Thanks for the lengthy reply.@Cosmik I don't think so. Actually, I am in agreement with @Floyd Toole Let's see if I can summarise and show where there might be a difference or two.
- start with a loudspeaker that measures well in an anechoic environment - I am certainly grateful for the spins and really wish many other speaker manufacturers would take this up. This is the crux of the problem. The simple reality is that the (vast) majority of speakers are not well designed.
- it helps if the off axis response is similar to the on-axis response. I use constant directivity waveguides. I think Dr. Toole, Dr. Olive at Harman have done a wonderful job with the spinorama system and subjective listening tests, with the ability to predict a good sounding loudspeaker based on the anechoic data.
- below Schroeder the room comes into play and could use some assistance. Harman and several other vendors offer hardware and software solutions to assist. Some do it better than others.
- time alignment/time domain correction - I wish there was more research performed in this area. In my limited subjective listening experiments in-room, I can create a filter that has identical frequency response, but one filter is time domain corrected and the other not. In a controlled experiment, I can hear a subtle difference and reference that in my latest article on CA. I am humble enough to admit that I could be "hearing things" and hence would love to see more research. But my results seem to correlate with others that have performed similar experiments. Also note all of my experiments are using linear phase digital XO's. There are no passive XO's in the experiments I performed.
- eq above Shroeder. This is a possible area of divergence. As Dr. Toole points out, a well designed loudspeaker should not require eq above Schroeder. If I had Salon2's or JBL M2's in my living room, it is quite likely that I would not use any eq, based on the spins I have seen. But this is the crux of the issue Cosmik. Really well designed loudspeakers like the Revel's and JBL's and likely the D&D 8C's are far and few between. The vast majority are not well designed. Some have horrible off-axis response (i.e. uneven directivity) and for sure eq can't fix that. That's why I use constant directivity waveguides. Poorly designed passive XO's that produce lobing, again can't be fixed with eq. Hence why I use linear phase digital XO's.
But here is the biggy - the vast majority of speakers to my ears are (way) too bright sounding and directly correlates to the in-room steady state measurements I have taken. One typical example is the Dynaudio 600 XD's If you look you can see the in-room measurement compared to my reference is some 5 dB hotter from about 3 kHz on up. Way too bright for my ears. In fact, I can't even listen to it. So what to do? Unfortunately, shelving tone controls don't work as what one needs is a tilting tone control. And if there were such a thing, I could probably be happy. But since I am already using DSP to assist below Schroeder, I might as well use it for a tilting tone control. Which is what it is doing above Schroeder as it is mostly the direct sound that is being eq'd. In combination with linear phase digital XO's and constant directivity waveguides, the off axis response is almost identical as the on-axis response. I show that in detail my book.
Cosmik, you can pick this apart, but I hope you can see that while the approach is different, the end result is similar. I can't afford Salon 2's or M2's at the moment, but I can afford some sophisticated DSP that assists in smoothing out the bottom end and eq's the tonal response (i.e. direct sound timbre) to something that I prefer without having my ears ripped off from too much high frequency energy. As mentioned, I am hopeful that other speaker manufacturers start leveraging the great research from Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive and start producing better sounding speakers.
I would like to know your justification for saying this. I agree with it totally, but find it very hard to persuade anybody else that it is true!...a well designed loudspeaker should not require eq above Schroeder
My first attempt at speaker building indeed had this characteristic - I was naively considering only the on-axis anechoic response and the speaker didn't have perfect dispersion characteristics. Extremely detailed, but horrible to listen to after a while....the vast majority of speakers to my ears are (way) too bright sounding
Dr. Toole, I believe, recommended about 500Hz, and, as we know, he has excellent speakers. But, some experimentation and subjective listening are highly recommended, as with any attempts at EQ.So if I decide to set Audyssey editor to not eq above X freq, where would you guys recommend I set it then, around 200 khz?
So if I decide to set Audyssey editor to not eq above X freq, where would you guys recommend I set it then, around 200 khz?
Thanks for the response guys, just pickin your brains for ideas.
Yup. Good, except it's pretty much a done deal theoretically that if you are going to EQ full range - above Schroeder - the gently downward sloping curve with a bit more slope above 15K is the one to use in far field listening. The flat curve is only for near field listening in theory. But, by all means experiment to find the slopes you subjectively prefer across a wide range of recordings.Thanks for the response guys, just pickin your brains for ideas. It's easy enough for me to change, there's just a slider in the new Audyssey Editor app that I can put anywhere I like and reload the file to the Pre/pro. Guess I just need to try a few different points and listen. From reading thru this thread it seems more a subjective preference between ending DSP somewhere in the Shroeder area or having the slowly desending curve vs flat.
Yes it is individually switchable on all channels.And, hopefully, the new Audyssey editor will let you remove that damned midrange dip of theirs. I believe that dip may be there even in their "flat" or sometimes grossly misnamed "music" setting, unless it is explicitly removed. However, if for whatever reason you prefer that, leave it in.
Good luck. The Audyssey calibration is easy enough. It's the followup measurement that is going to be messy.Yes it is individually switchable on all channels.
Messing with this stuff and then trying to use REW to measure results makes my head spin with the multi channel rig. It's all so easy with plain ole stereo comparatively.![]()
Yep, with multch it's some type of crap shoot on how you want the the processor to handle the REW sweep signal? There are literally a mountain of different ways you could approach it.Good luck. The Audyssey calibration is easy enough. It's the followup measurement that is going to be messy.
I admit, I don't use REW or do followup measurements. I just listen and vary the filter calculations, choosing by ear with music over time.
I've got no idea. Not possible calculate for a single point measurement, but can let it do the final calculations at any time after 3. I wonder how different from a single point the final curve would be if you just left the mic in the MLP for the 3 runs and then ran the calculation?And, as we have discussed before, there is an inherent mismatch between the multipoint Audyssey calibration and measurement vs. any single point measurement post-calibration. Which is right?
Can't seem to shut off Audyssey and still have subs active.Show an uncorrected sweep and maybe that will yield a clue...
I think one just goes totally with the calibration tool's philosophy - single point or multipoint and stops right there. Mixing the two, as in multipoint calibration with single point post measurement, may risk spurious or unnecessary questions and complications trying to reconcile the two. Believe me, I have followed many Audyssey forums that got lost in doing exactly that. Doing so takes you down the road of assuming the single point measurements are "right" and the multipoint measurements are "wrong". Depending on circumstances and assumptions, both are compromises based only on a limited sample of room issues and neither is right or wrong. And, room EQ is no panacea. It might not solve all measured problems. It seeks improvement, not perfection.Options, are they a blessing or a curse?
Yep, with multch it's some type of crap shoot on how you want the the processor to handle the REW sweep signal? There are literally a mountain of different ways you could approach it.
I believe you may be right to just use the ear and preference. Possible is to maybe just REW measure with processor set to "stereo", the DSP and bass management active. Then tweak Audyssey for the desired curve multch wide?
I've got no idea. Not possible calculate for a single point measurement, but can let it do the final calculations at any time after 3. I wonder how different from a single point the final curve would be if you just left the mic in the MLP for the 3 runs and then ran the calculation?
Just tooo much to think about and time to spend.
I'm not the kind that finds this fun.
Maybe Ray would be interested in a nice steak dinner?
Thanks Fitz
There should be a way to just turn Audyssey off leaving Bass Management on. I have not seen it otherwise. You also need that for any comparative listening.Can't seem to shut off Audyssey and still have subs active.
This is the current active curve.
View attachment 12700
So if I decide to set Audyssey editor to not eq above X freq, where would you guys recommend I set it then, around 200 khz?
And, as we have discussed before, there is an inherent mismatch between the multipoint Audyssey calibration and measurement vs. any single point measurement post-calibration.
Yes, that only makes sense.I think one just goes totally with the calibration tool's philosophy - single point or multipoint and stops right there.
I burned out on it 25+ years ago when I first started adding subwoofing to my rig using crude SPL meter methods only. Never fooled much with the last processor and the older XT software, just basicly ran the wizard and was done with it since there wasn't much you could tinker with anyhow. Now got this new kit with XT32 and the add-on Editor software and got suckered back in. LOL I can only fool around for an afternoon, then I have to walk away for a couple days before I look at it again.The novelty of tweaking the tool gradually lost interest for me. I became more interested spending my time in just listening to music