Should we correct to Schroder, or full range?

[Haskil]

When looking at active speakers like genelec or Neumann. There is definitely eq happening throughout the whole frequency band to achieve such flat responses. I would like to see the raw tweeter data with no dsp compared to the finished product. If you want to amend a short coming of a freq response of a passive speaker at a particular frequency above shroeder what's wrong with that. It's what genelec and Neumann do to achieve the spins most people seem to drool over. At the end of the day it's your ears if it doesn't sound right it doesn't sound right. One particular practice is not the end all be all way. Experiment test measure but at the end of the day press play and enjoy yourself

Et oui !
And they do not provide buyers with their speakers and the small interface box, the microphone and the software allowing them to integrate their speakers into the room... a professional measuring microphone costing more than 1000 or 2000 euros of such fragility that a newborn is Hulk, but a calibrated-calibrated microphone whose quality is more than sufficient to make an in situ measurement as long as its characteristics are integrated into the measurement software...

 

[Trdat]

I am happy that it sounds amazing.

But that you got Dirac to work for you doesn't necessarily mean full range correction is a great idea in any situation, especially when done manually. On the contrary we know for a fact that it can be detrimental. That one person has a good result isn't exactly conclusive. Some automatic correction systems are careful with what they do above Schroeder, and then it works fine. Some take the brute force approach, and then it will be hit and miss depending on the room and the speakers.

Is this the case for a tri-amp system or just a passive crossover speaker with a digital filter on top? I mean, how do we then correct a raw driver in a tri-amp if we don't correct the high frequencies...?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yet Amir, Maty and others do this for every speaker measured by Klippel published on ASR !
They therefore provide more or less refined paremetric corrections to be used to improve to a certain extent the performance of a speaker which has not always been developed according to the rules of the art for various reasons...

Not sure if there's a point here? Does the average consumer have Amir's experience and a Klippel in their garage?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Is this the case for a tri-amp system or just a passive crossover speaker with a digital filter on top? I mean, how do we then correct a raw driver in a tri-amp if we don't correct the high frequencies...?

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to with a "tri-amp system". I was under the impression we were talking about room correction for a finished loudspeaker system. Then there are no raw drivers to correct.

 

[anotherhobby]

I'll share my experience with Dirac full range correction. Note that I'm no expert, just an audio enthusiast collecting morsels of knowledge from the forums, and then trying to apply my Swiss cheese of audio knowledge to my setup. Curious what others make of this. The room from the measurements below is my 10'x10'x8' office. The main speakers are Revel M105's in a near-field desktop setup with 4 subs.

As a user of Dirac, it would be easy to think that Dirac's initial correction to my target curve below is excellent, and I should stop now and call it good. I mean, it's basically within 2-3 dB across the entire spectrum. This should sound great and the audio world will be impressed with my lines!

The individual channels both look good as well, at least to my "hobbyist trained" eyes. Unfortunately, in reality it sounded weird and stuffy at the mid higher end, while the mid-low end sounded excellent.

Well what was I starting with? Below is the native response vs the correction, as well as the line of where I ended up cutting off Dirac correction. The problem here is around 1kHz in my near-field setup. That wavelength is just over a foot, so I investigated and played a 1kHz frequency and moved my head around (sitting at my desk), and then also plugged 1 ear while doing it. I could hear the volume of the tone change pretty dramatically without moving my head a whole lot, although without one ear plugged the effect was less noticeable. I concluded Dirac was making bad choices here and I dialed the correction back, finally landing at 550Hz as sounding the best to me.

It's worth mentioning that I also had the exact same experience in my home theater setup with Audyssey on a Denon AVR-X4300H. The correction line looked good, but cutting off around 500 Hz sounded noticeably better to me. Both of my systems have decent main speakers with good well behaved directivity, and full range correction sounds off on both of them (the M105s above and Focal Aria 936s).

 

[Trdat]

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to with a "tri-amp system". I was under the impression we were talking about room correction for a finished loudspeaker system. Then there are no raw drivers to correct.

Well, the OP wasn't specific and I am aware he has a tri-amp system using Acourate with digital crossovers so I figured it could go both ways with a finished speaker or with a tri-amp system. What I mean is correcting a speaker designed on the basis of DSP with raw drivers needing some correction through the DSP. I am presuming your comment was purely for a finished speaker?

 

[Haskil]

Not sure if there's a point here? Does the average consumer have Amir's experience and a Klippel in their garage?

I was only responding to your comments recalled here: sibergaudio wrote : "Correcting above Schroeder by measuring close to the speaker isn't necessarily a good idea either. Then you are putting on the speaker designer hat and are assuming you can do a better job than whoever built the speaker. This would likely be a false assumption for the vast majority of consumers."

However, we are lucky to be on ASR and to have Amir, Maty and others on hand to do this kind of work and tutorials which allow us to measure a speaker in the near field so as to improve it if possible and more or less how it works.... before using Dirac, Audyssey or other full band software or under Schroeder's answer from the piece...

Personally, after many tests I limit below this pivotal frequency... and am very happy with the result which could be much better, I know, if I used the services of a third person who would come and make these measurements and these corrections for me ...and I have professional friends who could do it, but I'm having fun "with my electric train."

 

[sigbergaudio]

Well, the OP wasn't specific and I am aware he has a tri-amp system using Acourate with digital crossovers so I figured it could go both ways with a finished speaker or with a tri-amp system. What I mean is correcting a speaker designed on the basis of DSP with raw drivers needing some correction through the DSP. I am presuming your comment was purely for a finished speaker?

We can not have a discussion about loudspeaker crossover design and room correction at the same time. The original post specifically asks about room correction.

Some DIY people will design their speakers and calibrate to the room at the same time, because they're basically building speakers and tuning their system in the same room and at the same time. They have that liberty. Taking advice from such a situation when you have finished speakers you bought in a store, will not typically end well.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I was only responding to your comments recalled here: sibergaudio wrote : "Correcting above Schroeder by measuring close to the speaker isn't necessarily a good idea either. Then you are putting on the speaker designer hat and are assuming you can do a better job than whoever built the speaker. This would likely be a false assumption for the vast majority of consumers."

However, we are lucky to be on ASR and to have Amir, Maty and others on hand to do this kind of work and tutorials which allow us to measure a speaker in the near field so as to improve it if possible and more or less how it works.... before using Dirac, Audyssey or other full band software or under Schroeder's answer from the piece...

I will stand by my original statement.

 

[Johnp]

Here's LR averaged uncorrected and then Dirac corrected, single point, no additional smoothing. In the middle is the line-level output of the Dirac filter. You can see how the filter approach between 200 and 300 Hz is different than the approach to variations above 600 Hz. Using full range to tame it down above 3kHz sounds better to me, so I run full range. Dirac clearly filtered differently above 300Hz in this project. (You can also see how aggressive Dirac gets in trying to meet the target >16kHz.)

 

[Trdat]

We can not have a discussion about loudspeaker crossover design and room correction at the same time. The original post specifically asks about room correction.

Some DIY people will design their speakers and calibrate to the room at the same time, because they're basically building speakers and tuning their system in the same room and at the same time. They have that liberty. Taking advice from such a situation when you have finished speakers you bought in a store, will not typically end well.

My apologise, I was under impression room correction was a blanket term for DSP however it seems I am wrong, and that it is specific to only a finished speaker, thanks for pointing out the obvious and also explaining your ideas on the issue. Might try a filter only towards the low end with my finished speakers.

I think a future topic on what other experts(other than the DSP designers themselves) have to say about tri-amp correction or digital crossover filters would also be interesting but yes for another time.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Here's LR averaged uncorrected and then Dirac corrected, single point, no additional smoothing. In the middle is the line-level output of the Dirac filter. You can see how the filter approach between 200 and 300 Hz is different than the approach to variations above 600 Hz. Using full range to tame it down above 3kHz sounds better to me, so I run full range. Dirac clearly filtered differently above 300Hz in this project. (You can also see how aggressive Dirac gets in trying to meet the target >16kHz.)

View attachment 347095

That's quite interesting. I am surprised that it corrects the area around 58 Hz with boosting what looks like over 10 dB with a high Q when the original valley is not larger than 3.
For this reason it makes me think I have made the right choice to adjust by only cutting. -A method I started using because I found that I could more easily hear the small changes to the curves I made this way.

 

[ernestcarl]

That's quite interesting. I am surprised that it corrects the area around 58 Hz with boosting what looks like over 10 dB with a high Q when the original valley is not larger than 3.
For this reason it makes me think I have made the right choice to adjust by only cutting. -A method I started using because I found that I could more easily hear the small changes to the curves I made this way.

That graph needs a bit more explanation as what’s shown is the “LR average” and there’s quite a huge disconnect between it and the filter curve (which I presume is also the sum between LR filters).

 

[sigbergaudio]

My apologise, I was under impression room correction was a blanket term for DSP however it seems I am wrong, and that it is specific to only a finished speaker, thanks for pointing out the obvious and also explaining your ideas on the issue. Might try a filter only towards the low end with my finished speakers.

I think a future topic on what other experts(other than the DSP designers themselves) have to say about tri-amp correction or digital crossover filters would also be interesting but yes for another time.

No worries. The meaning is hidden in the term, "room correction". It is an attempt to reduce the effect of the room. Some also use that type of DSP to force the sound towards a specific target curve. Yet another thing that is okay below Schroeder and questionable above Schroeder.

DSP can also be used for a completely different purpose in an active speaker, namely to do digital crossover duty, replacing the purpose of the traditional, passive crossover.

I'd be happy to discuss digital crossover filters too, I suggest you create a new thread and share your questions on the subject.

 

[goat76]

That's quite interesting. I am surprised that it corrects the area around 58 Hz with boosting what looks like over 10 dB with a high Q when the original valley is not larger than 3.
For this reason it makes me think I have made the right choice to adjust by only cutting. -A method I started using because I found that I could more easily hear the small changes to the curves I made this way.

What exactly is it you find good with Dirac?

Based on what you have said in this thread and others, it seems like you have made many adjustments to the curve Dirac generated, so doesn't that mean that you were not completely satisfied with what Dirac generated? If Dirac worked as intended, the only things left for you to change would have been some broadband adjustments to suit your personal preferences for the overall balance.

So what is your take on this? Do you think Dirac accomplished adjusting the curve to suit most people, but just didn't suit your taste which may deviate from the supposedly correct curve, or do you think the generated curve wasn't sounding correct and needed adjustments to sound right to most people?

Isn't the very idea of Dirac to automatically be able to fix obvious and real problems in the frequency response to a preset curve, without the need for the end user to make precision adjustments to it, but just leave the overall tonal balance adjustments for the end user if the target curve didn't do that already?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

What exactly is it you find good with Dirac?

Based on what you have said in this thread and others, it seems like you have made many adjustments to the curve Dirac generated, so doesn't that mean that you were not completely satisfied with what Dirac generated? If Dirac worked as intended, the only things left for you to change would have been some broadband adjustments to suit your personal preferences for the overall balance.

So what is your take on this? Do you think Dirac accomplished adjusting the curve to suit most people, but just didn't suit your taste which may deviate from the supposedly correct curve, or do you think the generated curve wasn't sounding correct and needed adjustments to sound right to most people?

Isn't the very idea of Dirac to automatically be able to fix obvious and real problems in the frequency response to a preset curve, without the need for the end user to make precision adjustments to it, but just leave the overall tonal balance adjustments for the end user if the target curve didn't do that already?

The target curve is only a suggestion and has changed in various revisons of the software. I have of course changed it to suit my personal preference in sound.

Have you used Dirac Live? It occurs to me that you might not ask these questions if you had.

 

[goat76]

The target curve is only a suggestion and has changed in various revisons of the software. I have of course changed it to suit my personal preference in sound.

Have you used Dirac Live? It occurs to me that you might not ask these questions if you had.

That's correct, I have never used Dirac, but I have tried Audyssey on many occasions but never got a satisfying sound out of it. That got me convinced the science is right about this and corrections should never be done based on an in-room response above Schroder.

But with that said, I think it may work fairly well if the in-room response happens to mirror the direct sound well, but that is of course more of a lottery if that will occur.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

That's correct, I have never used Dirac, but I have tried Audyssey on many occasions but never got a satisfying sound out of it. That got me convinced the science is right about this and corrections should never be done based on an in-room response above Schroder.

But with that said, I think it may work fairly well if the in-room response happens to mirror the direct sound well, but that is of course more of a lottery if that will occur.

Never put all your eggs in one basket.. If you haven't experienced it you might be wrong when jumping to conclusions.
I don't know that software. I suppose it works like YPAO of which I have tried on an older Yamaha flagship receiver. I'm pretty sure it only did one single measurement and it sounded like ass and was all over the place with different settings even if I did another cal. at the same spot right after.

This is from the Dirac Live 3.0 manual-->

"Avoid making measurements in too small a space. Even for the "Tightly focused" listening environment, it is important to spread out the microphone positions in a sphere of at least 1 meter in diameter. Too small space will result in over-compensation, which sounds very dry and dull."

Dirac has three choices of listening position spaces. The "Tightly focused" may suggest by name, that you measure close to the main listening pos. But that is not how you're supposed to measure acc. to the manual.

Also from the manual-->

"Tip: A minor change to the target curve can dramatically change the perceived sound quality. It is therefore recommended to edit the target curve with care and awareness. You can play around with some different target curves by exporting different filters to your device and finding the one you prefer. Save your project often to give yourself the latitude to make adjustments without committing to any potential negative side-effects. If you experience phase issues from an exported filter, you may have measured too few measurement points or measured in too small an area"

 

[Grandzoltar]

That's correct, I have never used Dirac, but I have tried Audyssey on many occasions but never got a satisfying sound out of it. That got me convinced the science is right about this and corrections should never be done based on an in-room response above Schroder.

But with that said, I think it may work fairly well if the in-room response happens to mirror the direct sound well, but that is of course more of a lottery if that will occur.

Out of curiosity did you download the audyssey app and remove the mid range dip. Or change the house curve with Ratbuddyssey download to take customization a step further.

 

[goat76]

Never put all your eggs in one basket.. If you haven't experienced it you might be wrong when jumping to conclusions.
I don't know that software. I suppose it works like YPAO of which I have tried on an older Yamaha flagship receiver. I'm pretty sure it only did one single measurement and it sounded like ass and was all over the place with different settings even if I did another cal. at the same spot right after.

This is from the Dirac Live 3.0 manual-->

"Avoid making measurements in too small a space. Even for the "Tightly focused" listening environment, it is important to spread out the microphone positions in a sphere of at least 1 meter in diameter. Too small space will result in over-compensation, which sounds very dry and dull."

Dirac has three choices of listening position spaces. The "Tightly focused" may suggest by name, that you measure close to the main listening pos. But that is not how you're supposed to measure acc. to the manual.

Also from the manual-->

"Tip: A minor change to the target curve can dramatically change the perceived sound quality. It is therefore recommended to edit the target curve with care and awareness. You can play around with some different target curves by exporting different filters to your device and finding the one you prefer. Save your project often to give yourself the latitude to make adjustments without committing to any potential negative side-effects. If you experience phase issues from an exported filter, you may have measured too few measurement points or measured in too small an area"

It was just a few months ago I did a calibration with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on my Marantz Cinema 50 receiver. Audyssey uses multiple measurements around the seating positions, but unfortunately, the result wasn't stellar after 3 or 4 tries I turned it off and did set up everything manually instead which sounded way better.