Should we correct to Schroder, or full range?

[Mnyb]

Yes it's a bit mysterius , how do they claim to resolve the fundamental perceptual problems ?? IE if the direct sound is good and direct sound dominates the perception , you can t really change that to get good reflective sound ? as there is only one sound source for each channel ? If there where an extra speaker that compensated the off axis while leaving the on axis unchanged i would get it ? if both on axis and off axis is rubbish there is some window of opportunity to make it better....

Either it is "marketing speech" or hidden in some patent they are not to eager to explain .

Its as usually complicated there may be some things you can do wholesale , is it to brigth to muddy ? sure. Speech from the center channel ?
In our home theater where I'm not so picky i just run the automatic audysey correction in my Denon and are content , but it qualifies as kind of rubbish speakars in rubbish placement ... i can live with the result it's convincing while watching movies ?

In my hifi there are 4 peq's <180 Hz a small bass shelf <250hz (2,5 dB ) and a small -0,25dB treble tilt and nothing more

 

[Jarrett]

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.

Do you think I should do the same reduction for both? Trying a Q of 4 at 4.5 khz and Q of 2 at 10 khz

Preliminary, but -4 db at 4.5 khz and -3 db at 10 khz sounds ok. Doesn't lose much air or snap.

 

[Daverz]

I put the question forward to Mathaudio regarding why the Schroder solution is used offent an recommended an how Mathaudio sees it their answer here under do know I'm not a acoustic specialist by any means:

“Mathaudio tested FIR filters and decided to not use them for Room EQ because they created a noticeable distortion at high frequencies caused by the pre-echo effect. On one hand, FIR filters are very simple and robust, on the other hand, they make sound dirty. It is possible that the idea of correcting "lowfrequencies only" is the consequence of people's bad experience with the FIR-based room correction systems”

Pre-ringing should be easy to see in the step response of a test convolution of the FIR filters. You can then back off some of your filter parameters or the target level to try to reduce the pre-ringing. Acourate also offers a "pre-ringing compensation" feature, though it doesn't always work.

 

[Daverz]

Do you think I should do the same reduction for both? Trying a Q of 4 at 4.5 khz and Q of 2 at 10 khz

I'd use a different gain for these. Adjust the Q, gain and center frequency until the predicted response is reasonably reduced.

Also, try a different arrangement of the speakers that gets them away from reflective surfaces, like catty-corner instead of along a wall.

 

[Jarrett]

I'd use a different gain for these. Adjust the Q, gain and center frequency until the predicted response is reasonably reduced.

Also, try a different arrangement of the speakers that gets them away from reflective surfaces, like catty-corner instead of along a wall.

Sorry, just edited, but preliminary -4 db at 4.5 khz and -3 db at 10 khz sounds ok. It takes away attention from those areas. Doesn't lose much air or snap nor sounds too muffled or stuffy. When I adjust the gain getting into - 6 db for 4.5 khz it starts to draw attention (same with when I do - 5 db for the 10 khz). I'll keep adjusting the Q setting, thanks!