1) Here is the partial up to 500 hz
2) I noticed this "amplification of uncorrected frequencies"....I could adjust that...I could also input a reduction...?
It's a pointless exercise with a 10dB peak at 5 kHz.
1) Here is the partial up to 500 hz
2) I noticed this "amplification of uncorrected frequencies"....I could adjust that...I could also input a reduction...?
But how would you know if a different target would sound worse, if you don't actually try and listen?But it's just going to follow the target and sound even worse though, won't it?
It's a pointless exercise with a 10dB peak at 5 kHz.
But how would you know if a different target would sound worse, if you don't actually try and listen?
It will achieve the target but if target is not good, it will not sound good. So you need to experiment with different targets.
Yours is too horizontal.
(Although that's likely worst case, as I measured around 79 db spl. Rarely that loud day to day.)
Right, and if I went ahead, does the range of 500 hz - 3 khz warrant a 4 db reduction?
Can you do PEQ filters? I'd try bringing down the peak at 5 kHz and the wide bump at 10 kHz just to hear what it sounds like.
Yes, is it this filter?
The only thing that mystified me was the "Q." If I want it to effect 1 khz on either side of approx 4.5 khz, I have no idea what Q to try
That's what happens with brute force correction of non minimum phase behavior. You create a lot of phase distortion.I got my umik-1 last week and am using it with Audiolense.
My understanding of the software is getting better, yet no matter what I do with a full-freq correction (different targets, good sweep, settings), the result still sounds like it's underwater, muffled, instruments lost in the mix, no air (oh and I have a small room). I stumbled upon the idea of a partial correction (Schroeder 500 hz) being a serious thing.
So I did a few of them, and this sounds more like what my ear wants. Going in the direction of improvement (your ears don't lie!). I think full-freq correction is more successful in tandem with room treatment.
Trial and error in the REW EQ dialog. Higher Q is narrower and lower Q is wider. Start with Q=1.0.
But really, what is going on here? Did I miss some background info about the speaker and room? No bass and those big treble peaks?
Spinorama is quite misleading and we see high scores given to speakers that has a collapsing polar. A constant directivity only in the treble area, small drivers with high distortion, crossover smack in the sensitive area, and no focus on minimizing detrimental vertical reflection is not a good speaker design!@Bjorn Yeah, upgrading them is on my list, so hard to know if something will be an upgrade - should I set up a budget and find something that measures well like what Amir has been doing with speakers?
Spinorama and Harman score are two different things and shouldn't be confused. Loudspeakers with smooth on- and off-axis responses get high scores and those correlate well to real AB blind listening tests, while your claims about all such loudspeakers being not good speaker design don't, so please don't present them as facts, even more as a commercial competitor.Spinorama is quite misleading and we see high scores given to speakers that has a collapsing polar. A constant directivity only in the treble area, small drivers with high distortion, crossover smack in the sensitive area, and no focus on minimizing detrimental vertical reflection is not a good speaker design!
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 dips, leaving everything above Schroder uncorrected.
- Full range correction: bass peaks and dips are corrected, and an overall target curve at the listening position applied.
In my own system, I only correct to Schroder. I have tried a full range correction before, but it sounds awful. And this is with using very generous smoothing for upper frequencies. This made me ask myself whether there is something I am not measuring which, when correction is applied, makes the upper frequencies sound shrill (even with the Harman curve). The most obvious thing I am not measuring is the speaker's off-axis response and sound power, because it is not easy for me to do so. My speakers weigh 110kg and are physically massive, so it's not easy to take them outside and hoist them without hiring a forklift or something similar.
I have seen debates between proponents of both approaches. My theory for people having different approaches is that different systems need different types of correction. For one, most of us do not know what the directivity of our speakers are, and even if these specs are published, we can't exactly load them into our DSP software for correction. Also, different rooms may modify the spectral response in different ways.
So, I would like to know: which approach do you use, and why?
Hoping to hear responses from @mitchco and @UliBru![]()
Correct for peaks (not necessarily full dampening) below Schroeder, and then gradually more careful through the transition range. Rule of thumb: No EQ above 500hz, rarely above 250-300hz.
Don't use DSP to force a different target curve than what the speaker would naturally reproduce in your room.
target curve is bad name it should be called "result curve" because it's not a target for RC . Because if you force a badly behaved speaker to fit a curve that well behaved speakers would give in room your only getting weird direct sound again , not a well behaved speaker .
if it's a reflective surface very close it will probably be perceived as direct sound by the brainBut what if you have a well-behaved speaker anechoically which doesn’t provide a nice result curve in-room at the MLP due to things like very reflective surfaces near one speaker but not the other?
I think the extreme of taking a poor speaker and forcing a strict “result curve” is bad. We don’t need to correct the sound of a violin in a bright or dampened room because our brain can listen through the room. However, what about correcting the sound of a lightsaber? We don’t imagine that a lightsaber is in our room — we imagine that the lightsaber is in the environment that is being presented to us in the movie…
You need to keep in mind what speakers that are involved in those blind tests.Spinorama and Harman score are two different things and shouldn't be confused. Loudspeakers with smooth on- and off-axis responses get high scores and those correlate well to real AB blind listening tests, while your claims about all such loudspeakers being not good speaker design don't, so please don't present them as facts, even more as a commercial competitor.
Some that weren't beaten yet, feel free to organise newer ones, it would be a great marketing tool.You need to keep in mind what speakers that are involved in those blind tests.
The result doesn't get better than the reference. One could also say that the Harman tests are very much a marketing tool.
An even LP measurement alone isn't sufficient to guarantee a better sound, a full spinorama and even more a controlled comparison listening test is needed for that.It can easily be proven that there are for example speaker designs that will measure more even in the room.
It's axiomatic that, if the speaker has a commendable Spinorama, then part of what makes it commendable is that it behaves well in real rooms, unless you are truly setting it up very poorly.But what if you have a well-behaved speaker anechoically which doesn’t provide a nice result curve in-room at the MLP due to things like very reflective surfaces near one speaker but not the other?