In this particular case the difference in timbre caused by stereo speaker phantom centre compared to a mono source in front of you.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review of the KEF R3s
- Thread starter nightfishing
- Start date
In this particular case the difference in timbre caused by stereo speaker phantom centre compared to a mono source in front of you.
Most of the modern multichannel speakers setups use the same upperbass, mid and tweeter drivers in center channel speaker as in front speakers so timbral difference doesn't really exist.
Well im seeing a onaxis curve that goes down to 20hz, the first sound that arrive at our ears carry the essential tones, if you are EQing a response that would be otherwise near perfect, you loose that only to gain a flatter measurement of a sum of all direct sounds and reflections but your direct sound isn't flat anymore.
Even considering only the bottom end, i would play with placement before anything else, and treatments if possible, until i reside to screw up the only thing that was good about that speaker. EQ can fix what's wrong about the speaker itself on axis, not the room, but then ideally what you really need is a better speaker (or ultimately a better room/placement)
Finding optimal position in a room is a must, room treatment also, if possible and applicable. But have no doubts - whatever speaker you place at that same position in that same room will have pretty much the same non-linear response as response below transition frequency is dominated by the position/room, no matter how perfectly linear that speaker is in the anechoic environment. I advise you to read again quote from Dr. Tool's paper I qouted above, or even better the entire paper.
Please also note that measurements on which your correction is to be based should be spatial (multiple measurements taken around your listening position), as sweeps taken from a single point may not reveal a full picture and may result in a non-optimal correction.
I'll think on it, but I think showing results with room EQ in a review just introduces another variable I'd have to explain, especially considering all the different Room EQ systems out there. I mean I'm happy to share such results here if people are interested, but I do no not think they'd add anything meaningful to the review text.
As mentioned in the article, the room graph is just there to give an idea of bass extension in a real room and hint at what I'm actually hearing during listening sessions. Room EQ would skew both of these things. An uncorrected room graph may not show you what you'll hear in your room, but it does provide some perspective on my own listening impressions.
To be clear, I do listen with Room EQ on part of the time, but I don't consider what I hear with Room EQ enabled to be indicative of what a speaker sounds like. It can make a speaker sound like something totally different.
To be honest though, I'm not sure I want to include room graphs in the future. I plan on doing nearfield bass summations and splicing to the gated measurements, but I want to nail my methodology down a bit more before I start to include those in published reviews.
All that being said, this is still a work in progress so I'm happy to take suggestions, even if I can't implement them all. It's rather difficult trying to incorporate measurements while writing for a mainstream tech site/audience (as opposed to an audio-focused publication), but I'm trying 
. As far as I know, I'm the only person trying to publish basic frequency and directivity measurements outside of dedicated audio sites/publications. My hope is that I can inform more people about some basics about loudspeaker design, and help them make more educated choices with objective data. In particular, I'd like to highlight those products that perform well at a low price at a level beyond "I like how this sounds."Originally I wanted to include everything I could possibly measure, but quickly realized explaining all these things to a broad audience would be a pain. So I figured I'd just focus on the two factors I think are most important, on and off-axis response.
I suggest you read again quote from Dr. Tool's paper. Your impressions with uncorreceted speakers are simply unusable to any of your readers and even to you, as speaker's response was not at it best. I can understand that doing room EQ manually with rePhase is time consuming and implies a long learning curve but, as @mitchco demonstrated more than once, today you have a few excellent room EQ tools like Audiolense that will allow you to do the job in less than an hour so I really can't find a single reason why not to use them if you are a serious reviewer.
I've read that paper, I have Toole's book. In that same paper Toole cautions against the limits of equalization. Are you suggesting Room EQ only for below Schroeder? That I can see.
Absolutely.
This form of communication has some serious limitations - HiFi should only be discussed in person around a table with food & wine/beer.
Multichannel is a different issue, I am referring to the flaws of stereo reproduction. In this case specifically the different timbre of the phantom center in stereo reproduction compared to a mono center single speaker. You can argue that this adjustment should already be in the mix. I prefer however to have a response more like e.g. the NHT classic three than the LS50:
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/nht_classic_three/
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
I never used center channel but then I only use multichannel for movies. However, it works fine for me.
Not me either use a center channel. But the timbral changes still exist and that is why prefer a bit lower energy in the 2-4 kHz range relative to the 1-2 kHz range. Having the other way around can sound quite harsh on many recordings.
I didn't notice that. I can't see how can be differences in timbre if centre channel uses the same drivers as fronts. Surround processors simply mix mono centar channel with front L and R channel, and assuming front channels phase response is adjusted (and in most of the cases it is as phase differences occur typically below the range of center channel or they don't occur at all) things are getting reproduced in pretty much the same manner.
If you play a mono source with a single speaker in front of you, and then use the same speakers in stereo configuration the different angles presented from the stereo setup will sound different (the phantom center). It is just because of the difference in comb filtering and head shadow etc.
Well, yes, I can agree that some differences would exist for the reasons you mentioned, but I don't think I would notice that with movies.
No, my concern is mostly stereo recordings. This matter is bit off-topic though.
But why would you listen stereo recordings with a center channel?
Btw, 15 years ago I expected audio industry will go multichannel and that in near future all new audio recordings will be made in 5.1. So I bought a fine 5 channel Rotel THX amp, 4 speakers, and now what.. My rear speakers are collecting dust, 3 channels in my Rotel amp are at standbay as I'm listening music with front speakers only and mostly watching movies in my bedroom where HEOS soundbar is doing a pretty good job in a 2.1 configuration.
It all reminds me of that saying: "while men are planning the future gods are laughing"..
Btw, 15 years ago I expected audio industry will go multichannel and that in near future all new audio recordings will be made in 5.1. So I bought a fine 5 channel Rotel THX amp, 4 speakers, and now what.. My rear speakers are collecting dust, 3 channels in my Rotel amp are at standbay as I'm listening music with front speakers only and mostly watching movies in my bedroom where HEOS soundbar is doing a pretty good job in a 2.1 configuration.
It all reminds me of that saying: "while men are planning the future gods are laughing"..
No you don't normally listen to stereo with a center channel, although you could argue that the stereo system should have been invented with a center channel. The flaws of stereo has been described by Toole, Keele and Shirley et al. What I am saying is that I prefer speakers that have some minor tweaks in the frequency response that is related to those flaws mentioned. Speakers that exaggerate those flaws sound quite harsh in my ears on many (but far from all) recordings.
Well, as I said, I fully agree with Dr. Toole (and with you) there - if music would be recorded in 5 channel format I would gladly accept it and buy a centre speaker, as it would beyond any doubt provide a better sound - but it didn't happen.
As @Floyd Toole pointed out, you cannot, and you shouldn't, try to do much with EQ upwards of transition frequency (apart from few dB with Q=1 which is more like a tone control to siute your personal taste than a real EQ) as speaker's flaws cannot be corrected with EQ. But, as we are unfortunately left with only 2 channels here is frequency response of my 2 speakers when both are playing, 1/6 smoothing. As you can see that is pretty much what Harman recommends as an optimal listening curve..
Similar threads
