• 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!

What is your favorite house curve

holbob

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
291
Likes
514
Location
Lincoln, UK
it certainly won't be audible, and if you move the mic 1cm either side the result past the transition frequency will be different anyway.

EDIT you were talking about anechoic measurements, apologies.
 

Tim Link

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
777
Likes
661
Location
Eugene, OR
Choice of a house curve is important because if one is going to equalize there has to be a base to equalize to. One must also consider how much. Is 1 dB the minimum deviation allowed, or 2 dB? How much smoothing should be used? I use 2 dB and psychoacoustic smoothing. For many around here that isn't enough. Some of the equalization coefficients proposed to increase a loudspeaker's preference score to the maximum leave me wondering if there is such a thing as too much. There are many adjustments of under 1 dB with a Q as high as 12. Could that cause ringing and distortion?
2 dB and psychoacoustic smoothing seems about right to me. However, it depends also on whether it's a fairly narrow bump or dip, or a rather wide one. A 1 dB change can make a meaningful perceptual difference for me if it covers a few octaves. I don't have hard and fast rules. I use general rules like 2 dB and psychoacoustic, and then hope I like what I hear. If I don't, I hunt and peck settings until I'm happier.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,246
Likes
9,378
2 dB and psychoacoustic smoothing seems about right to me. However, it depends also on whether it's a fairly narrow bump or dip, or a rather wide one. A 1 dB change can make a meaningful perceptual difference for me if it covers a few octaves. I don't have hard and fast rules. I use general rules like 2 dB and psychoacoustic, and then hope I like what I hear. If I don't, I hunt and peck settings until I'm happier.
Yeah, I do things like that too.
 

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
2,852
Likes
3,048
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
I thought I was clear enough: I aligned the speakers by putting their acoustic centres at the same distance from the centre of my head in the listening position. Alignment can be done with delays in DSPs and positioning the speakers at any precision you want, even microseconds. However let me say that 0.1ms is just 3.4 cm in space, so it's nice to have but a little overkill, considering that your head will hopefully move a little, when you're on the sofa listening to your favourite music or enjoying your favourite movie.



There are plenty of ways to do that. Having had the chance to look a bit deeper in how you made it, yes, this is one. I guess another one could be using REW to play a swept sinusoidal tone covering the exact band of the speaker under test, then see the corresponding impulse transformate, from which getting to the delay information is a breeze (albeit I give you a point: I would not be able to tell the accuracy due to my fading memories in math). In such case of course the swept tone should be played with the option to first playing a high pitch tone from the tweeter, to set the reference "0" for timing, just as you have made. Such option is already included in REW.


My speakers (Neumann KH310A) are active type studio monitors. Each driver has its own amp inside, and I am assuming that the manufacturer has already included time delays in the amps to time-align them. Ok, given that these speakers have no DSP inside, there is indeed a chanche that this assumption is wrong. However in any case there's not much I can do to improve the time alignment if I discovered that it is bad, considering that there's a single common analog input on the box and for sure I'm not going to open the speakers and pull out the 3 individual inputs. Yes, I could check the time alignment of the 3 drivers, for instance with your method, but for the reason I just explained, I don't see much point in even bothering.


Yes, I see your point regarding the need to check the time alignment of the subs with the main speakers by measurements, so I'll make some when I'll be back from the vacations. However the only thing I could do to adjust the relative timing from subs to mains is moving the subs back and forth, because the XO circuit from subs to mains is inside the subs, and there's no option for time delay/group delay compensation, but only a variable phase compensation. I guess everything is done by the automated MA-1 calibration software, considering that it acts on the DSP parameters inside the subs (so setting a delay/performing group delay compensation, is possible), and that such software is also specifically designed for dealing with that model of main speakers connected. I agree however that the use of MA-1 calibration suite limits the freedom of what can be done manually. Neverthess, it beats any manual EQ I managed to apply so far.


So If I understand well what you mean for validated, you can demonstrate that you can reach time accuracy of 0.1 ms in your measurements. Fair well...


EDIT: some typos / some rewording

Hello @onununo,

I really thank you for your precious time and great efforts in answering/replying my inquiries so in-detail. I fully understood your points and appreciate them.

I believe I dare should not further bother you on this thread. And I do believe and hope our rather intensive discussion and info-exchange would be worthwhile references for people visiting this thread.

All the good lucks in your progress with your audio system, thank you again, with my best regards,

dualazmak
 
Last edited:

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
2,852
Likes
3,048
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
Hello friends,

A little bit to be out of the scope of this thread, but for your possible reference (and interests), I just posted on my project thread;
- Reproduction and listening/hearing/feeling sensations to 16 Hz (organ) sound with my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo audio system having big-heavy active L&R sub-woofers: #782
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,309
Likes
1,476
@Chipless here is the corrected target responses:

View attachment 12646

How would one create the B&K target in Acorate's target designer? Interesting that none of the included B&K targets in DRC-FIR look like that.

The OliveToole target seems to be just a line from 20 to 20 kHz with a -1 dB/octave slope (20 Hz to 20 kHz just works out to about 9.97 octaves). Much simpler than the bass hump, then inflection point, then further tilt down to 20 kHz I see in some figures reproduced here, e.g.


But I think that is meant to show an envelope of preferred targets, not an actual suggested target.

BTW, I call the "Flat to 1kHz..." target the Katz target, based on the description in your book.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,836
How would one create the B&K target in Acorate's target designer? Interesting that none of the included B&K targets in DRC-FIR look like that.

The OliveToole target seems to be just a line from 20 to 20 kHz with a -1 dB/octave slope (20 Hz to 20 kHz just works out to about 9.97 octaves). Much simpler than the bass hump, then inflection point, then further tilt down to 20 kHz I see in some figures reproduced here, e.g.


But I think that is meant to show an envelope of preferred targets, not an actual suggested target.

BTW, I call the "Flat to 1kHz..." target the Katz target, based on the description in your book.
Correct. Harman is not a target, but the result of a controlled study showing what the average listener prefers. As it is with averages, there are deviations and therefore the individual might differ widely.

Therefore when adjusting your system, use the Harman curve as a starting (not an end point) and adjust it to your individual preferences in your room and with your system. The result is then a curve, which is very individual to you and not generally applicable to other users.

Remember, the Harman curve was derived with the intention to figure out how to design a speaker so the majority would like and therefore buy it and not to tell listeners what they „have to like“. This is often confused and therefore leading to elaborate arguments.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,206
Likes
16,950
Location
Central Fl
One of my favorite all time "house curves" was Jolene Blalock of Star Trek Enterprise!
TPol-Star-Trek-TNG-Blalock.jpg
31nA94lptgL.jpg
 

Rednaxela

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 30, 2022
Messages
2,135
Likes
2,767
Location
NL
Click for more:




:)
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,213
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
One of my favorite all time "house curves" was Jolene Blalock of Star Trek Enterprise!
TPol-Star-Trek-TNG-Blalock.jpg
31nA94lptgL.jpg
Those are the best curves in this thread.
 

digitalfrost

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,540
Likes
3,167
Location
Palatinate, Germany
Is there a place to download some of these curves?


 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,339
Likes
1,485
Last edited:

StigErik

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
298
Likes
428
Location
Norway
I like it soft in the middle, with a big round firm bottom. A top end that is quite analytical but not too bright will also suit me..... ;)
 

Jorgitok

Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
12
I would appreciate any comments to help me understand why this solution outperforms those provided by Dirac or the use of Harman curves. This particular approach brings my system to life in comparison to others that sound dull. Thanks
 

Attachments

  • Curve that makes system come alive.png
    Curve that makes system come alive.png
    836.2 KB · Views: 75
  • Dirac Standard Solution.png
    Dirac Standard Solution.png
    825.5 KB · Views: 76
  • Dirac solution without shelfs.png
    Dirac solution without shelfs.png
    831.5 KB · Views: 75
D

Deleted member 48726

Guest
I would appreciate any comments to help me understand why this solution outperforms those provided by Dirac or the use of Harman curves. This particular approach brings my system to life in comparison to others that sound dull. Thanks
The first one from the left is boosting across the entire spectrum. So naturally the volume would be higher using this curve.
The third one is the same curve as the first but not boosted. -->Lower volume
The middle one is missing much of the mid-bass and lower midrange compared to the other two. It is essentially a flat EQ with bass boost which will sound "bright".

You would probably find that the first and the third curve will sound the same with the same volume settings.
That's my rough take on your experience.
 

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,249
Likes
5,037
I think Holdt is right, your preferred "curve" is ~5dB or more louder overall, than the other two.

Up to the point that music starts to get uncomfortably loud, we generally have a preference for higher volume.
 
Top Bottom