Testing whether the speakers work as intended?

P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have discussed this issue with Toole, and while I don't want to put words into his mouth as I don't know the entirety of his thoughts on this matter, I really don't believe he would say room correction equalization is worth it above schroeder frequencies in most situations. He thinks room correction should be avoided above the Schroeder Frequencies, and over time, I have come to agree with him. In fact, I would say that it should be used as little as possible below the transition frequency as well. He thinks that above the transition frequency, room correction equalization is just a band-aid for flawed speakers. There may be some bizarre acoustic environment where room correction equalization could benefit the sound above the transition frequency, but for good speakers that are properly setup in a normal room, both he and myself would advise people to stay away from room correction.
I don't disagree, and Dr. Toole is one of the authority so I am not qualify to argue with him. However, I prefer to see as much facts as possible too. So I would plot whatever graphs I could and compare the before/after, or with/without effects, then I simply listen, and then decide...

If you happen to be talking to him again, please ask him whether he thinks rooms (the non perfect ones..) in which many avrs/avps are used, have audible effects on speakers he considered "good", above the Schroeder frequencies. If he answers yes, possible, potentially etcl, then I think we need to be more open minded to the potential benefits of REQ at higher frequencies.

I really would like to see a panel debate on REQ related tops with Dr. Kyriakakis, Dr. Johansson, Dr. Schuck (Anthem) present at the minimum.

By the way, there are some interesting reads right here on AH, such as this one:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/anthem-arc-room-eq-interview

In which, Anthem commented on their ARC/mic accuracy:

Audioholics: ARC comes with a calibrated, serialized, USB microphone. Are there any limitations with the microphone's measurements or does it measure accurately from 20Hz - 20kHz?
Nick Platsis: It is reliable up to 5 kHz. After that it starts becoming too directional with increasing frequency. Maximum correction range for MRX receivers is 5 kHz. This is the normally recommended setting, and the default, in all versions of ARC and is user adjustable down to 200 Hz. In AVM/D it can be set as high as 20 kHz, but effectiveness of correction at these upper frequencies often depends on whether the tweeters (and mic) are at ear level. A listening test is the best way to find out.

So Anthem is another one that did not completely rule out the benefits of EQ'sing up to 5 kHz or even higher.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
John is part of our team at AVNirvana and peered my articles and video. He does not disagree with me. He has openly said he thinks eq above a certain point is a bad idea.

Atkinson also agrees with me.
Obviously he has to be right if REW is used as he authored it. If you ask him whether using Anthem ARC, RoomPerfect, Dirac Live or Trinnov etc., he may hesitate a little, I would imagine. I am not qualify to debate any of those experts including yourself, but I am somewhat skeptical to rule things out as I believe science and engineering do have a long way to go in making things better, including the seemingly impossible, or bad idea based on past and current knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Obviously he has to be right if REW is used as he authored it. If you ask him whether using Anthem ARC, RoomPerfect, Dirac Live or Trinnov etc., he may hesitate a little, I would imagine. I am not qualify to debate any of those experts including yourself, but I am somewhat skeptical to rule things out as I believe science and engineering do have a long way to go in making things better, including the seemingly impossible, or bad idea based on past and current knowledge.
Ok well first, take a look at my just posted article for Audioholics. It goes into some of this:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/accurate-microphone-or-ears

But more specifically, These room correction systems are far more sophisticated in how they derive their correction filters and the kinds of filters they use (other than ARC). The main guys behind Dirac and Trinnov have both authored technical papers that give a lot of insight into how their algorithm works. They should make clear that the use of minimum phase filters derived from basic in-room measurements with no special analysis or processing does not yield good results. John didn't design or intend for people to use REW to do this, he just didn't restrict it. I can't speak as to why, I'm sure he just wanted to provide a tool and let people use it how they wish. All the while providing guidance and suggestions on it's best or most optimal use. His suggestions have been to be very cautious about applying any EQ in the mid and high frequencies.

I think it is OK to rule out the use of EQ of this type (minimum phase) using basic in-room measurements. We know more than enough scientifically to know why that is a bad idea. What I would say is that we shouldn't rule out all forms of EQ or response correction through DSP based on in-room measurements. That is because the technical reasons for not doing it can be resolved if we use different filters and more sophisticated processing of the measurements to correct only the correctable. Especially as we move to a MIMO based system that truly allows us to actively correct the room's acoustics. It IS my understanding that Geddes (through a decade of having this debate) and Toole have primarily said they believe that this kind of room correction is a problem. Both have given their reasons, and they actually echo my own views mentioned in the Bi-Amp thread. It isn't that the sophisticated methods don't work as advertised, it's that its a band-aid to fix a problem that is far bigger and more important. That is, most speakers are poorly designed. The EQ cannot fix the design flaws and it seems that both Toole and Geddes feel this makes EQ a distraction. That it isn't helping the industry move in a better direction toward better-designed speakers. True...but I still think it is ok. I think we need these correction systems because very few people will totally dedicate a room to this hobby, very few will treat their rooms properly, and even the worlds most perfect speaker system cannot address the LF problem.

So to be clear, I'm not against room correction or full bandwidth correction. I'm against improper use of said correction. The most egregious misuse is of REW, where improper room measurements are taken and full bandwidth correction auto-calculated for minimum phase filters and output to something like a MiniDSP. This approach is not an intelligent correction method like DIRAC, Trinnov, etc. It uses dumb measurement which are incapable of discerning measurement artifacts from real problems, conflates the correctable with the uncorrectable, and applies a blanket fix.

The last thing I'll say about this is with regard to Dirac, my favorite of these systems. I have been a beta tester of DIRAC for close to a decade (if not a decade) and I have the best and most current version of it on my laptop. I use it often (including having tested the newest edition with updates to the algorithm) and I have a relationship with DIRAC for this purpose. With problematic rooms and speakers that have a less than desirable tonal balance but otherwise good behavior, I find DIRAC to be wonderful. With more ideal speakers and a dedicated treated room, I find it makes very little difference. In fact, I did a listening test with @shadyJ as well as a couple friends who are die-hard DIRAC lovers (Separate events). All of them commented they were not so sure they could hear the differences when it is on or off and when they could, weren't sure it was an improvement (And I'm sure James can share, I was absolutely doing my best to bias them pro-Dirac). Geddes has told me in the past that this is exactly what he would expect to happen. That once the speaker is already good and the room issues are addressed, he wouldn't expect the correction to make an audible difference. Yet the difference in the measurements between the two (on and off) are profound! DIRAC has also introduced errors in the past and I don't know that most people would have caught them. I just knew what was going on and what to look for. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share details of what happened, so I won't, but at least take my word that all of these systems have proven to sometimes make things worse. It might be an error rather than an inherent flaw in the approach, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Ok well first, take a look at my just posted article for Audioholics. It goes into some of this:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/accurate-microphone-or-ears

But more specifically, These room correction systems are far more sophisticated in how they derive their correction filters and the kinds of filters they use (other than ARC). The main guys behind Dirac and Trinnov have both authored technical papers that give a lot of insight into how their algorithm works. They should make clear that the use of minimum phase filters derived from basic in-room measurements with no special analysis or processing does not yield good results. John didn't design or intend for people to use REW to do this, he just didn't restrict it. I can't speak as to why, I'm sure he just wanted to provide a tool and let people use it how they wish. All the while providing guidance and suggestions on it's best or most optimal use. His suggestions have been to be very cautious about applying any EQ in the mid and high frequencies.

I think it is OK to rule out the use of EQ of this type (minimum phase) using basic in-room measurements. We know more than enough scientifically to know why that is a bad idea. What I would say is that we shouldn't rule out all forms of EQ or response correction through DSP based on in-room measurements. That is because the technical reasons for not doing it can be resolved if we use different filters and more sophisticated processing of the measurements to correct only the correctable. Especially as we move to a MIMO based system that truly allows us to actively correct the room's acoustics. It IS my understanding that Geddes (through a decade of having this debate) and Toole have primarily said they believe that this kind of room correction is a problem. Both have given their reasons, and they actually echo my own views mentioned in the Bi-Amp thread. It isn't that the sophisticated methods don't work as advertised, it's that its a band-aid to fix a problem that is far bigger and more important. That is, most speakers are poorly designed. The EQ cannot fix the design flaws and it seems that both Toole and Geddes feel this makes EQ a distraction. That it isn't helping the industry move in a better direction toward better-designed speakers. True...but I still think it is ok. I think we need these correction systems because very few people will totally dedicate a room to this hobby, very few will treat their rooms properly, and even the worlds most perfect speaker system cannot address the LF problem.

So to be clear, I'm not against room correction or full bandwidth correction. I'm against improper use of said correction. The most egregious misuse is of REW, where improper room measurements are taken and full bandwidth correction auto-calculated for minimum phase filters and output to something like a MiniDSP. This approach is not an intelligent correction method like DIRAC, Trinnov, etc. It uses dumb measurement which are incapable of discerning measurement artifacts from real problems, conflates the correctable with the uncorrectable, and applies a blanket fix.

The last thing I'll say about this is with regard to Dirac, my favorite of these systems. I have been a beta tester of DIRAC for close to a decade (if not a decade) and I have the best and most current version of it on my laptop. I use it often (including having tested the newest edition with updates to the algorithm) and I have a relationship with DIRAC for this purpose. With problematic rooms and speakers that have a less than desirable tonal balance but otherwise good behavior, I find DIRAC to be wonderful. With more ideal speakers and a dedicated treated room, I find it makes very little difference. In fact, I did a listening test with @shadyJ as well as a couple friends who are die-hard DIRAC lovers (Separate events). All of them commented they were not so sure they could hear the differences when it is on or off and when they could, weren't sure it was an improvement (And I'm sure James can share, I was absolutely doing my best to bias them pro-Dirac). Geddes has told me in the past that this is exactly what he would expect to happen. That once the speaker is already good and the room issues are addressed, he wouldn't expect the correction to make an audible difference. Yet the difference in the measurements between the two (on and off) are profound! DIRAC has also introduced errors in the past and I don't know that most people would have caught them. I just knew what was going on and what to look for. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share details of what happened, so I won't, but at least take my word that all of these systems have proven to sometimes make things worse. It might be an error rather than an inherent flaw in the approach, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
Well then I guess we actually are mostly in agreement. By the way, I did try using REW with a minidsp HD to EQ my 2 channel room and got good results but not as good as what I could achieve with XT32 no matter how hard I tried.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Ears vs Mics: The Final Battle

Ok everyone, We have so derailed this poor OP's thread that I wanted to share the official thread for the article I wrote and encourage people, once they have read the article, to continue the discussion in that thread. I think all of this is related enough to be worthy of discussion in that thread.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Ears vs Mics: The Final Battle

Ok everyone, We have so derailed this poor OP's thread that I wanted to share the official thread for the article I wrote and encourage people, once they have read the article, to continue the discussion in that thread. I think all of this is related enough to be worthy of discussion in that thread.
I agree with everything you have to say about this, especially that bad speakers are the major culprit in all this.

I have absolutely no inclination to want to use any Eq at all on this speaker system here. Audysssey however engaged absolutely ruins this superb system, and I mean really ruins it.

I have done a lot of listening over this holiday season including the Broadcasts over the BBC from Kings College. Honestly it is just like being in the chapel.

I do think bad bass is major factor in all this. In pretty much all other systems I hear, the bass is "heavy handed" Last Sunday, there was a streamed AV feed from the SPCO in St Paul of Handle's Messiah. The SPCO and The Singers were conducted by Jeannette Sorel, of Apollo's Fire. She led a brilliant hard charging performance from the Harpsichord. The bass was perfectly detailed and perfectly real. Not like loudspeakers usually are at all. It was just like being in the house. The bass line of baroque music is a really good guide as to whether bass reproduction is accurate or not. I find most speaker just stamp out its delicacy and you won't put that right with Eq.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have absolutely no inclination to want to use any Eq at all on this speaker system here. Audysssey however engaged absolutely ruins this superb system, and I mean really ruins it.
I am confident that a $599 or $499 refurbished x3400h+$20 for the app, and if I do the calibration for you, would change your mind.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I am confident that a $599 or $499 refurbished x3400h+$20 for the app, and if I do the calibration for you, would change your mind.
I'm really confident it would not. The sound here is absolutely life like and its easy and frequent that you really forget this is reproduced sound.
Really anything you would do would only make this system worse. When I'm in the concert hall or opera house the likeness to what I can hear in this room is just uncanny..
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I'm really confident it would not. The sound here is absolutely life like and its easy and frequent that you really forget this is reproduced sound.
Really anything you would do would only make this system worse. When I'm in the concert hall or opera house the likeness to what I can hear in this room is just uncanny..
I go to concert hall too and I don't feel my reproduced music ruin by Audyssey or rew/minidsp, or manual EQ. May be you should try Dirac Live for free for x number of days. They work! Just not for you for whatever reasons..
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I go to concert hall too and I don't feel my reproduced music ruin by Audyssey or rew/minidsp, or manual EQ. May be you should try Dirac Live for free for x number of days. They work! Just not for you for whatever reasons..
Yes, but the speakers are already optimally voiced for the space.

In addition this speaker system is quite unlike anything else in many ways. There is absolutely nothing comparable to this system around in terms of design.
The nearest equivalent is the old BBC triamped TL monitors, which was the stating point of this design but extends the whole concept further.
 
R

Russdawg1

Full Audioholic
I go to concert hall too and I don't feel my reproduced music ruin by Audyssey or rew/minidsp, or manual EQ. May be you should try Dirac Live for free for x number of days. They work! Just not for you for whatever reasons..
Not always true. Audessey isn’t perfect. Not to mention people have different tastes. And the room may be fine as is so EQ’ing would only ruin it.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Not always true. Audessey isn’t perfect. Not to mention people have different tastes. And the room may be fine as is so EQ’ing would only ruin it.
I agree, except the "ruin" part, and I have no idea which part you refer to as not "always true". I guess you probably refer to the "They work!" part, note that I never said it "always work". In fact, many things work, but not alway..., as there are almost "always" caveats.. So no disagreement there either, though again, I never meant to say, and never said "always" in the first place. As for "ruin", may be, may be not, I would like to see some supporting information for people who claim either.

REQ systems are of course not perfect, imo far from it, but I think you would agree most rooms where avrs/avps are used are not perfect either. Regarding "different taste", as I mentioned in other posts, someone could run their Audyssey, YPAO, Anthem ARC and not like the flattened bass response because they prefer the room effects that quite often give some serious boost in the range they like, and I think that's mainly why many users complain about the lack of punch and that live got sucked out of it....after running auto EQ.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Your brain knows what a neutral sound is supposed to be like in room. If you don't have that room, you don't have any acoustic interaction. Few people think that listening to a recording in an environment with no acoustic interaction, i.e., and anechoic chamber, sounds good. You can get something like that sound if you find an open field and set your system up there. It sounds very dry.
I've listened to both live and recorded performances outdoors, both amplified and unamplified. I have not noticed any particular dislike of outdoors.

There are entire outdoor venues for concerts around here. I've not noticed many people complaining that they sound "dry".

Also: since recordings generally happen *in rooms*, that coloration should *already be on the recording*. You are adding coloration to coloration.

The target frequency response of many headphones nowadays imitates that of a neutral system in room, not flat.
My Sony's are reasonably flat for more than 9 octaves and not-flat for less than 2. I like the sound of them.

But more to the point: most recordings happen *in rooms*. So if you are asserting that a headphone is adding "room coloration" it's doing so to a recording that already has room coloration in it.

I thought this was long settled on Audioholics. The goal is a flat response because otherwise you are fighting whatever the sound engineer did.

The reason for that is because it is what most people think sounds natural. Much of the research in this area is cited by Floyd Toole in chapter 7 of Sound Reproduction, 3rd Edition.
So *actual* natural sound doesn't sound natural?

Again: I've listened to unamplified performances outdoors without finding them unnatural sounding.
 
Vinterbird

Vinterbird

Enthusiast
Well can you see it everyone!?
Vinterbird, said and even I saw the problem was the room.

It as an opening to left side a doorway entrance and the right side oh dear bass sounds and other frequency wavelengths are going to pass though that glass window and create within m/s havoc to the sound system.

Moving it around in that room isn't going to solve it. That doorway to left needs a door in the hole and sealed at the bottom or around edges so the bass sound waves can easily slip though.

That window to right side at the back? But you not shown the whole room with pictures or better still a video is best with sound.

Its true about sound systems in rooms every room is different only your room has too many flaws that can easily been corrected if you are willing do that or you'll just have to put up with it.
Could you describe what you would need in an video / more photos?

And yes that is a window to the right in the back. A lot of the room is hard to remodel due to the rooms size, shape and requirements (it is out living room, and it is first and foremost a room where the entire family has to function)
 
Vinterbird

Vinterbird

Enthusiast
Vinterbird,

I'm just going to say it. You may have to put up with it. I doubt you'd really want to alter the room with all the cost $ involved? Unless of course I am wrong and you really like to solve it, with minimal hassle.

Do a video walk around the room lets see it. Lets all see if there is something that can possible be solved. Would you remove the glass, Yes or No?
Let me know if this fits your needs - https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mp5MU7Q5AC2XVJh3A

But in general, removing the glass for the doors is not feasible and it is physically a part of the doors and they are fairly new and we had them replaced throughout the house.

Your seeing the living room and the kitchen in the other room. Those are the only two rooms in the house other then a bedroom, kids room and bathroom.

I would love to solve the issue, but there are also limits to what can realistically be done in terms of interior decoration and moving stuff in the room.
 
charmerci

charmerci

Audioholic
I've listened to both live and recorded performances outdoors, both amplified and unamplified. I have not noticed any particular dislike of outdoors.

There are entire outdoor venues for concerts around here. I've not noticed many people complaining that they sound "dry".

Also: since recordings generally happen *in rooms*, that coloration should *already be on the recording*. You are adding coloration to coloration.

Again: I've listened to unamplified performances outdoors without finding them unnatural sounding.
A long time ago, I took my old decent stereo out to the woods where there was a small stage with electrical outlets. I set my stereo out there (the old ADS L810 speakers) and my system sounded great out there!
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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