What is your favorite house curve

[thewas]

You might also want to use var smoothing for equalising based on MMM up to 500 Hz as well as both options "Allow narrow filters below 200 Hz" and "Vary max Q above 200 Hz" enabled to avoid too high Q filters above bass.

 

[dualazmak]

Just for your (our) reference, we have similar thread entitled "First attempt at manual EQ - opinions appreciated".

In post #37 there, @sigbergaudio kindly wrote (boldface and underline added by myself);
"Looks good, if you are able to keep it light on the EQ it will typically also sound better and more natural!"

I also posted there #38;
As I pointed, "tuning" of room acoustics and SP (sub-woofer and main SP) physical alignments should have higher priority than manipulating DSP XO/EQ!
In my system too, I have actually no fine EQ but only XO (low-pass, high-pass) filters and delay configurations by DSP EKIO.
Yes, I agree with you and @sigbergaudio's approach and stance of "the simpler, the better"; I am also in the same league; for example I shared here on my thread where, at the end of the post, I wrote "the simpler, the better" and "the simplest, the best".

It is/was our important discussion/lessons and agreement there that we would be better in minimizing any DSP EQ (and/or DSP smoothing) for better and "natural" sound.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Hello Dr. Toole, this range between the modal region and where the speaker clearly takes over is the region I'm most concerned with EQ'ing, call it 200-500Hz. I can clearly see room effects in this range when I measure my in-room response, I'm just not sure that I should be EQ'ing closer to 500Hz for fear of messing up the direct sound as you talk about. I have 2 peaks, 1 at 360 and the other at 460 that both require a 3 db cut with a Q of 15 to flatten but when I directly compare those cuts to no EQ I either hear no difference or the version with EQ sounds just a bit "thin" in the vocals. Any insight on this range? Oh and yes I do realize this is a first world problem we're talking about lol...here is my in-room response to show the peaks I'm referring to, periodic pink noise with a moving mic method smoothed 1/12:

View attachment 264387

It is improbable that these bumps at such high frequencies are prominent room resonances. I would guess, therefore, that parametric-filter-matched EQ is the wrong solution. When you listen you are in one location, not a moving mic, and you are a binaural listener, not a "dumb" omni mic, so my instinct says that what you are seeing is acoustical interference, not resonances, and to you, a human listener, there is not a problem. We adapt to most of this kind of phenomenon - it is just in the nature of rooms. If I were to experiment with EQ I would use a broadband, low-Q filter to lower the entire region, ignoring the detailed bumps, and judge subjectively if it is an improvement using several recordings of different origin. That done, I would pour myself a glass of good wine, sit back and start seriously adapting, while enjoying the music. Remember, the room curve is a result, not a target.

 

[dasdoing]

I like to look at extremes. how to not EQ room phenomena in this room?

extreme example, but our rooms behave like this, too.....only to a lower extend

 

[Holmz]

It is improbable that these bumps at such high frequencies are prominent room resonances. I would guess, therefore, that parametric-filter-matched EQ is the wrong solution. When you listen you are in one location, not a moving mic, and you are a binaural listener, not a "dumb" omni mic, so my instinct says that what you are seeing is acoustical interference, not resonances, and to you, a human listener, there is not a problem. We adapt to most of this kind of phenomenon - it is just in the nature of rooms. If I were to experiment with EQ I would use a broadband, low-Q filter to lower the entire region, ignoring the detailed bumps, and judge subjectively if it is an improvement using several recordings of different origin. That done, I would pour myself a glass of good wine, sit back and start seriously adapting, while enjoying the music. Remember, the room curve is a result, not a target.

If some one doubted ^that^, just having an iPhone or iPad going into the system playing tones and sliding around the sofa should reinsure them that all the reflections can add up different around the room.

Microwave ovens have a rotating platter, and when they don’t the quesadilla gets the cheese/queso melting in an uneven pattern… Or is that akin to a room mode?

 

[RichB]

I like to look at extremes. how to not EQ room phenomena in this room?

extreme example, but our rooms behave like this, too.....only to a lower extend

Is this person suggesting that you can deaden a room with equalization?

- Rich

 

[ernestcarl]

Is this person suggesting that you can deaden a room with equalization?

- Rich

“Compensate” was the term used. There are fixed room mics installed (e.g. conference room) that use digital room filters to improve the clarity of the recording.

 

[Daverz]

I'm currently using a downward slanting straight line with slope of about -0.9 dB per octave. Or put another way, a 10.25 dB drop from 10 to 24000 Hz. Sounds good to me.

 

[Acerun]

I just got Multieq-x and and made the measurements and changed the settings to enable headroom expansion to 24db and disabled auto leveling for the subwoofers. I've added the tilt below, 2db to -4db. It sounds really good. Any comments or suggestions? I suppose what I'll do is take a couple of REW measurements to see what that shows.

 

[Rednaxela]

Above 500Hz your speakers seem rather well behaved already.

You could consider limiting the correction to only below that point.

 

[Acerun]

Above 500Hz your speakers seem rather well behaved already.

You could consider limiting the correction to only below that point.

I appreciate the suggestion. I can make that profile and listen to hear if I can tell the difference, or prefer one over the other.

 

[Rednaxela]

You may also be able to take more advantage of the first peak around 60Hz. It’s quite a chunky, and depending on how you look at it you could say you’re throwing away a bit too much ‘free’ bass there.

 

[Acerun]

You may also be able to take more advantage of the first peak around 60Hz. It’s quite a chunky, and depending on how you look at it you could say you’re throwing away a bit too much ‘free’ bass there.

I'm pretty new at this. How might you approach it if it were yours? Not sure what you mean by "take advantage" Do you mean adding a bass shelf of some sort?

 

[Acerun]

I think Amir likes adding a low shelf after adding EQ... But maybe just after peaking filters not with a tilt? Maybe I should just do a peak around 60? I have no idea what I'm doing.

 

[Rednaxela]

I'm pretty new at this. How might you approach it if it were yours? Not sure what you mean by "take advantage" Do you mean adding a bass shelf of some sort?

What I basically suggested is to let the bass roll off lower and steeper. It will hardly increase the boost at 70Hz, while it will make you keep more of the chunk that peaks at 60Hz.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Tom C]

It takes a while to sort it out. But you can do it, with time and tenacity.
EQ is better at reducing peaks. Not as effective trying to increase dips. So bring the peaks down, until you get a curve with lower amplitude wiggles. Once you’ve done that, if you want less treble, which is the same as more bass, you can add a shelf filter to reduce the treble.

 

[Rednaxela]

By the way @Acerun, is it still about these speakers?

(Source)

If so, could you repost your graph with only the Before line selected?

 

[Sal1950]

What's Your Favorite House Curve?

Something like this would be just perfect!!!

 

[Rednaxela]

Lovely, but where's the house?

 

[thewas]

Lovely, but where's the house?

The house is usually gone after an affair with such...