You quoted me so I understood it as an reply to me... But then fineWhat lead you to the assumption that I was questioning whether you understand it or not?
The post was more written for the OP, than for you.
You quoted me so I understood it as an reply to me... But then fineWhat lead you to the assumption that I was questioning whether you understand it or not?
The post was more written for the OP, than for you.
Thanks. This kinda gets to the heart of what was making me scratch my head.Hi there
I was going to answer your original question in the room correction thread, but I gather you opened this thread in order to deal with the question in its own thread. So I will answer here.
In short: people are saying "don't use EQ above 500 Hz" with specific reference to the case where a microphone is used to measure the summed-sound frequency response of loudspeakers playing in a room, where "summed-sound" means the sum of the direct sound coming from the speakers, plus all the reflected sounds from all room surfaces and room objects, including multiple reflections over time. This, in fact, is exactly the measurement that automated room correction algorithms take. Unfortunately, our ears don't work that way. Well, they kind of do work that way below 500 Hz (some say 300 Hz, but let's use 500 for now), but they definitely don't work that way above 500 Hz.
That is why the advice is centred on 500 Hz. Below 500 Hz, the summed-sound frequency response is a reasonable indicator of what we will think the system 'sounds like'. So it makes sense to allow room correction algorithms to apply EQ in that range. But above 500 Hz, what we think the system 'sounds like' is much more aligned with the frequency response of the direct sound, not the summed sound. (Direct sound being just the sound arriving at the ears straight from the speakers, and excludes any reflected sound.) Above 500 Hz we do also respond to the attributes of the reflected sounds, but to a lesser degree than to the direct sound. But the measurement that automated room correction algorithms take is not direct-sound, it is summed-sound. So it is considered unwise to decide on EQ adjustments above 500 Hz based on summed-sound measurements. We are looking at the wrong measurement for that purpose.
That is not to say we should never EQ our speakers above 500 Hz, which is where I think you are getting confused, since you see Amir and Erin recommending such adjustments. If the frequency response of the direct sound from our speakers is not very smooth and flat, then it is good advice to consider applying EQ above 500 Hz... but it needs to be based on looking at a measurement of the direct-sound frequency response. This is exactly what Amir and Erin are doing. They have the right tool to measure the direct sound.
For a more detailed treatise on this point, take a look at this paper by Dr Floyd E Toole: https://aes2.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=17839
cheers
ReallyThanks. This kinda gets to the heart of what was making me scratch my head.
Also, thanks to everyone for chiming in. This threads is starting to devolve a bit, and I certainly wasn't looking to poke the bear. It was just something I wanted to understand. I am auditioning speakers at the moment, and the truth is, it isn't easy.
The more I learn on the subject, I am hopeful the better I can start to understand what I am hearing. For reference, I have been working on my systems, off and on for about 35 years. I still feel like a noob.
I voted full range on that thread, but what isn't captured in the results is that I only use wide filters and when I correct over Schroeder I usually do some MMM checking also... If you have a dip at e.g. 1khz everywhere in the room there's no reason not to gently correct it IMO.Interesting outcome (or not) if you leave out 8% other it is close to 60% Schröder an 40% full range.
From a pure technical point of view i acspected something close to 90-10 regarding theory specific ask in a ASR group.
![]()
Should we correct to Schroder, or full range?
I would like to gather opinions from ASR members as to whether we should apply room correction to the Schroder frequency, or whether we should do full range correction from 20Hz - 20kHz. There appear to be two schools of thought: - Correction to Schroder: aims to only correct bass peaks and...www.audiosciencereview.com
Funny you mention that. Half of my wondering is likely that I can hear, but I might not know what I am listening for in the frequency range. I can tell if something is too bright or sounds good or recessed, but the small nuances don't seem to make a big impact on me.The Toole and Olive research work says that frequency response is the most important, but there is also dynamics, imaging etc.
None of it is easy, and it is layered in psychology, salesmanship, etc.
Or one says, “Maybe I’ll try to get a speaker that needs less <or zero> EQ.”Ufff you EQ what you can…
The physics and our hearing say otherwise! So will you listen them or that other guy?Or one says, “Maybe I’ll try to get a speaker that needs less <or zero> EQ.”
The pursuit cam says, “No EQ, and no active crossovers.”
And the other extreme is powered/active speakers with amps for each driver.
The purist camp is a real thing.The physics and our hearing say otherwise! So will you listen them or that other guy?
You do benefit greatly from self filters and digital crossover especially when it comes to sub's as you gain possibilities you otherwise wouldn't have it's just that it's not easy thing to do proper and probably as that not exactly for everyone. I don't want to go in depth in hire about either equal loudness or subs crossovers as I did many times already.
There is correlation in between the physical capacity and the knee for the equal loudness while you want to contain it on that exact driver. In that regard less than one procent does it right.The purist camp is a real thing.
If we want a smooth handover between drivers then that sort defines the slope as being shallower.
The one thing that an active XO can give, is a much better grip on the drivers, than trying to shake the driver through a bunch of inductors and caps in the XO.
If subs were easy, then everyone would have them that do not overwhelm the music… but that is not the case.
It seems like it is difficult to do a sub where it blends seamlessly.
My 2 cents:Thanks. This kinda gets to the heart of what was making me scratch my head.
Also, thanks to everyone for chiming in. This threads is starting to devolve a bit, and I certainly wasn't looking to poke the bear. It was just something I wanted to understand. I am auditioning speakers at the moment, and the truth is, it isn't easy. The more I learn on the subject, I am hopeful the better I can start to understand what I am hearing. For reference, I have been working on my systems, off and on for about 35 years. I still feel like a noob.
my sentiments excatly.They are wrong. I have used Dirac Live on four pairs of wildly different speakers (+ one sub) in my room – sometimes with additional correction with CamillaDSP. All speakers obviously benefitted from correction up to ~500 Hz compared to no correction and all speakers have benefitted to a larger or lesser degree from correction up to ~20 kHz. And even though I generally use a 'tightly focused' correction in Dirac the tonal improvements are apparent even far outside the sweet spot ...
That would be nice.I would like to see comparisons between the EQ adjustments Dirac make and properly made gated measurements of the same loudspeakers. There should be at least someone here who use Dirac and also knows how to set up measurements for a gated response in REW.
That would be nice.
However, I think it would be even better to separate and observe not only the direct sound but also the reflection range through simple gating measurements. (Of course, the directional characteristics of a single microphone are different from the way we hear, or even binaural recordings.)
We listen to a combination of direct sound and reflections, and no matter how the direct sound changes, we also hear the effects of unpredictable reflections influenced by those changes.
Rather than the idea that "you shouldn't EQ above 500Hz," it seems more fitting to the thread's discussion to say that the results of EQing to match some general target curve are unpredictable.
As Dr. Toole often says, "The room curve is not a target but a result."
Additionally, for instance, Dirac takes multiple measurements in various positions -back and forth, high and low, etc. The results would be something similar to a MMM in the same area.I voted full range on that thread, but what isn't captured in the results is that I only use wide filters and when I correct over Schroeder I usually do some MMM checking also... If you have a dip at e.g. 1khz everywhere in the room there's no reason not to gently correct it IMO.