Paul Hales on room equalization on Soundstage! Network

[Cote Dazur]

Oh, and as far as "you wouldn't room EQ a piano", beyond the already good responses as to why you actually might, one other major point is that playback systems in a domestic space are not instruments. What goes for an instrument does not necessarily apply to a speaker and vice versa

And then again, it may.
We would not EQ a Piano, but we will tune it. But not for a particular room, the tuner does not seat in the room when tuning, he seat at the piano. The room tuning is done at the room level, not the instrument.
So, what about speaker, it is tune as well, by the speaker designer, hopefully in an anechoic room or using a device mimicking an anechoic room, and hopefully not sitting in a room. Same as for the instrument, the room tuning should be done at the room level.
Many, here love applying EQ, not a bad idea, but not a good idea, in my opinion, if applied on a different recording basis, or even worst on a song basis. One who not detune a piano when changing player or music sheet. Or change acoustic of the room in the same circumstances.
EQ the room trough the speakers, is one way to do it, it works, but it also change the tune of the speaker, their is no way around it, is that a good idea? To me, it is not.
I want my speaker to play how they are designed to, if I buy a neutral speaker, I want to listen to a neutral speaker, not EQ to compensate for bad placement or inadequate room. Same I would not detune a Piano to make it sound "better"
If the room as an (many) issue, fix the room.
In these days of Digital Signal Processing, applying band aid seems favored over finding a cure, how ever strong and efficient the band aid is.
All that said, if any one like to adjust treble or bass on their equipment on a recording basis, to suit their taste, I have nothing against it, I just prefer not to and have not touch those in ages.

 

[NTK]

What does "equalize a piano" means? Tuning a piano is completely different from and totally unrelated to "equalizing a loudspeaker". It is primarily to adjust the pitch of the notes. There is no equivalence in loudspeaker EQ to that.

As to "would you equalize a piano to compensate for the resonances in a music room?", I am pretty sure experienced pianists would adjust their play for different halls.

 

[SigbergAudio]

I can easily see how someone testing EQ without having a lot experience with how to do it could end up with this conclusion.

But following some simple guidelines like not dampening peaks fully (leaving maybe 2-3dB), and when needed increase the overall bass level after EQ - I think everyone will nod their heads agreeing that the result is way better than leaving major room modes alone.

 

[singular]

I would say: let us talk more about music, less about sound.
Physical bass = enemy to music.

 

[Flaesh]

result is way better

Have you tried selling more subwoofers for use in CABS\DBA\SSS?))

let us talk more about music, less about sound.

Let's continue talking about hifi sound for music reproduction.

Physical bass = enemy to music.

Why??

 

[SigbergAudio]

Have you tried selling more subwoofers for use in CABS\DBA\SSS?))

We sell the Inkognitos for wall mounting to people with Trinnov Waveforming.

 

[Flaesh]

The idea is the same. I didn't mention the WF because I don't have reliable data on useful improvements (although the possibilities are obvious, and the implementation is classified.)

 

[Cbdb2]

Here’s a specific case in round numbers: If a reflected sound travels 4 meters farther than the direct version of the same sound, then its arrival is delayed by almost 12 ms, which is the period of an 85 Hz wave. So the first cycle of the 85 Hz component of the sound can’t be influenced by the reflection which hasn’t arrived yet. If the listener places a notch in the response at 85 Hz because the reflection contributes a peak to the response, the first cycle will be notched out even though it could not have been influenced by the room resonance. Hales argues that the attempt to address the room resonance distorts that first cycle and audibly detracts from the speakers ability to deliver natural impact at low frequencies.

That seems like a different case than the slow build-up of energy associated with a resonance with a high Q (quality factor). That slow build-up isn’t from any propagation delay. It’s just inherent in narrow peaks in the spectrum—Fourier says narrow peaks build up and also decay slowly, meaning over many cycles.

Hales acknowledges that his recommendation to not use dsp to flatten room resonances is inconsistent with the usual advice, and a rare case in which he disagrees with Toole et al. I have not done my own experiments so I’m left unable to verify or refute the various claims. It’s an interesting topic, though.

That 85hz takes 3 ms to reach its peak at the speaker, the impact (transient) has already gone by. And as said before room modes are not the same as reflections

 

[SigbergAudio]

The idea is the same. I didn't mention the WF because I don't have reliable data on useful improvements (although the possibilities are obvious, and the implementation is classified.)

 

[Cbdb2]

I am pretty sure experienced pianists would adjust their play for different halls.

How do they know what the hall sounds like? I can see adjusting for the different sound of different pianos.

 

[NTK]

How do they know what the hall sounds like? I can see adjusting for the different sound of different pianos.

Frontiers | Playing to the room: how solo pianists perceive, understand, and adapt to acoustic conditions

Musicians perform in vastly different acoustic environments. Therefore, the abilities to perceive and adapt to acoustic conditions are crucial to expert perf...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Sokel]

As an impact lover, I read the thread twice and still don't get it:

Is it solely about DSP room correction or about room correction (proper, passive) in general?

Cause apart from the obvious (high SPL capable speakers, sane, decent conditions) best and proper, lifelike impact I have felt (yes, that's not BS audible differences, it's physical and far and away from subs rumble) was at a control room, treated, flush-mounted mains, etc, the works.

It gets theoretical here, with only maybe a handful of chest punch-hitting speakers tested (so limited data) .
The rest of them, DSP corrected (specially filling dips) will be even less capable of that.

So what's the rant? Is that already limited SPL speakers get more limited with (certain) corrections and they don't kick?
That's a rant for the shake of the rant, alone.

Edit:I would maybe try to catch a real hit with REW's SPL chart just to see the time and SPL (usually an near instantaneous spike north of 110dB (Z) ) but it would be extremely case-specific, so...

 

[Flaesh]

it solely about DSP room correction

Presumably so, but I'm basing this solely on the thread title and have not watched or intend to watch the video. As has been said and not only here - I do not use equalization as room correction.

and so on..

 

[Sokel]

Presumably so, but I'm basing this solely on the thread title and have not watched or intend to watch the video. As has been said and not only here - I do not use equalization as room correction.

...against my better judgment, first about 30 seconds of Rory's Moonchild (famous about kick) :



That's where it kicks at my room, regarding SPL.
That 115dB (Z) vertical spice is where the drums hits, and regarding RTA, it's not only about low, the hit lights-up the spectrum like a Christmas tree up to 7kHz, easy.

 

[Geert]

“Would you equalize a piano to compensate for the resonances in a music room?”

No, because an acoustic piano does not suffer from room mode issues to the exact same extent as a loudspeaker.

• Pianos radiate bass from long strings that vibrate a soundboard, a massive wooden diaphragm that spans a significant physical space. It simultaneously sits across multiple different pressure zones (nodes and antinodes) of the room's standing waves. This naturally averages out and softens the extreme peaks and nulls that a loudspeaker would trigger.
• Grand pianos radiate sound in a complex, multi-directional pattern. It interacts with the room's boundaries in a much more scrambled, diffused manner than a speaker, reducing the stark severity of single-axis standing waves.
• And finally, piano notes are harmonically complex and are decaying (no pure sustained tones), making it harder for the sound to perfectly lock into a static room resonance.

On the other hand, EQ-ing a digital piano that uses a couple of studio monitors for playback? Sure.

 

[kyuu]

• Pianos radiate bass from long strings that vibrate a soundboard, a massive wooden diaphragm that spans a significant physical space. It simultaneously sits across multiple different pressure zones (nodes and antinodes) of the room's standing waves. This naturally averages out and softens the extreme peaks and nulls that a loudspeaker would trigger.
• Grand pianos radiate sound in a complex, multi-directional pattern. It interacts with the room's boundaries in a much more scrambled, diffused manner than a speaker, reducing the stark severity of single-axis standing waves.
• And finally, piano notes are harmonically complex and are decaying (no pure sustained tones), making it harder for the sound to perfectly lock into a static room resonance.

Is there any source for these statements, or are they just suppositions? The last one doesn't even make any sense; room modes are not only an issue for "pure sustained tones", which are rare in any media.

 

[Titurel]

Is there any source for these statements, or are they just suppositions? The last one doesn't even make any sense; room modes are not only an issue for "pure sustained tones", which are rare in any media.

It's also incorrect because a tone may be both finite in duration (all are, if you think about it) and diminishing in energy (volume), quite independent of any sustain (reverb) provided by the space in which the instrument resides.

The first two points are fairly gross simplifications and some things presented as fact are not. For example, the soundboard is anything but massive. If it were truly massive, it would be all but useless as a resonator. 'Nough said.

BTW, the way one tunes a piano for a room is to pick a different piano. Not all pianos are suitable for all venues. Horses for courses.

 

[Geert]

the soundboard is anything but massive. If it were truly massive, it would be all but useless as a resonator. 'Nough said.

”Massive”, meaning very large: ”that spans a significant physical space”.

 

[Geert]

room modes are not only an issue for "pure sustained tones",

I also didn't say there was no issue, I said ”to the exact same extent as a loudspeaker”.

 

[singular]

Let's continue talking about hifi sound for music reproduction.

Why??

"Physical bass" as I understand the term, is good for couple of hours of enjoyment ( listening to music ), and not so good for listening to music whole day ( to uncover music genres and recognize every bass tone ).

But I agree that "bass impact" could be nice, especialy when bass is well controled, however it is more about full-spectral than bass range, and lot of variables included.