• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Share your in-room measurements?

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
1,960
Likes
1,460
post EQ LR1_48.jpg

I prefer using 1/48, removes the too dense tot be seen hairs, yet give me my detailed FR, this is with UMIK 1 and L+R at mlp, single measurement
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,586
Likes
1,438
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
the "psychoacoustic" is funny, because basically the devs admit it does not show what we hear when they actually don't recomend it to be used for corrections. if it would show what we hear you could correct to it
 

thorvat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Likes
370
the "psychoacoustic" is funny, because basically the devs admit it does not show what we hear when they actually don't recomend it to be used for corrections. if it would show what we hear you could correct to it

Is that so? Can you put a link which shows which "devs" said that and where?
 

thorvat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Likes
370

Using Var smoothing for EQ in LF region is indeed quite widely spread thing but that doesn't mean that Psy doesn't best represent what and how we hear.

From REW help:

Variable smoothing applies 1/48 octave below 100 Hz, 1/3 octave above 10 kHz and varies between 1/48 and 1/3 octave from 100 Hz to 10 kHz, reaching 1/6 octave at 1 kHz. Variable smoothing is recommended for responses that are to be equalised.

Psychoacoustic smoothing uses 1/3 octave below 100Hz, 1/6 octave above 1 kHz and varies from 1/3 octave to 1/6 octave between 100 Hz and 1 kHz. It also applies more weighting to peaks by using a cubic mean (cube root of the average of the cubed values) to produce a plot that more closely corresponds to the perceived frequency response.

This raises a valid question: why not using Psy for EQ and is it actually the truth that Var is best for EQ?
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,586
Likes
1,438
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Using Var smoothing for EQ in LF region is indeed quite widely spread thing but that doesn't mean that Psy doesn't best represent what and how we hear.

correcting "what we hear" should be the only thing necessary. If you say you need var for bass, it means that psy is hiding something.
 

thorvat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Likes
370
correcting "what we hear" should be the only thing necessary. If you say you need var for bass, it means that psy is hiding something.

I didn't say you need Var to EQ bass and personally I don't use it. I said "using Var smoothing for EQ in LF region is indeed quite widely spread thing".
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,586
Likes
1,438
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,586
Likes
1,438
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
I didn't say you need Var to EQ bass and personally I don't use it. I said "using Var smoothing for EQ in LF region is indeed quite widely spread thing".

I am just explaining why I think the recomendation doesn't add up to what psy smoothing claims to be.
It still is a usefull smoothing, I just think it should be called differently
 

goat76

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
184
Likes
177
The average measurement of my passive ATC SCM40 speakers and two REL subwoofers set up in stereo, with a fairly short listening distance of 2,10 meters in an equilateral triangle. The speaker's baffles are set up 1.05 meters from the back wall. Room size: 4,27 x 5,08 x 2.59 meters.

There are just four minor EQ adjustments at 33 Hz, 39 Hz, 55 Hz, and 73 Hz, made in Linn Space Optimisation as custom filters in my Akurate DSM. There's a chance I will add some sort of an EQ unit to my system in the future, but it already sounds great as it is. :)

Aug 6 2022 ATC SCM40 + 2 REL Subwoofers.jpg
 
Last edited:

thorvat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Likes
370
Acourate's "psy" is much more realistic https://www.audiovero.de/acourate-wiki/doku.php?id=en:wiki:funktionen:td-functions:psychoacoustics

using an envelope makes total sense since "we don't hear the dips" is generaly accepted. on the ther hand all the smoothing stuff eleminates peaks, which doesn't seam right.
I suggested an envelope graph option to REW devs, but they relied "it's proprietary to Acourate". how so? they didn't invent envelopes.

ACourate Psy is indeed very realistic. Maybe dr. Brueggemann (@UliBru) copyrighted it. :)

Btw, PSY in REW doesn't simply remove peaks as it applies more weighting to them before averaging, as explained in REW's help I quoted.
 

thorvat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
291
Likes
370
I am just explaining why I think the recomendation doesn't add up to what psy smoothing claims to be.
It still is a usefull smoothing, I just think it should be called differently

Stating that Psy represents what we hear while recommending Var for EQ-ing is indeed wrong IMHO. I find Psy much more usefull than Var.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
2,586
Likes
1,438
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
Btw, PSY in REW doesn't simply remove peaks as it applies more weighting to them before averaging, as explained in REW's help I quoted.

while this is correct, peaks are still removed

ACourate Psy is indeed very realistic. Maybe dr. Brueggemann (@UliBru) copyrighted it. :)

the "problem" with the envelope graph is that it breaks the paradigm of house curves. suddenly a flat target seams to be neutral again
 
Top Bottom