Loudspeaker response optimization with EQ
Lastly, I've played a bit with the amazing 'optimizer' function of VituixCAD to generate a few PEQ loudspeaker correction profiles for the M16. Here's what I managed to generate.
Note that if anyone were to try them, in both of these EQ presets I'd suggest to disable the first 2-bands of PEQ completely (these just flatten the bass-bump) and instead use in-room MMM measured response to correct below ~300Hz.
1) EQ optimized for highest preference score:
This EQ profile is optimized to achieve the highest preference score; 10-band PEQ, keeping boosts below 3dB, and Q below 5.
Code:
Filter Settings file
Room EQ V5.20.4
Dated: 19.11.2021. 22:52:53
Notes:Revel M16 - EQ optimized for highest preference score
Equaliser: Generic
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 96.80 Hz Gain -3.30 dB Q 2.120
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 130.0 Hz Gain -2.10 dB Q 2.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1510 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 0.997
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1890 Hz Gain -0.90 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2068 Hz Gain 0.90 dB Q 0.991
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2524 Hz Gain 1.50 dB Q 5.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5562 Hz Gain -1.70 dB Q 3.720
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5726 Hz Gain 1.30 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7619 Hz Gain 0.60 dB Q 5.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 12775 Hz Gain 1.00 dB Q 5.000
Preference rating as calculated by VituixCAD jumps to:
- Speaker alone: 6.4 (original is 5.3)
- Speaker with sub: 8.7 (original is 7.5)
2) EQ optimized for LW (weight=70%) and PIR (weight=30%) linearity:
This EQ profile is mainly optimized for LW linearity (70% weight) and with secondary focus on PIR linearity (30% weight). The ratios are not based on any research per-se, but my intention was to get a 'flatter' LW than what the preference score optimization gave. Again 10-band PEQ, keeping boosts below 3dB, and Q below 5.
Code:
Filter Settings file
Room EQ V5.20.4
Dated: 19.11.2021. 23:10:13
Notes:Revel M16 - EQ optimized for LW (70%) and PIR (30%) linearity 2021-11-19
Equaliser: Generic
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 100.0 Hz Gain -3.10 dB Q 2.380
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 136.0 Hz Gain -1.90 dB Q 2.040
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1570 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 1.040
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1949 Hz Gain -1.10 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2478 Hz Gain 1.40 dB Q 5.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2804 Hz Gain 0.80 dB Q 1.080
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5706 Hz Gain -1.80 dB Q 2.660
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5888 Hz Gain 1.40 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7400 Hz Gain 0.60 dB Q 5.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 13610 Hz Gain 1.30 dB Q 5.000
Preference rating as calculated by VituixCAD jumps to:
- Speaker alone: 6.3 (original is 5.3)
- Speaker with sub: 8.6 (original is 7.5)
A few comments on EQ
I should quality the above EQ profiles by saying that, even if the score jumps seemingly by a lot from these EQs, most of the gain comes from removing the bass bump (~0,7 of preference score increase).
As I stated before, since the bass bump is in the modal frequency range of most rooms it can be seen as extra headroom for subtractive room EQ and IMHO should NOT be removed based on anechoic measurements alone. The rest of the response correction accounts for only a small remaining gain in preference score (0.3-0.4) and most of it may be negligible in real use.