.

I wouldn't do that. The geq module is finicky and there is no situation where you can't instead use a peq curve.

https://imgur.com/miufopn

1. Should be your speaker/channel tunes. 2. is your AutoEQ module, which is really just EQ for the whole system. 3. is the input EQ, which you can use for your listening curve if you'd like that to be easily editable outside of the AutoEQ. You could combine them both into AutoEQ though if you like.

Here are the PEQ parameters I'm using for a target listening curve. You can put these in a standalone PEQ module on the input mix, or alternatively, simply add it to the mid/autoEQ module after you've achieved a flat response.

1. Freq: 113hz, Gain 4.5db, Slope 6.3, Low Shelf
2. Freq: 2200hz, Gain -1.9db, Slope 5.2, High Shelf

 

[Amateur2020]

You should work with the target curve the opposite way; meaning to set at 0dB gain the bass target (looking at your response I would say around 90/100Hz) and let the EQ lower the other frequencies and try to ger rid of the peaks/dips with less gains

Hello Zermark,
Thanks, I think this is what happens with F EQ, the target is flat and the results are much better.

 

[Amateur2020]

I have a similar XO, the dbx venu360.

I found the best results by first individually tuning each channel/loudspeaker. Then, tune the whole system using the autoeq module. But do it manually, it tends to overcorrect stuff beyond 200 hz or so. Avoid any db boosts on the autoeq and channel modules. Tune these all to be flat below your rooms Schroeder frequency, which can usually be eyeballed on a frequency response graph taken from multiple positions.

having db boosts killed my headroom.

After you're tuned to flat, set up a peq curve on the input mix for your target listening curve.

I also found much better results using mono subs instead of stereo, not for lack of trying.

Hello Win,
Thank you for your answer. In the F graph you can see the target is flat and I moved 2 PEQs over 500 Hz to make more flat around 80 and 200 Hz. Maybe I can make a better tuning but it will take me some time. With the PA2 I can not make single channel tuning. I think Schroeder frequency for my room is about 310 Hz, below 500 Hz the more effort zone for EQ. You are right about overboost, is very bad. My idea is after the PEQ fine tuning improve the slope with the GEQ. I don't have subs in this room, there is no space. Thanks again.

 

[Amateur2020]

I wouldn't do that. The geq module is finicky and there is no situation where you can't instead use a peq curve.
Hello Win,
I have to try GEQ because PA2 has less PEQ than Venus. Of course PEQ filters ar ebetter.

https://imgur.com/miufopn

1. Should be your speaker/channel tunes.
2. is your AutoEQ module, which is really just EQ for the whole system.
3. is the input EQ, which you can use for your listening curve if you'd like that to be easily editable outside of the AutoEQ. You could combine them both into AutoEQ though if you like.

PA2 is simpler than Venus, I have not this possibility.

Here are the PEQ parameters I'm using for a target listening curve. You can put these in a standalone PEQ module on the input mix, or alternatively, simply add it to the mid/autoEQ module after you've achieved a flat response.

1. Freq: 113hz, Gain 4.5db, Slope 6.3, Low Shelf
2. Freq: 2200hz, Gain -1.9db, Slope 5.2, High Shelf

The room is different maybe they don't fit but I will make a try to see what happens.

Best regards,

 

[Amateur2020]

Hello Win,
I am afraid I didn't understood you well at the beginning. I followed your advise and made a new EQ with much better results. You opened a new way. Thanks a lot.

I will try to improve the 200 Hz peaks and dips.
Best regards,