20 bands of filters I assume limits it to software like Equalizer APO. The woes of being a Mac user.Here is the effect of all the EQs computed by flipflop@ on all ASR speakers.
Some react very very well to EQ. You can find the EQ for each speaker here.
View attachment 76138
Should I add 3d views like this? You can rotate them with your mouse on the website (etc)
New: the software now generates PEQs to optimize the speaker response based on @amirm measurements.
similar to what others are doing the software optimize for a LW which is as close as possible to a target and for a SP as flat as possible. It more or less optimize the pref score at the same time.
The optimizer works well and results for all speakers are in this directory on GitHub.
Well means that it gets similar results as what others are doing. @flipflop does it manually and is slightly better for now
Next step is to correct in-room measurement. Prototype is working and can do 2.0 and 2.1 with IIR, I am still work
ing on multiple subs. FIR will work soon or at least I hope so.
btw: if you have REW measurements of your speakers in-room: I would appreciate if you could send me
txt or wav export of l/r/subs with phase. I need a bunch to test the algorithm robustness.
Thanks for this awesome benefit to the community.
Is there a way to reasonably interpolate the PEQ settings for people who have more limited systems? For example my Moode audio player supports 10 PEQ bands with a max Q of 8.0. So I cannot apply the recommended settings and am not sure the best way to approximate the recommended PEQ settings within my limits. Any guidance would be great.
./generate_peqs.py --help
./generate_peqs.py --speaker='JBL HDI-4500' --slope-listening-window=-0.5 --max-Q=8 --max-peq=10 --force
EQ for JBL HDI-4500 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 3.6 with EQ 5.3
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.7
Dated: 2021-04-05-10:03:43
Preamp: -2.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 546 Hz Gain +3.13 dB Q 3.41
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 14427 Hz Gain -4.34 dB Q 2.02
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1914 Hz Gain +2.33 dB Q 5.49
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 10393 Hz Gain +2.66 dB Q 8.00
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 6120 Hz Gain -1.11 dB Q 1.00
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1563 Hz Gain +1.17 dB Q 8.00
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 604 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 8.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 456 Hz Gain -0.78 dB Q 8.00
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 693 Hz Gain +1.04 dB Q 2.12
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 3002 Hz Gain +0.92 dB Q 8.00
What a handy reference, great work!.
As I understand it the Kippel that Amir uses had two versions? A software update or something that increased the number of measurable points? Does that make a difference in results measured for speakers that were measured with the earlier version compared to those measured with the later version?
Thank you. I will try this!hello,
you have 2 options: first is to take the filters in order (the first 10). second option is to use the software and generates the EQ you want:
Code:./generate_peqs.py --help
will give you the list of options. Here is an example with the JBL HDI-4500
which givesCode:./generate_peqs.py --speaker='JBL HDI-4500' --slope-listening-window=-0.5 --max-Q=8 --max-peq=10 --force
Code:EQ for JBL HDI-4500 computed from ASR data Preference Score 3.6 with EQ 5.3 Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.7 Dated: 2021-04-05-10:03:43 Preamp: -2.7 dB Filter 1: ON PK Fc 546 Hz Gain +3.13 dB Q 3.41 Filter 2: ON PK Fc 14427 Hz Gain -4.34 dB Q 2.02 Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1914 Hz Gain +2.33 dB Q 5.49 Filter 4: ON PK Fc 10393 Hz Gain +2.66 dB Q 8.00 Filter 5: ON PK Fc 6120 Hz Gain -1.11 dB Q 1.00 Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1563 Hz Gain +1.17 dB Q 8.00 Filter 7: ON PK Fc 604 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 8.00 Filter 8: ON PK Fc 456 Hz Gain -0.78 dB Q 8.00 Filter 9: ON PK Fc 693 Hz Gain +1.04 dB Q 2.12 Filter 10: ON PK Fc 3002 Hz Gain +0.92 dB Q 8.00
I don’t have much doubt. Though the Stereophile measurements show a bump around 1800Hz:https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-reference-5-loudspeaker-measurementsThat Kef Reference 5 sits uncomfortably on top of the rankings lol. I wonder when we will get a real verified 3rd party spin vs just Kef's published charts.
As discussed in many threads also not few people prefer narrow directivity, depending also on the room and listening distance, so such preference cannot be generalised.The issue is the formula liking narrow directivity, with the Reference 5 is, so with real human trials it likely wouldn’t score as high as the formula predicts.