- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 4,808
- Likes
- 3,749
Very nice, only the bass rolloff to the mids is way too high for my tastes.
Yeah, I don't think you can say that without taking the speakers' directivity into account. These are most similar to the JBL M2, 4367, etc. I did that very much by design:Very nice, only the bass rolloff to the mids is way too high for my tastes.
It doesn't though. That's a steady state curve that doesn't distinguish between the direct sound and the "room sound," it just adds everything together.If that's a response at your seat, directivity is already taken into account.
All I'm saying is I feel things lose clarity unless the bass boost ramps down by 150 Hz at the latest. Nothing wrong with preferring a little different response.
Yeah, I often do to. I'll go for months with a couple more dB than shown above...then watch a couple of movies in a row with "overdone" bass and decide to turn it down a bit. And the "circle of confusion" goes round and round.....In your second screenshot, that measurement does look more in line with my preference. I just prefer more at 20-30 Hz .
Not a critique, just comparing yours vs mine. Otherwise I'd say you're into the "excellent" category.
It doesn't though. That's a steady state curve that doesn't distinguish between the direct sound and the "room sound," it just adds everything together.
I can't accurately measure the direct sound at the listening position without reflections messing things up, but just for fun to give some rough idea, here is what single mic measurements look like when windowed to 5ms:
View attachment 222810
The dips at 700 and 950 are reflections, they were there in the steady state as well at that particular mic location--move the mic a couple inches and they go away, so if you can ignore those this should give a very rough general idea of what the direct sound is like at that location.
As you can see, the high frequencies starting at 1000 Hz or so are pretty much on level with the lower midrange down to 200 Hz. If I trusted that measurement more, if anything it's saying I should drop the target from 500-700 Hz about another 1/2 dB or so. But it certainly shows if the goal is flat direct sound, raising the high frequencies another 2 dB certainly wouldn't be the right choice.
And I'm just saying with these particular speakers, I don't think you would. You really don't want the same in room response from these as you would speakers that are very wide dispersion to a much higher frequency. Anyway, that's probably a better discussion for one of the Room Curve threads, but I do think it was useful to explain why I did what I did (even if some may think it's wrong). For those intrigued, Paul Hales explains it quite well in this video (skip to 45 minutes or so for this discussion):
Actually, his entire explanation on how he comes up with a room curve for the $1,000,000 home theaters he builds is very interesting. I don't trust my ears as much as he does though....
Yeah, I often do to. I'll go for months with a couple more dB than shown above...then watch a couple of movies in a row with "overdone" bass and decide to turn it down a bit. And the "circle of confusion" goes round and round.....
Thanks.
It doesn't though. That's a steady state curve that doesn't distinguish between the direct sound and the "room sound," it just adds everything together.
It seems like we're talking about the same thing. If the measurement includes reflections, then a wider dispersion speaker would have a greater proportion of the measurement as reflected sound. You can't see how much the reflected sound is contributing, but it's in there.And I'm just saying with these particular speakers, I don't think you would. You really don't want the same in room response from these as you would speakers that are very wide dispersion to a much higher frequency.
I know the feeling. Lately I've been adding 2-3 to my sub levels for my Blu-ray input. Then along comes Bladerunner 2049...I might lose my home theater card for saying this, but I think the bass levels are almost too high in that movie.I'll go for months with a couple more dB than shown above...then watch a couple of movies in a row with "overdone" bass and decide to turn it down a bit. And the "circle of confusion" goes round and round.....
That curve shows prefered response for in-ear headphones- very much dependent on ear-headphone shape compatibility...It seems like we're talking about the same thing. If the measurement includes reflections, then a wider dispersion speaker would have a greater proportion of the measurement as reflected sound. You can't see how much the reflected sound is contributing, but it's in there.
Also, if your on and off-axis curves are similar, this would be fine as the sound wouldn't change much with the inclusion of the extra width, and windowing wouldn't show big differences (save for a terrible room environment).
Now, we're only talking in terms of tonality, which is what these measurements show. Obviously dispersion width also affects perception of soundstage, clarity, and more.
Anyway, we are getting way too far into the weeds here, because none of this relates to my comment on the house curve! I just said in my experience I find the bass boost should flatten out before it gets into the lower midrange. I had a very similar curve to your first one, which came with Dirac Live. The lower midrange sounded too congested, which is how I came to realize curves similar to the Harman target were not always ideal.
I know the feeling. Lately I've been adding 2-3 to my sub levels for my Blu-ray input. Then along comes Bladerunner 2049...I might lose my home theater card for saying this, but I think the bass levels are almost too high in that movie.
Edited to add a graphic:
View attachment 222830
This illustrates what I was talking about. There is variability, but I'm very close to the green (average) line.
It is basically the same with speakers in a room. The difference is how you get there.That curve shows prefered response for in-ear headphones- very much dependent on ear-headphone shape compatibility...
it's close but you ran out of those, instagram likes for filters lol . use 1/48 and switch between 1/3rd and move the mic small fractions or go manual with mic and hold it and move it around and listen to the matched if got proper matched LCR behind at-screen . you're close but it's got gabs or peaks or does it ? move mic small fractions and some of those gaps dips or peaks change soother with real time pink noise . once it's taken days to do then or if can use multi mics , please throw the auto-eq in the cat litter where auto-eq belongs . manual eq will solve it only takes patience .Just made some changes to my system, so I figured I'd throw this out there for the peanut gallery:
View attachment 222797
Damn I hate SBIR. I really need to get that new house built.
Sure:Could you show the same measurements with frequency dependent window of maybe 7 or 10 cycles…
You'll have to bear with me a while, I haven't used that function much in REW so it'll take me a while to figure out what I'm doing.as well as either left or right front’s spectral decay using a 20 ms “rise time” and 1/3 or 1/6 smoothing setting? I’m just curious.
Yes, it's in there, but it doesn't sound the same. The direct sound has a disproportionate impact on perceived tonality. That's one of the fundamental findings of all of Toole's research. Did you listen to Paul Hale's explanation posted above? I didn't just make all this stuff up.It seems like we're talking about the same thing. If the measurement includes reflections, then a wider dispersion speaker would have a greater proportion of the measurement as reflected sound. You can't see how much the reflected sound is contributing, but it's in there.
And I'm saying, unless your speakers have horns 1.5-2' wide, that experience just isn't relevant to speakers that do. They are very different speakers. And it's not a "bass boost." It's a drop from mid to high frequencies. My "bass boost" is exactly how you have it drawn in the chart--but it's only 2 dB for this calibration (10 dB for speakers in a room is pretty hardcore IMHO unless you listen at very low levels).I just said in my experience I find the bass boost should flatten out before it gets into the lower midrange. I had a very similar curve to your first one, which came with Dirac Live. The lower midrange sounded too congested, which is how I came to realize curves similar to the Harman target were not always ideal.
The other finding is that the sound we perceive in-room is on average 44% early reflections.Yes, it's in there, but it doesn't sound the same. The direct sound has a disproportionate impact on perceived tonality. That's one of the fundamental findings of all of Toole's research.
I've seen you mention this twice now – I do not think raising the high frequencies would be wise. I am very treble-averse. Did someone suggest that? Maybe it was buried in one of Andy's posts...hehe. I would have cut them just like you did.I added a very rough trend line from the HF on down. It shows you don't get an average solidly above the trend until bass frequencies. If this is a reasonable indication of direct sound through the mid-high frequencies for that mic location, it again shows I should make the step down lowering the high frequencies even bigger. Going the other way--elimiating the step down by raising the HF up 2 dB would make a big hole in the lower midrange.
Mid to high? I'm talking about 100-200 Hz. The point where the bass comes down to meet with the upper bass/lower mids in an in-room measurement.And I'm saying, unless your speakers have horns 1.5-2' wide, that experience just isn't relevant to speakers that do. They are very different speakers. And it's not a "bass boost." It's a drop from mid to high frequencies.
Those 44% are not what we perceive (which we don't really know) but the way to approximate the measured PIR. As Toole says our hearing apparatus and processing is not the same as a typical omnidirectional mic and a computed linear transfer function.The other finding is that the sound we perceive in-room is on average 44% early reflections.
Uhm, I'm sort of way ahead of you. I was merely posting results in a thread for results (where many were talking about using psychoacoustic smoothing), not analyzing my system. I figured 1/12 was more than good enough. 1/48 doesn't add anything meaningful:it's close but you ran out of those, instagram likes for filters lol . use 1/48 and switch between 1/3rd and move the mic small fractions or go manual with mic and hold it and move it around and listen to the matched if got proper matched LCR behind at-screen . you're close but it's got gabs or peaks or does it ?
move mic small fractions and some of those gaps dips or peaks change soother with real time pink noise . once it's taken days to do then or if can use multi mics ,
please throw the auto-eq in the cat litter where auto-eq belongs . manual eq will solve it only takes patience .
Then why was that used in the CTA-2034 standard? Is it just the best they can do?Those 44% are not what we perceive (which we don't really know) but the way to approximate the measured PIR. As Toole says our hearing apparatus and processing is not the same as a typical omnidirectional mic and a computed linear transfer function.
Interesting. You must be measuring a wider area. I get nearly perfect bass for just me, which is what I care about most, with the 8 positions Audyssey provides.MQX actually does a pretty decent job over 500 Hz. The largest deviations at high frequency are due to differences in Mic calibrations (yes, I measured them). But in the bass/transition region, even 30 mic positions doesn't hold a candle to MMM, so much larger corrections are needed. That file has 102 PEQ's in it to shape the FIR filters currently. There is no limit to how many can be added.
The CTA-2034 is about measuring loudspeakers, not about human perception.Then why was that used in the CTA-2034 standard? Is it just the best they can do?
Not going to get into semantics, but it's both.The CTA-2034 is about measuring loudspeakers, not about human perception.