Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
Thanks for the ideas and experience. I downloaded the spread sheet from JBL that is also used in the book. Unfortunately it assumes a square room. I am installing a system for my patients, its rectangular but has a shot hallway and opening to another large room as well as a lot of glass on one side and a bit on the back. Listening to tones, as well as some measured frequency sweeps, already suggest to me that acoustically it's far from a perfect rectangle. I read Gene DellaSala's article about the miniDSP he used with his sub-woofers. I also read that the RCA version has a level drop that needs to be compensated for and can reduce headroom. Not sure if the XLR version also suffers from that; if not perhaps it would be better to drive the XLR version in unbalanced mode to bet better headroom? I am a little sketchy on the details because I only noted it in passing.

In reading Pogre's comments, and thinking about my situation too, I am wondering how much I can learn about the room by making some measurements with one sub-woofer driving the a corner. In theory it should stimulate all modes of the room (to some degree) and hence the resonant modes become obvious through measurement (assuming the sub-woofer is not too close to the microphone)?

Greg.
A room is just a room, no matter how many others it is open to. The issue with bass is that the dimensions of the rooms and of boundaries like walls and ceilings is that they match the wavelength of bass frequencies being reproduced. That can cause excitation measured as peaks, or because of the wavelength it still leaves the listening position out of phase, in a null. But you have to first, predict your own room modes in order to make any sense out of an acoustic measurement.

Multiple subwoofer solutions are powerful but setting things like the delay on each one does take critical listening to set the delays just right. It's not just about cable length, but because a subwoofer is a pressure source, the layout of the room will affect how that pressure builds, changing the time it takes for one subwoofers pressure to rattle your ear drum, with sound from another sub arriving just after it. Drums should be tight, how critical you are will allow for that. The room determines what you can hear, when, and where!

DSP comes after placement has been optimized, and for subs, I'd just use a standard 2x4. If this is a big room and you're trying to satisfy multiple listener's, the best performance will come from a multi sub solution. So I'd start there, and even look for subs like some SVS that have a few bands of EQ that can be set from the sub. The two bands available on my subs are helpful, and made a noticeable improvement after I programmed them in the way I am recommending above to Pogre.

(please forgive the bold type, trying to make it easier for anyone to skim through!)
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
I need something I can draw my room up with! @TheWarrior, I still don't see how we can have any real accuracy with the craziness in my room. I have very short distances of parallel walls as far as the length of my room goes. And width, from front to back, the back wall has a pantry that juts out 3' and the fridge beside it. So the back wall runs parallel with the front wall, but it's not a flat wall. The hallway is after the archway opening and runs 90° off the side wall. Plus it doglegs.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Some quick and dirty pics of my room.

20170914_070944-1305x734.jpg

My back wall

20170914_070916-1305x734.jpg

Left side wall

20170914_070929-1305x734.jpg

Right side with archway and hallway.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
@Pogre

Awesome, the pics make this look easier than I was expecting. But that does not change the fact that you need to crunch some numbers.

You said vaulted ceiling, but that looks slanted? Low slope roof? That's quite beneficial as it eliminates the potential for a height axial mode in that space. And the ceiling would be fully insulated and pretty thick so you have built in damping for low frequencies. 2x6 construction? That is a solid room that could deliver extremely tight bass. I was concerned about only having two subs, from your description, but this has some potential.

The horizontal space across the TV is one width mode. The right hand entry brown wall to the left brown wall is another. I would also calculate the right brown to left orange doorway as that may or may not show in measurements. The trim-less brown door on the rear right also needs to be accounted for, left wall to end of that hall, and left wall to the right hand side of that right side hallway. Both sides of the kitchen closet would be good to know too.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
@Pogre

Awesome, the pics make this look easier than I was expecting. But that does not change the fact that you need to crunch some numbers.

You said vaulted ceiling, but that looks slanted? Low slope roof? That's quite beneficial as it eliminates the potential for a height axial mode in that space. And the ceiling would be fully insulated and pretty thick so you have built in damping for low frequencies. 2x6 construction? That is a solid room that could deliver extremely tight bass. I was concerned about only having two subs, from your description, but this has some potential.

The horizontal space across the TV is one width mode. The right hand entry brown wall to the left brown wall is another. I would also calculate the right brown to left orange doorway as that may or may not show in measurements. The trim-less brown door on the rear right also needs to be accounted for, left wall to end of that hall, and left wall to the right hand side of that right side hallway. Both sides of the kitchen closet would be good to know too.
:confused:

Lol. That's too much! I understand what you're saying and I get knowing my room modes would be helpful, but jeez. Too much measuring and too much math for me. I've gotten to a pretty damned flat response from 100hz down to 15hz just using spl measurements.

It's encouraging to hear that you think my room has a lot of potential because I can hear it. My recent adventure with a MiniDSP made some very big improvements. What will all this measuring and number crunching get me? Based on the adjustments and curves I'd say my room mode is around 70-90hz. Does that sound right? Applying filters in that region is hard to smooth out.

And hey, I'm just not trying to bust your balls. These are legitimate questions. I don't want to go through all that effort for just a little bit of gain, you know?
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Here are a couple shots of the ceiling.

20170914_091419-1305x734.jpg
20170914_091438-1305x734.jpg


From what I can understand, the way it slopes down toward my front stage is actually a good thing acoustically. Makes it pretty difficult to math up the ^3' in the room.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
Here are a couple shots of the ceiling.

View attachment 22297 View attachment 22299

From what I can understand, the way it slopes down toward my front stage is actually a good thing acoustically. Makes it pretty difficult to math up the ^3' in the room.
With the pics and now known construction of your space, you have the makings of really great sound, despite not having an easier to work with 'shoebox' enclosed space. If you're appreciating the work you've done already, then stick with it. But I have to point out that instead of taking what I've demonstrated with using miniDSP to treat known room modes, you've taken that technique to arbitrarily 'flatten' the response which is simply incorrect. And I'm guessing you're sensing that because it might not sound consistently good across a broad range of content, and why you are taking a lot of time to ask these questions. I've not once felt like you're busting my balls, BTW!

So take your time, to enjoy what you've got, or take the very specific advice I'm offering from what I have learned reading this book and apply it. You already know how to program a miniDSP and take high resolution measurements!
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
With the pics and now known construction of your space, you have the makings of really great sound, despite not having an easier to work with 'shoebox' enclosed space. If you're appreciating the work you've done already, then stick with it. But I have to point out that instead of taking what I've demonstrated with using miniDSP to treat known room modes, you've taken that technique to arbitrarily 'flatten' the response which is simply incorrect. And I'm guessing you're sensing that because it might not sound consistently good across a broad range of content, and why you are taking a lot of time to ask these questions. I've not once felt like you're busting my balls, BTW!

So take your time, to enjoy what you've got, or take the very specific advice I'm offering from what I have learned reading this book and apply it. You already know how to program a miniDSP and take high resolution measurements!
I really don't think my work was arbitrary... I not only have a much flatter response visually, it's like my system woke up. I can hear it and it's glorious! I was missing a lot of bass in the region I'm guessing that is my room mode. It's much improved now. There was everything I was missing. I'm really happy with what I have.

I'm asking questions because the way I read what you're saying is, what I've achieved through all my work must sound awful because I didn't take the time to measure very nook and cranny, then attempt all that math. If I'm going to do all of that, I'm going to have some very high expectations. I think that I've gotten very close to what can be achieved through doing all those physical space measurements with my method.

I'd sure hate to do all of what you suggest and there's no real gain from it. What would I do differently even if I could accurately measure everything?
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
I really don't think my work was arbitrary... I not only have a much flatter response visually, it's like my system woke up. I can hear it and it's glorious! I was missing a lot of bass in the region I'm guessing that is my room mode. It's much improved now. There was everything I was missing. I'm really happy with what I have.

I'm asking questions because the way I read what you're saying is, what I've achieved through all my work must sound awful because I didn't take the time to measure very nook and cranny, then attempt all that math. If I'm going to do all of that, I'm going to have some very high expectations. I think that I've gotten very close to what can be achieved through doing all those physical space measurements with my method.

I'd sure hate to do all of what you suggest and there's no real gain from it. What would I do differently even if I could accurately measure everything?
Bass reproduction in small rooms (yes even your open space) is a pretty exacting science. I am sure your system sounds great at some frequencies, but I would question your ability to hear everything 20-100 hz, accurately. You boosted the bass, so of course your system 'woke up'. But you're dealing with wavelengths much bigger than your room, so what an omni-directional mic hears is not what you hear.

Our hearing is not linear, so your choice to take what I demonstrated on correcting room induced problems to achieve a smooth line is very much arbitrary. Flat is not the goal 20-100hz, nor is it 20-20khz.

Accurate reproduction will measure however it measures in your room, as it will in mine. But the knowledge to treat frequencies above and below transition is a pretty tried and true practice, according to Floyd Toole.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
I would be curious if a full room mode analysis would really change where Pogre ended up with the settings he arrived at with his more empirical (just based on REW measurements) method. His room sweeps look friggin' fantastic.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Bass reproduction in small rooms (yes even your open space) is a pretty exacting science. I am sure your system sounds great at some frequencies, but I would question your ability to hear everything 20-100 hz, accurately. You boosted the bass, so of course your system 'woke up'. But you're dealing with wavelengths much bigger than your room, so what an omni-directional mic hears is not what you hear.

Our hearing is not linear, so your choice to take what I demonstrated on correcting room induced problems to achieve a smooth line is very much arbitrary. Flat is not the goal 20-100hz, nor is it 20-20khz.

Accurate reproduction will measure however it measures in your room, as it will in mine. But the knowledge to treat frequencies above and below transition is a pretty tried and true practice, according to Floyd Toole.
So what, exactly, should one of my graphs look like to hear a flat response? A mountain range? You keep implying that I just ran willy nilly fast and loose with adjustments and made a mess of everything. Have you heard my system?

I spent days taking measurements, tweaking things, remeasuring, repositioning speakers, rinse-repeat. I've tried different sets of filters to achieve a flat in-room response and got it down to where I make as few adjustments as possible, then run Audyssey. I also turned frequencies DOWN as well, btw. You also imply that I only turned things up

Come to think of it, you made an awful lot of assumptions about my method and results, Alex. I didn't just go in there blind and start bumping everything up. You have absolutely no clue what I'm hearing or not hearing. I'm telling you I'm hearing what I measure. I'm telling you I have accurate reproduction. You're just gonna have to take my word for it.

You tell me it's an exact science, but you haven't told me how to get an exact measurement for my room that will tell me anything meaningful. If it's an exact science I don't want to eyeball, guess or ignore cupboards, furniture, glass, slanted ceilings and everything else going on in my room. There's just too much to take into account. It's nearly impossible to get an exact measurement that would tell me anything meaningful and therefore a waste of time, imo. Let's assume by some miracle of technology and math I do get it exact. What then would do differently than I already did?

And on the subject of room modes. Assuming my subs measure flat anechoicly, but they're all over the place in my room, isn't every single peak and valley a room mode? Isn't all of it just room modes?
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
So what, exactly, should one of my graphs look like to hear a flat response? A mountain range? You keep implying that I just ran willy nilly fast and loose with adjustments and made a mess of everything. Have you heard my system?

I spent days taking measurements, tweaking things, remeasuring, repositioning speakers, rinse-repeat. I've tried different sets of filters to achieve a flat in-room response and got it down to where I make as few adjustments as possible, then run Audyssey. I also turned frequencies DOWN as well, btw. You also imply that I only turned things up

Come to think of it, you made an awful lot of assumptions about my method and results, Alex. I didn't just go in there blind and start bumping everything up. You have absolutely no clue what I'm hearing or not hearing. I'm telling you I'm hearing what I measure. I'm telling you I have accurate reproduction. You're just gonna have to take my word for it.

You tell me it's an exact science, but you haven't told me how to get an exact measurement for my room that will tell me anything meaningful. If it's an exact science I don't want to eyeball, guess or ignore cupboards, furniture, glass, slanted ceilings and everything else going on in my room. There's just too much to take into account. It's nearly impossible to get an exact measurement that would tell me anything meaningful and therefore a waste of time, imo. Let's assume by some miracle of technology and math I do get it exact. What then would do differently than I already did?

And on the subject of room modes. Assuming my subs measure flat anechoicly, but they're all over the place in my room, isn't every single peak and valley a room mode? Isn't all of it just room modes?
So anyway, there's this great book, that this thread is titled for, that can go in to much much deeper detail than I possibly can. As for making assumptions, I've had no choice. I've asked you in other threads to show what DSP inputs you made, and gone on and on about calculating the room modes. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But this book makes a pretty convincing argument for why you should. Check it out!
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
Here's a fairly detailed and concise overview done by @gene and peer reviewed Floyd Toole. Nowhere does it demand measuring every nook and cranny of your room. It's fairly easy to get a substantial understanding of your rom modes with a few different room measurements.

Bass Optimization for Home Theater with Multi-Sub + mDSP
You'll notice that it doesn't give any detailed information on programming the DSP. So where did you learn to program that DSP, I wonder?

Did you at least follow the advice to not boost anything more than 6 dB?

Did you notice that it never once mentions running Audyssey on top of miniDSP?

I'm glad you chimed in, because it is your room that allows to me say with confidence, flat doesn't necessarily sound accurate. I offered to help you personally with the exact filters for your room, based on the knowledge I gained from this book, to tune your room. You are fortunate enough to have a dedicated space, so unlike Pogre and I, you've only got a few modes to deal with. But apparently that was too much, because you disregarded what I gave you, took the methods for programming the DSP and created bloated, booming bass. I've heard it. Some frequencies rang through just fine, but particularly the low notes of movie LFE content were felt far more than they were heard. I think the knowledge in this book would give you the tools to achieve far better sound. Why would anyone argue with that?

And I'm still here offering to help you, and anyone! But just like with Pogre, I am going to continue asking that you swap the time you've spent debating me on the validity of methods recommended from a book, and actually try them. You both have literally spent more time debating me than it would take to use a tape measure and divide that value in to 1131.

Again, all I've done is offer to help based on knowledge gained from a book! But that help requires you to answer the very specific questions I've asked, previously. Want to try something different? Share your measurements and EQ inputs.
 
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
You'll notice that it doesn't give any detailed information on programming the DSP. So where did you learn to program that DSP, I wonder?

Did you at least follow the advice to not boost anything more than 6 dB?

Did you notice that it never once mentions running Audyssey on top of miniDSP?

I'm glad you chimed in, because it is your room that allows to me say with confidence, flat doesn't necessarily sound accurate. I offered to help you personally with the exact filters for your room, based on the knowledge I gained from this book, to tune your room. You are fortunate enough to have a dedicated space, so unlike Pogre and I, you've only got a few modes to deal with. But apparently that was too much, because you disregarded what I gave you, took the methods for programming the DSP and created bloated, booming bass. I've heard it. Some frequencies rang through just fine, but particularly the low notes of movie LFE content were felt far more than they were heard. I think the knowledge in this book would give you the tools to achieve far better sound. Why would anyone argue with that?

And I'm still here offering to help you, and anyone! But just like with Pogre, I am going to continue asking that you swap the time you've spent debating me on the validity of methods recommended from a book, and actually try them. You both have literally spent more time debating me than it would take to use a tape measure and divide that value in to 1131.

Again, all I've done is offer to help based on knowledge gained from a book! But that help requires you to answer the very specific questions I've asked, previously. Want to try something different? Share your measurements and EQ inputs.
“You'll notice that it doesn't give any detailed information on programming the DSP.”

1. Properly position all of your subwoofers for best performance. Also consider seating locations and how you can move them to help achieve this goal. This is known as positional EQ.
2. Get all of your subs playing the same bass signal (mono LFE + summed bass from all channels set to small in your receiver's bass management).
3. Route the subwoofer outputs of your AV receiver into a device like mDSP 2x4 to manipulate level, delay, PEQ function, etc.
4. Using your measurement system, be sure to adjust delay, level, phase, crossover points, etc to get all of your subs playing well together by minimizing acoustical cancellations and getting the smoothest frequency response possible for all of your seats. Start initially with the two most important seats, then expand outward to all of your seats as you hone in the response.
Note:
Measure all subs + main L/R speakers in mono from 10Hz to 200Hz for each seat.
5. Once you've got all of your subs properly integrated, use EQ to flatten peaks and boost sparingly (never more than +6dB) to fix dips. If boosting doesn't fix a dip, don't do it!

Perhaps this isn’t detailed enough in your opinion. Tell @gene. While you’re at it tell Dr. Toole who proofread this article, and since it’s so important, ask him why he didn’t demand to include measuring every nook and cranny of your room as a crucial step, before he signed off?

“Did you at least follow the advice to not boost anything more than 6 dB?”

LMAO… so in one breath you’re critical that it didn’t give any programming advice, and now you’re bringing up said advice in a vain attempt to make a point. The advice as given was not to use more than 6 dB of boost to fix a dip. I actually gave no boost to fix any dips. I actually attribute this to reading the Mark Seaton list which you flippantly disregarded.

“Did you notice that it never once mentions running Audyssey on top of miniDSP?”

So what? I ran Audyssey on top of it, it took no more than 15 minutes, and liked what it did. I never DEMAND anyone run Audyssey if they don’t like it, but for me it did nothing to hurt any of my goals, or the stated goals in this article. I wouldn’t crap in anyone’s cherrios if they didn’t run Audyssey.

“I'm glad you chimed in, because it is your room that allows to me say with confidence, flat doesn't necessarily sound accurate.”

LMAO… Again, you’ve made another incorrect assumption to support your bias. My set up, as you heard, did not measure flat.

“I offered to help you personally with the exact filters for your room; based on the knowledge I gained from this book, to tune your room. You are fortunate enough to have a dedicated space, so unlike Pogre and I, you've only got a few modes to deal with.”

Beyond the filters you provided, I thought additional adjustments made it more appealing FOR ME.

“But apparently that was too much, because you disregarded what I gave you, took the methods for programming the DSP and created bloated, booming bass. I've heard it. Some frequencies rang through just fine, but particularly the low notes of movie LFE content were felt far more than they were heard.”

Again, I liked this tactile effect too, but turning down the bass is simple. It’s worth mentioning that you never said, “Hey Grant, do you like the bass where it’s at, my taste would be lower, let’s turn it down a bit and see what it sounds like.” No, IMO you were too punch drunk on your own Dunning-Kruger kick with your lay opinions from Dr. Toole’s book to give a damn.

“I think the knowledge in this book would give you the tools to achieve far better sound. Why would anyone argue with that?”

Spoiler alert: You’re not the only one who’s read it. Does Dr. Toole like it that you promote his book like a Scientologist would promote Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard? I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m debating your interpretation and application of said material. Nowhere in this Dr. Toole approved article does it DEMAND measuring every nook and cranny of your room and a bunch of other stuff which you DEMAND be done.

I believe @gene gives a better, more detailed, and far, far more concise illustration of how to properly apply DSP subwoofer correction.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
1. Properly position all of your subwoofers for best performance. Also consider seating locations and how you can move them to help achieve this goal. This is known as positional EQ.
2. Get all of your subs playing the same bass signal (mono LFE + summed bass from all channels set to small in your receiver's bass management).
3. Route the subwoofer outputs of your AV receiver into a device like mDSP 2x4 to manipulate level, delay, PEQ function, etc.
4. Using your measurement system, be sure to adjust delay, level, phase, crossover points, etc to get all of your subs playing well together by minimizing acoustical cancellations and getting the smoothest frequency response possible for all of your seats. Start initially with the two most important seats, then expand outward to all of your seats as you hone in the response.
Note: Measure all subs + main L/R speakers in mono from 10Hz to 200Hz for each seat.
5. Once you've got all of your subs properly integrated, use EQ to flatten peaks and boost sparingly (never more than +6dB) to fix dips. If boosting doesn't fix a dip, don't do it!
Where does this explain how to create a DSP filter? What sentence do you see that explains this?

You've done a great job demonstrating your unwillingness to even follow the guidelines of the guide you recommended. I'm not going to argue with you.


Again, all I've done is offer to help based on knowledge gained from a book! But that help requires you to answer the very specific questions I've asked, previously. Want to try something different? Share your measurements and EQ inputs.
.... so that something can actually be accomplished!
 
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
Where does this explain how to create a DSP filter? What sentence do you see that explains this?

You've done a great job demonstrating your unwillingness to even follow the guidelines of the guide you recommended. I'm not going to argue with you.

.... so that something can actually be accomplished!

“Where does this explain how to create a DSP filter? What sentence do you see that explains this?”

I've provided direction on that question. Again, if you feel that this article isn't properly detailed, please ask @gene, or Dr. Toole why he signed off on something that has crucial missing information.

"You've done a great job demonstrating your unwillingness to even follow the guidelines of the guide you recommended. I'm not going to argue with you."

How so? LMAO, so I'm a hypocrite, is that your point? In any case, no I’m not as rigid in my approach. If I link to something it doesn’t mean I consider it holy canon. It seems that you’ll go to any length, and create whatever fantasy you can think of just to sound more right. That being your approach, I’m done as well.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
“Where does this explain how to create a DSP filter? What sentence do you see that explains this?”

I've provided direction on that question. Again, if you feel that this article isn't properly detailed, please ask @gene, or Dr. Toole why he signed off on something that has crucial missing information.

"You've done a great job demonstrating your unwillingness to even follow the guidelines of the guide you recommended. I'm not going to argue with you."

How so? LMAO, so I'm a hypocrite, is that your point? In any case, no I’m not as rigid in my approach. If I link to something it doesn’t mean I consider it holy canon. It seems that you’ll go to any length, and create whatever fantasy you can think of just to sound more right. That being your approach, I’m done as well.
You're not a hypocrite, you just didn't read the article in its entirety.

I suggested to take physical measurements of the room. That is written as 'Back of the Envelope Calculations' in the text, suggesting a very quick inventory of parallel surfaces around a listening space.

I then went on to explain what basic math would then be applied to those physical measurements, as written in the book. That is nothing more then gathering information, or collecting data. Step 1, if you prefer.

What this book will also go on to explain in much greater detail is what you will do with that information, far beyond DSP inputs, and is the reason that I have only discussed inputs for predicted modes. Which is why I argue against arbitrarily making the response graph look the way you want it to. When Gene referenced 'flattening' the response, he gave no detail on the actual mechanics of that process. There's no guide to controlling room modes because it takes a lot more than a general guide to explain. That's an assumption, but if you'd read 'Sound Reproduction', I'd call it an educated guess. But both that article AND 'Sound Reproduction' mention the flaws of using 'Auto Room EQ', with the latter going in to extensive detail on the hows and whys.
 
ATLAudio

ATLAudio

Senior Audioholic
You're not a hypocrite, you just didn't read the article in its entirety.

I suggested to take physical measurements of the room. That is written as 'Back of the Envelope Calculations' in the text, suggesting a very quick inventory of parallel surfaces around a listening space.

I then went on to explain what basic math would then be applied to those physical measurements, as written in the book. That is nothing more then gathering information, or collecting data. Step 1, if you prefer.

What this book will also go on to explain in much greater detail is what you will do with that information, far beyond DSP inputs, and is the reason that I have only discussed inputs for predicted modes. Which is why I argue against arbitrarily making the response graph look the way you want it to. When Gene referenced 'flattening' the response, he gave no detail on the actual mechanics of that process. There's no guide to controlling room modes because it takes a lot more than a general guide to explain. That's an assumption, but if you'd read 'Sound Reproduction', I'd call it an educated guess. But both that article AND 'Sound Reproduction' mention the flaws of using 'Auto Room EQ', with the latter going in to extensive detail on the hows and whys.
“you just didn't read the article in its entirety.”

This is false

“I suggested taking physical measurements of the room. That is written as 'Back of the Envelope Calculations' in the text, suggesting a very quick inventory of parallel surfaces around a listening space.”

No, you demand this, and crap in folks’ cheerios if you think they haven’t. I’ve now re-read this article, and do not find anything like this.

“I then went on to explain what basic math would then be applied to those physical measurements, as written in the book. That is nothing more than gathering information, or collecting data. Step 1, if you prefer.”

Fine, but I don’t see any DEMAND that this be done, nor any premium placed on it on this page. Why would Dr. Toole sign off on something which you’ve routinely slammed on the table as being so crucial? That failure to know about results in an arbitrary measurement?

“When Gene referenced 'flattening' the response, he gave no detail on the actual mechanics of that process. There's no guide to controlling room modes because it takes a lot more than a general guide to explain.”

So says you. One last time, please tell @gene if you believe any crucial detail is missing, and also contact Dr. Toole and ask why he signed off on this without said detail. I found nothing missing, and believe that the application is very straight forward. As stated:

Once you've got all of your subs properly integrated, use EQ to flatten peaks and boost sparingly (never more than +6dB) to fix dips. If boosting doesn't fix a dip, don't do it!

I don’t think this is nearly as complicated as you suggest. There are no complex mechanics, or hours of study and whole text books to read to properly execute this.

“But both that article AND 'Sound Reproduction' mention the flaws of using 'Auto Room EQ', with the latter going in to extensive detail on the hows and whys.”

Again, it took 15 minutes, and I believed it brought benefit. I don’t demand its use, nor condemn it, but it worked for me. It works well for a lot of folks, but no it’s not perfect.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
“you just didn't read the article in its entirety.”

This is false

“I suggested taking physical measurements of the room. That is written as 'Back of the Envelope Calculations' in the text, suggesting a very quick inventory of parallel surfaces around a listening space.”

No, you demand this, and crap in folks’ cheerios if you think they haven’t. I’ve now re-read this article, and do not find anything like this.

“I then went on to explain what basic math would then be applied to those physical measurements, as written in the book. That is nothing more than gathering information, or collecting data. Step 1, if you prefer.”

Fine, but I don’t see any DEMAND that this be done, nor any premium placed on it on this page. Why would Dr. Toole sign off on something which you’ve routinely slammed on the table as being so crucial? That failure to know about results in an arbitrary measurement?

“When Gene referenced 'flattening' the response, he gave no detail on the actual mechanics of that process. There's no guide to controlling room modes because it takes a lot more than a general guide to explain.”

So says you. One last time, please tell @gene if you believe any crucial detail is missing, and also contact Dr. Toole and ask why he signed off on this without said detail. I found nothing missing, and believe that the application is very straight forward. As stated:

Once you've got all of your subs properly integrated, use EQ to flatten peaks and boost sparingly (never more than +6dB) to fix dips. If boosting doesn't fix a dip, don't do it!

I don’t think this is nearly as complicated as you suggest. There are no complex mechanics, or hours of study and whole text books to read to properly execute this.

“But both that article AND 'Sound Reproduction' mention the flaws of using 'Auto Room EQ', with the latter going in to extensive detail on the hows and whys.”

Again, it took 15 minutes, and I believed it brought benefit. I don’t demand its use, nor condemn it, but it worked for me. It works well for a lot of folks, but no it’s not perfect.

I think @gene is far wiser than I am, this discourse is why he did not include any specifics. I thought I could help some people just by taking the first steps as described in the text (of the book, not article). Sorry if my offers to help sound like demands, but thanks for keeping this thread going. My aim was to increase awareness of the book, and I'd say the last 2 weeks of consistent posting and controversy make this a marketing WIN!
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top