What is your favorite house curve

[dlaloum]

My reading of the best way to do this...

1) Use the RoomEQ software to sort out issues below 500Hz
2) Look for the anechoic F/R of your speakers and for frequencies above 500Hz, adjust minimally - mostly adjust surrounds/heights to match "tone" of mains (if C is not same as L/R there may need to be some Tonal adjustment to the C speaker as well)
3) Apply overall Bass/Treble equivalent adjustment "to taste"

So where does this leave "Target Room Curves" ?!?

Well, room curves are an outcome.... if we assume that we like our main speakers and their voicing/tone.... then the default measured room response for the mains should be the target curve

If we have anechoic measurements (ie direct sound, without reflected room additions) for the mains - then we can correct for any "flaws" (with a light hand!!!) - but given the current tools mostly provide us with a "steady state" F/R ... ie: the Room Curve - then adjustments should be treated with extreme caution.

All of this mostly because our psycho-acoustic system, seperates out the early arriving sound (direct / anechoic) from the late arriving reflections - whereas the F/R charts provided by the software DON'T - and therefore tweaking that end result curve, results in unpredictable results in subjective quality terms.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Favorite house curve?
Who can live with just one.....???

My real-time house curve controller
View attachment 263174

What program is this?

I find that after many hours of experimenting with Dirac I don't even switch profiles anymore. I've found the EQ settings that suits 95 % of the music I listen to at low to moderate volume. If I want to listen at really high volume I dial the sub back two clicks. That's about the most tweaking I've done in a while.

 

[Newman]

So where does this leave "Target Room Curves" ?!?

IMO it makes Dirac's pricing policy of charging a (very large) additional fee for an 'upgrade' from 20-500Hz to 20-20,000 Hz look worse than a mere ripoff, more like an actual sucker punch.

"Cough up for the deluxe premium version (secretly we know it makes your system sound worse if it's any good to start with)."

 

[dlaloum]

IMO it makes Dirac's pricing policy of charging a (very large) additional fee for an 'upgrade' from 20-500Hz to 20-20,000 Hz look worse than a mere ripoff, more like an actual sucker punch.

"Cough up for the deluxe premium version (secretly we know it makes your system sound worse if it's any good to start with)."

On the other hand, if you, like many of us (including me) have surrounds that aren't matched to your mains.... then you need to use Dirac or some other similar EQ system to tonally match the speakers up.

And of course, that requires full frequency range adjustment.

If on the other hand all your speakers are tonally matched .... then the limited range EQ system will probably be more than ample!

(Note: the biggest difference I found with Dirac was in the midrange clarity.... I suspect that I would not have gained as much benefit from a limited FR version)

 

[dualazmak]

Favorite house curve?
Who can live with just one.....???

My real-time house curve controller
View attachment 263174

Hello again, gnarly,

I fully agree with you. As you know well, I have similar 5-way relative gain flexibility in DSP EKIO and DAC8PRO as well as in four integrated amps and active sub-woofer! In my case, the on-the-fly flexible fine control/adjustment using the four integrated amps would be most safe and convenient.

Please refer to here and here for the details including possible flexible compensation of age-dependent slight hearing decline in high Fq zone.

 

[dualazmak]

I would take objection to the view that all music is created equal and then move over to sound reproduction. I can see from your book and other comments that you like symphonic music played in good music halls. Instruments for classical music, like violins, radiate a lot of their sound upwards. Unless one sits in venues like the Elbphilharmonie and others, one gets a low portion of direct sound a lot of indirect sound. To this day it is a miracle to me how this is reproduced faithfully with a frontal two speaker system. But this is not my music so I skip it (or listen to it on an x.y.4 system).
My favorite is instrumental jazz in small venues without amplification. Direct sound from trumpets mixes with half direct waves from a saxophone and the upward radiating piano and else. Sitting in row 10 and taking out an Iphone with an FFT app I see a beautiful downward sloping “house curve”. This is often spoiled by “sound engineers” that want to squeeze the assemble through two speakers. This is worst than listening to music in a cassette player. The speakers throw flat direct sound at me that halfway mixes with the indirect soundstage. I wonder if those engineers are responsible for recordings too - what an outlook!
Hence, recreating the said original soundstage’s sloping curve in my house with a designed full frequency house curve might be a good idea. Most Rock music originates from speakers only, throwing direct sound around, again I have no idea how this should be treated at home. And then there is acoustic pop music a la Norah Jones that is similar to my jazz stage example. Wanting to say: It depends. Full frequency room eq recreating a jazz stage atmosphere of a 300 m2 room in my 30m2 hard walled home with art on the walls instead of foam might be not as bad an idea after all.

Partly (and almost generally), I agree with you like I wrote here for orchestral music representation.

I assume you would kindly agree with me that we always need our own consistent "sampler/reference music playlist" consists of various music from multiple genre for flexible tuning of our audio system depending on the "nature/characteristics" genre style of the music, and of course depending on our personal preferences.

Just for your reference, I always keep and use such "sampler/reference music playlist" of excellent recording quality as summarized in my post here and here.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

Partly (and almost generally), I agree with you like I wrote here for orchestral music representation.

I assume you would kindly agree with me that we always need our own consistent "sampler/reference music playlist" consists of various music from multiple genre for flexible tuning of our audio system depending on the "nature/characteristics" genre style of the music, and of course depending on our personal preferences.

Just for your reference, I always keep and use such "sampler/reference music playlist" of excellent recording quality as summarized in my post here and here.

I personally have no need to adjust my system to all kind of music. I am more „concerned“ that a great body of excellent audio work is done with symphonic music in mind and that jazz and rock have their own specifics. The difference between the amount of direct sound that a violin and a trumpet emits is simply enormous. And if the ground truth is an amplified assemble on a stage then I am not sure at what I should be aiming at for my system setup.
Musicians do not have that problem as they focus on the music whose sound they augment with their experience and hence need no HiFi systems for enjoying music. We lesser mortals try to get that music experience from two loudspeakers.

 

[dualazmak]

I personally have no need to adjust my system to all kind of music. I am more „concerned“ that a great body of excellent audio work is done with symphonic music in mind and that jazz and rock have their own specifics. The difference between the amount of direct sound that a violin and a trumpet emits is simply enormous. And if the ground truth is an amplified assemble on a stage then I am not sure at what I should be aiming at for my system setup.
Musicians do not have that problem as they focus on the music whose sound they augment with their experience and hence need no HiFi systems for enjoying music. We lesser mortals try to get that music experience from two loudspeakers.

OK, I well understand your point.

At least in my case, since I enjoy mainly classical music (from lute solo to full orchestra symphonies) and European jazz trio (piano, bass, drums; sometimes with solo of vocal, trumpet, sax, violin, etc.), I need (and I enjoy) flexible on-the-fly relative gain control as shared here.

Using my "sampler/reference music playlist", I have almost memorized my best tuning configuration (relative gain control) in my present setup depending on gerne and style of music; the fine tuning is always within plus/minus 3 dB range from my "standard" configuration, though.

 

[gnarly]

What program is this?

I find that after many hours of experimenting with Dirac I don't even switch profiles anymore. I've found the EQ settings that suits 95 % of the music I listen to at low to moderate volume. If I want to listen at really high volume I dial the sub back two clicks. That's about the most tweaking I've done in a while.

It's a remote control screen for Q-Sys, which is an open architecture processing platform.
Which means you design a schematic in terms of number of I/O channels, and what you want to do with them, and load the schematic into a piece of Linux hardware.
And then design a remote with any of the various control parameters to put on a laptop or IOS device. Control parameters (like levels, para/shelving EQs etc, along with presets, meters, or really whatever.) It's cool stuff...way of the future i think...

I listen to widely varying genres, at widely varying SPL levels. There is definitely a central "house curve" that makes for a decent 'set it and leave it compromise'.
But bass (subwoofer) is the biggest issue for me...just waay too much variance in recordings...I honestly will not accept a lack of real-time bass control anymore.
Also it's fun to make tracks really come alive beyond any memory of them, when i take a little time to adjust them with the remote screen I posted.

 

[gnarly]

Hello again, gnarly,

I fully agree with you. As you know well, I have similar 5-way relative gain flexibility in DSP EKIO and DAC8PRO as well as in four integrated amps and active sub-woofer! In my case, the on-the-fly flexible fine control/adjustment using the four integrated amps would be most safe and convenient.

Hi dualazmak,

Yep, our method of achieving desired tonality, by having the real-time ability to adjust levels to driver sections themselves, isn't seen too often.
Sometimes I think it's probably overkill though...as I could probably be happy with just easy to use high and low shelving.
I keep separate driver section controls mainly because I experiment with different xover topologies, and FIR files a lot.

 

[goat76]

My favorite is instrumental jazz in small venues without amplification. Direct sound from trumpets mixes with half direct waves from a saxophone and the upward radiating piano and else. Sitting in row 10 and taking out an Iphone with an FFT app I see a beautiful downward sloping “house curve”. This is often spoiled by “sound engineers” that want to squeeze the assemble through two speakers. This is worst than listening to music in a cassette player. The speakers throw flat direct sound at me that halfway mixes with the indirect soundstage. I wonder if those engineers are responsible for recordings too - what an outlook!
Hence, recreating the said original soundstage’s sloping curve in my house with a designed full frequency house curve might be a good idea. Most Rock music originates from speakers only, throwing direct sound around, again I have no idea how this should be treated at home. And then there is acoustic pop music a la Norah Jones that is similar to my jazz stage example. Wanting to say: It depends. Full frequency room eq recreating a jazz stage atmosphere of a 300 m2 room in my 30m2 hard walled home with art on the walls instead of foam might be not as bad an idea after all.

By reading what you wrote it seems to me that you may have misunderstood some things about "direct sound". You seem to confuse the recorded direct sound with the reproduced direct sound from your speakers.



Let's say we have a trumpet player and a saxophone player who are playing together in a venue, and we have managed to make a good recording of them that captured both of their instruments with the use of two microphones set up in an XY stereo configuration in front of them (at a distance that favors them both in a somewhat equally good way).

In this recording, we have now captured the different characteristics of how both of those two instruments radiate the sound differently in the venue, and we have also managed to capture the more distinct sounding direct sound of the trumpet and the more diffuse direct sound of the saxophone, which in turn gives us a good representation of how both of the instruments sound from a single listening position in front of them (including the angle to both instruments from this position).

Now when the recording is done it contains every sounding cue that is needed, this includes both how those two instruments radiate the sound and how their direct sound is heard from the listening position/the position of the two microphones at the venue. And here comes the important part: All those cues are now part of/included/"baked into" the direct signal (the direct sound) of the stereo recording, so the only thing you need to be concerned about at your end of the chain is that your speakers reproduce the direct sound in a faithful way, in a way that gives you a clear view into the stereo illusion that contains all those sound cues of the instruments and the venue in the recording.

Altering the sound with the goal of a "beautiful downward sloping house curve” will hardly help to recreate a jazz stage of a 300 m2 room, if that information wasn't in the recording, to begin with.

 

[Robbo99999]

I think he should rewrite the summary to fit on a t-shirt.

Upside-down on the front so you can read it & the correct way up on the back to spread the good word!

 

[Count Arthur]

At the desk:

I tried it with a slope, but I prefer it flat - it stops my pen rolling off.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

By reading what you wrote it seems to me that you may have misunderstood some things about "direct sound". You seem to confuse the recorded direct sound with the reproduced direct sound from your speakers.



Let's say we have a trumpet player and a saxophone player who are playing together in a venue, and we have managed to make a good recording of them that captured both of their instruments with the use of two microphones set up in an XY stereo configuration in front of them (at a distance that favors them both in a somewhat equally good way).

In this recording, we have now captured the different characteristics of how both of those two instruments radiate the sound differently in the venue, and we have also managed to capture the more distinct sounding direct sound of the trumpet and the more diffuse direct sound of the saxophone, which in turn gives us a good representation of how both of the instruments sound from a single listening position in front of them (including the angle to both instruments from this position).

Now when the recording is done it contains every sounding cue that is needed, this includes both how those two instruments radiate the sound and how their direct sound is heard from the listening position/the position of the two microphones at the venue. And here comes the important part: All those cues are now part of/included/"baked into" the direct signal (the direct sound) of the stereo recording, so the only thing you need to be concerned about at your end of the chain is that your speakers reproduce the direct sound in a faithful way, in a way that gives you a clear view into the stereo illusion that contains all those sound cues of the instruments and the venue in the recording.

Altering the sound with the goal of a "beautiful downward sloping house curve” will hardly help to recreate a jazz stage of a 300 m2 room, if that information wasn't in the recording, to begin with.

Thanks for good explanation. Yes, direct sound and reflections are baked into that stereo signal. And now the reflections from my room are added The result is s sound reproduction that is very fragile as small changes in the reflected sound will change the soundstage. The typical Stereo thing will happen where we listen to an underdetermined system. Change the cable, the humidity, the light color - the sound will change. I agree, room eq will help little. Enter Mch. Record direct and reflected waves with many mics and for a 7.x.4 system. And then use room eq. I am wandering strongly off topic, but meant to say that room EQ combined and Mch is the way to go. Stereo is like vinyl: An expensive illusion.

 

[goat76]

Thanks for good explanation. Yes, direct sound and reflections are baked into that stereo signal. And now the reflections from my room are added The result is s sound reproduction that is very fragile as small changes in the reflected sound will change the soundstage. The typical Stereo thing will happen where we listen to an underdetermined system. Change the cable, the humidity, the light color - the sound will change. I agree, room eq will help little. Enter Mch. Record direct and reflected waves with many mics and for a 7.x.4 system. And then use room eq. I am wandering strongly off topic, but meant to say that room EQ combined and Mch is the way to go. Stereo is like vinyl: An expensive illusion.

But still, two speakers in stereo are enough to separate the reflections from the direct sound in the recordings, it’s not like everything comes from the same spot or the position of the two speakers. There’s a full spectrum of sounds between those two sound sources that create the phantom image and stereo illusion, and depending on different distances to the recorded sound objects in the mix you will also get a sense of depth.

Even with multichannel systems most sounds in the mixes will also rely on phantom images just like in stereo reproduction, the illusion of the sounds coming from positions between the actual physical positions of the speakers will be the same. The only difference is that the sound engineer now has a better chance of creating a more enveloping sound, but we are still in the hands of how they manage to mix this in a convincing way (hopefully without going overboard with strange effects and such, which will probably be tempting for many of them to do).



And one more thing and sorry for the "lecturing approach", but I don't know how I can explain it in another way...

Direct sound can never be “thrown around” as you described it in your earlier post, that would make it a reflective sound.
Direct sound is the sound that has the shortest traveling way from the sound source to the listener's ears (as long as there's no large physical object blocking the way). It got nothing to do with which direction the sound source is pointing at, so even if a speaker cab for an electric guitar is not pointing right at you, you still receive the direct sound from it even though it may sound less distinct not standing right in front of it.

But with that said, I do think I understand what you don't like with many recordings and how they are mixed. When every single sound object in the mix is recorded individually to capture them in the "best" possible way on their own, without a "plan" of how they will end up sounding smashed together in the final mix, the natural sound of how a listener otherwise would have heard the ensemble from a single listening position is now most likely lost.

 

[Newman]

Even with multichannel systems most sounds in the mixes will also rely on phantom images just like in stereo reproduction

The very big difference being that the stereo phantom centre often is where the bulk of the critical singing or highlighted solo instruments are placed, and the frequency response errors from interaural effects are far more noticeable and critical than any multichannel phantom images.

Also, your comment from some posts back, that direct (first arrival) sound from speakers is really the only thing that needs to be right, is way off. It is determined from listening experiments that speakers that get the direct and off-axis sound right will be preferred to speakers that only get the direct sound right.

sorry for the "lecturing approach", but I don't know how I can explain it in another way...

 

[goat76]

The very big difference being that the stereo phantom centre often is where the bulk of the critical singing or highlighted solo instruments are placed, and the frequency response errors from interaural effects are far more noticeable and critical than any multichannel phantom images.

Also, your comment from some posts back, that direct (first arrival) sound from speakers is really the only thing that needs to be right, is way off. It is determined from listening experiments that speakers that get the direct and off-axis sound right will be preferred to speakers that only get the direct sound right.

sorry for the "lecturing approach", but I don't know how I can explain it in another way...

Yes, everything comes with an “if”, “when”, and “how”. We must generalize when we talk about general things, if we put in a description of every possible deviation our replies will fill up a full page.

I’m fully aware of the potential good things that come with multi-channel mixing, but most of the sounds on those mixes will still be phantom sounds, even though they have the potential to be less cramped in the mix.

Anyway, thank you for the “lecturing”!

 

[JoachimStrobel]

Yes, everything comes with an “if”, “when”, and “how”. We must generalize when we talk about general things, if we put in a description of every possible deviation our replies will fill up a full page.

I’m fully aware of the potential good things that come with multi-channel mixing, but most of the sounds on those mixes will still be phantom sounds, even though they have the potential to be less cramped in the mix.

Anyway, thank you for the “lecturing”!

I believe there are two routes open for Mch. It can try and reproduce a concert hall or jazz venue a bit better by adding reverb and potentially create well defined phantom stages instead of illusions. Or - it will not try to recreate a soundstage or a traditional concert at all. But rather places all instruments around the listener. No more early reflections but “direct” sound blasting from all sides into the listeners ears. Hence a complete different experience. ( And then of course the “cheap” pseudo effects. Well, if they succeed separating instruments from being squeezed into two speakers but into 5 or more then I will like it because I can more easily identify those instruments. )

 

[aarons915]

No, the brain to process the sound received by the two mics is missing. Using a dummy head mic still sums the direct and all reflected sounds without regard to the direction or time of arrival. Our binaural hearing system pays attention to these differences. Consequently, "room curves" exhibit detailed up-and-down variations caused by acoustical interference that look alarming - and many systems equalize them. However, doing so screws up the direct sound - which is the key factor. You cannot avoid starting with a well designed loudspeaker, or one that is equalized based on anechoic data. Beyond that, above about 500 Hz, one can experiment with broadband "tone control" kinds of EQ, but remember that if this is done "by ear", the program peculiarities are included and these are not constant.

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:

 

[ernestcarl]

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

Q of 15 seems rather very narrow here. Try applying frequency dependent window with 6 cycles and look at the spectrograms and spectral decay as well. If it’s caused SBIR measuring elsewhere in the room will tell you that you probably shouldn’t try to “flatten” it too much, if at all.