It is still a shame that you did not use the possibility left by Audyssey to do the same thing.
I get some excellent things from Audyssey for my part.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Should we correct to Schroder, or full range?
- Thread starter Keith_W
- Start date
I get some excellent things from Audyssey for my part.
I know about that app but have not tried it yet, maybe it was you who recommended it in another thread. A good thing with the app is that it would give me the possibility to choose what range is affected by the corrections, that way I can get rid of everything it does for the mid and high-frequency range completely.
Of course it sounds better done manually, that’s what expectation bias does when you’ve invested your own time and brainpower into any HiFi chore
Did you double blind test both configurations and repeat the test ten times.
The biggest fault of speaker correction software comes from the human interface... how many measurements did I redo with acquaintances who had done anything with YPAO (old single point as well as recent multipoint) and with Audyssey ... after measurements taken while scrupulously following the world of use, it was obviously much better...Never put all your eggs in one basket..
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"
The advantage of the application for mobile phones and tablets is twofold:I know about that app but have not tried it yet, maybe it was you who recommended it in another thread. A good thing with the app is that it would give me the possibility to choose what range is affected by the corrections, that way I can get rid of everything it does for the mid and high-frequency range completely.
- if we carry out the process of measurements and corrections from it, the greater computing power allows greater precision than if we did it using the internal DSP of the amplifier: this information was publicly given by the European management of Denon on a French site.
- It allows you to easily intervene on several parameters and to redraw the target curve chosen from the two proposed by Audyssey... In particular, it allows you to precisely choose the frequency above which Audyssey will not correct anything....
The filter output was only for the left. I was illustrating the filter output and using measurements I had on hand. Here are three-position measurements with averages for the left speaker. Here is a link to the MDAT.
Of course it sounds better done manually, that’s what expectation bias does when you’ve invested your own time and brainpower into any HiFi chore
Did you double blind test both configurations and repeat the test ten times.
I only use corrections for the bass range, mainly just 118Hz and down, and a minor dip at 359Hz. I'm sure Audyssey would work similarly for that frequency range. No need for any blind tests as the changes Audyssey made to the sound were huge.
The manual adjustments I use are based on the MMM measurements and are generated in REW.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 118
- Likes
- 77
I use a mouse hooked up to my phone with an OTC cable to adjust the curve which was easier then using fingers
+1 on this.
It’s accurate to say that correction above the schroeder frequency is unpredictable, but the reason people do it is that it is preferred in many rooms/speakers. We still don’t know what percentage of full range correction ends up being non-destructive, an improvement, or worse.
The key is making the comparison.
A really bad speaker may be so totally off that full range correction acts as a correction of unusual tilt. A medium bad speaker may have a poor off-axis directivity where EQ is damaging. A medium good speaker may have great directivity where EQ corrects the on and off axis similarly. A great speaker may be so good that inconsistencies in your measurement technique result in worse performance than just correcting to the Schroeder frequency and letting the native response run.
In most of my systems, correcting full range sounds great. In my Meyer Sound systems, I only correct to Schroeder.
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
True. Give it a listen. One would rarely commit to a worse sounding system than before the software has done its thing.
The attached 2021 study from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, "Perceptual analysis of directional late reverberation" by Benoit Alary; Pierre Massé; Sebastian J. Schlecht; Markus Noisternig; Vesa Välimäki finds that energy deviation is audibly detectable even for a 1.1dB change at as low as 850Hz.
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
You can misplace the window just above 20 kHz if I recall.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 118
- Likes
- 77
A HyperSonic Sound system – or HSS – does not use physical speakers. HSS pulsates quartz crystals at a frequency thousands of times faster than the vibrations in a normal speaker – creating ultrasonic waves at frequencies far beyond human hearing. Unlike lower-frequency sound, these waves travel in a tight path – a beam. Two beams can be focused to intersect each other, and where they interact they produce a third sonic wave whose frequency is exactly the difference between the two original sounds. In HSS that difference will fall within the range of human hearing – and will appear to come from thin air. This is known as a Tartini Tone – in honor of Giuseppe Tartini, the eighteenth-century Italian composer who first discovered this principle.
Essentially play a 24khz and 23khz a 1000hz sound will from being audible
Essentially play a 24khz and 23khz a 1000hz sound will from being audible
Of course the correction window can be limited, but it looks like it's doing mostly eq above 300Hz. Here's the MDAT if interested.
Full range did the job with Mathaudio Room EQ flawlessly. Room acoustic gave a problem from 400 to 10khz sometimes 14db difference. Looking to the vote i am suprised that almost 35% flavours a full range correction. Thought i was one of the few. Enlightening 
Last edited:
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
I'm just guessing your measured line out of Dirac's filtered IR does not account for the sub(s) output -- assuming there's a sub.
Because, when we convolve the uncorrected FR curve with the Dirac filter, one should get something like the ff. (green curve):
Instead what's shown to us this (purple "corrected" curve):
The measurement is with sub crossed at 80. I didn’t measure the sub correction output.
Similar threads
- Poll
