The Importance of EQ If Your Center From Diff Manufacturer

[tmanasa]

When I bought my Aperion VAC-532 center channel, I asked Aperion's support (which is fantastic, btw) how it would fit with my speaker setup. They told me it should fit well with any speakers I might have. I took their word for it.

Then, when I upgraded my fronts and surrounds to Def Tech ProMonitor 1000s (retaining the Aperion center), I talked to Def Tech's support (which is also very good) about the blend between the 1000s and the Aperion. They also said there should be no issue with integration and cohesion.

When I set everything up and calibrated SPL and phase, I didn't get a wholly coherent sound stage, but couldn't figure out why. A few months later, I decided to run a front-align EQ calibration routine with my receiver (humble Pioneer VSX-815) which aligned the Aperion center with the front left Def Tech as closely as possible. First of all, I couldn't believe how much different the EQ curves was. I had to change the center -6db@100hz and +6db@240hz to get them even close to the L/R. WOW. What a difference that made to the sound stage! The sweeping of point sounds from left to right was much smoother and was no longer disjointed and distracting. Stereo music through Dolby Pro Logic IIx was substantially more cohesive.

In addition, the surrounds, despite being the exact same speakers as the L/R, also received significant EQ changes to compensate for placement in corners, etc. That also made a huge difference; the rain scene in the film Baraka became stunning.

The reason for this post is two-fold: 1) Why isn't more emphasis placed on EQ calibration by speaker manufacturers and set-up guides, and 2) If you haven't done an EQ calibration on your system, please do consider it! You could reveal a potential of your system you didn't even know was there.

 

[Johnd]

1) Why isn't more emphasis placed on EQ calibration by speaker manufacturers and set-up guides, and 2) If you haven't done an EQ calibration on your system, please do consider it! You could reveal a potential of your system you didn't even know was there.

Hey tmanasa.

1) Because the emphasis is placed on a timbre matched soundstage (at least the front) for a 5.1 or greater system.
2) Good speakers that one likes the sound of (very subjective) generally need no equalization. If undesirables occur in one's particular setting, the next step is usually room correction. Generally, equalization is used as a last resort, and can work wonders where the other solutions have failed (but selecting the proper speaker, and setting them up correctly with any necessary treatments are the first two big steps in obtaining good sound). Cheers.

 

[no. 5]

1) Why isn't more emphasis placed on EQ calibration by speaker manufacturers and set-up guides

Because equalization can not completely compensate for all sonic deferences between speakers, and an equalizer may not have a correct Q value or frequency center to correctly compensate for a level difference in a frequency band, and introducing a filter can create phase problems.

And any time a boost in level is made with an EQ, it limits the available output level, because a significant amount of power is being used to keep a band of frequencies higher in level than the rest. Even a 3dB boost halves the amount of available power.

So even though equalization can alter and help with some things, there are often more effective methods for fixing sonic discrepancies.

 

[tmanasa]

Ahh thank you #5 and Johnd. Those are really compelling reasons for me to turn off my EQ now. So you're saying room treatment is the next most important thing to getting a cohesive sound field?

 

[Johnd]

Ahh thank you #5 and Johnd. Those are really compelling reasons for me to turn off my EQ now. So you're saying room treatment is the next most important thing to getting a cohesive sound field?

No. My words speak for themselves. I am notorious on this forum for shooting people who call anything a home theater. I am not so casual with the term, especially in this forum. The room (theater) must have some acoustical quality to it before one calls it a theater (at least in my book). The more the better.

You never once mentioned any materials used in the construction of your room (even if it was 50 years ago). You never once mentioned any problems with reflections. You never once mentioned any thought of room correction.

Don't take it so personally. I have nothing against equalizers. If they solved some of your problems, that is a good thing. We recognize that it is of the first order to first address good equipment in a good (acoustical) room. Many acoustical problems can be easily addressed with room correction. It is only after those steps are first taken that I would pursue equalization.

I read your whole post. You have apparently improved your sound quality by equalization without considering room correction. That is a good thing and I (and I'm sure #5) am happy for you. Cheers.

 

[Adam]

You have apparently improved your sound quality by equalization without considering room correction. That is a good thing and I (and I'm sure #5) am happy for you. Cheers.

I completely agree with John. If you're happy with the set-up, stick with it! I have the VSX-1015 that probably has similar equalization, and I think it's great. After having it run its auto set-up, I was very happy with the results. Would room treatments make my room sound better? Maybe, but then I'd have to plan, shop, buy, install, and constantly look at the panels. This way, I can just sit down and enjoy. I'm all about the convenience. That, and I think the Pioneer does a good job.

 

[no. 5]

Ahh thank you #5 and Johnd. Those are really compelling reasons for me to turn off my EQ now.

If you really like what the EQ does, that's a compelling reason to keep it, if you do decide to keep it, my suggestion is to turn down or remove the 6dB boost at 240Hz, as it is limiting your headroom.

So you're saying room treatment is the next most important thing to getting a cohesive sound field?

Well, room acoustics are very important to a good sound field. Unless a room was designed with acoustics in mind, it's unlikely (but not impossible*) that the room will sound spectacular.

But just because a improvement can be made does not mean a change must be made; as an example, changing the physical dimension's and structure of the room can vastly improve the bass quality, but I doubt that almost anyone would want to do drastic remodeling just to make movie night sound a little better.




*As an example, my living room sounds fairly nice with no treatments - though I haven't measured it yet, so I can not say absolutely that it's a 'good' room.

 

[tmanasa]

Thanks JohnD and #5 again, and Adam. I lowered the poost at 240hz down to +3db (less than that really mismatched the L/R and C. Could it be useful to bring the C boost down to 0 and cut the L/R by -3db?

 

[no. 5]

Could it be useful to bring the C boost down to 0 and cut the L/R by -3db?

It wouldn't hurt to try that.