which speaker do you choose to EQ? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 05:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
teckademic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 45
So I am using the manual EQ on my receiver instead of the auto cal, but unfortunately it doesn't allow me to EQ the front and rear channels individually. So, my system is in a living room and the right side is closed in by a wall 5ft away while the left is open to the dining/kitchen area. Do I choose to EQ the right speakers or left? I do have acoustic panels on the right side of the wall to help with the reflections from that wall.
teckademic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 07:27 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
A few questions...

First, what aspect of the direct signal requires equalization? Is there a deficiency in the direct speaker response?

As this would be a characteristic of the speaker itself, why would you propose EQing 'one' speaker and not another? (e.g. left versus right, for example.) As any issue existing in one would similarly exist in the other.

(I will also suggest without further information that utilizing asymmetrically placed panels on only one wall unbalancing the left right symmetry and thus creating a differing/asymmetrical indirect specular behavior between the left and right side walls may very well be Much the Cause of the problem!)

If you are trying to resolve speaker-room interaction issues, EQ is not the proper tool, as EQ cannot resolve specular issues resulting from the combination/interaction (properly termed "superposition") of direct and indirect signals.

Options are available, but from what little we now know, I doubt EQ is the solution, and it certainly would not be my first choice in any event.

The first step would be to precisely identify the nature of the 'problem'. The second step would be to move from the perceptual identification of a problem to an identification and quantification the actual physical behavior contributing to the issue.

Tools such as RoomEQWizard combined with a calibrated Dayton EMM6 mic and an ART Dual USB Preamp (available from B&HPhoto for ~$69) would allow you to ascertain all of the behavior of your system and more...

So, I apologize if I don''t have a 'direct' answer to your question, but I might suggest that you will be happier and more successful in your endeavor if a few more questions allowing more comprehensive and targeted solutions were first answered...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #3 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 08:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckademic View Post

So I am using the manual EQ on my receiver instead of the auto cal, but unfortunately it doesn't allow me to EQ the front and rear channels individually. So, my system is in a living room and the right side is closed in by a wall 5ft away while the left is open to the dining/kitchen area. Do I choose to EQ the right speakers or left? I do have acoustic panels on the right side of the wall to help with the reflections from that wall.

The main use of EQ is in very low frequencies and there, you need very narrow filters. It is unlikely that your receiver has that kind of high resolution filter (its automatic calibration however usually does). And if it did, it would have needed to come on a per channel basis which as you say, is not the case. Therefore, what is there is not a tool for fixing acoustic problems but rather, changing the sound to your taste.

Have you tried the auto eq? How about subs? They often come with their own EQ and/or software to optimize them.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #4 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 09:00 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The main use of EQ is in very low frequencies

Baloney. EQ's main use isn't in very low frequencies.

Quote:


How about subs? They often come with their own EQ and/or software to optimize them.

Why do you ask? Because you sell those things?
diomania is offline  
post #5 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 09:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Baloney. EQ's main use isn't in very low frequencies.

True but its most effective use is.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #6 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 10:01 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

True but its most effective use is.

If effectiveness is judged on the amount of audibility, it would be the mid-range audioband where our hearing is most sensitive to.
diomania is offline  
post #7 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 10:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

If effectiveness is judged on the amount of audibility, it would be the mid-range audioband where our hearing is most sensitive to.

Simplistic. No need for that if your speakers are good and set up correctly in your room. Low frequency modes are unavoidable and EQ is the most efficient way to deal with them as physical treatments are unavoidably massive. Of course, if you are using EQ as a tone control, YMMV.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #8 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 10:39 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Low frequency modes are unavoidable and EQ is the most efficient way to deal with them as physical treatments are unavoidably massive.

Just a small comment in regards to the "physical treatments are unavoidably massive".

That is actually not true. May I suggest that one NOT ignore a very significant segment of the market, name that of tuned resonant absorbers. They (e.g RPG Modex modules, VPR panels, etc.) are typically much smaller, are ideally suited for boundary placement, and are more more efficient than either porous absorption of EQ in addressing modal behavior.

But many ignore them as they are not trivial to tune.

It really speaks volumes that this segment of the market seems to remain totally unaware of such treatments which are the norm in the professional world.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #9 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 10:55 AM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
The real use of a EQ in home stereo/music listening is to flatten out or bring down those frequencies that are too bright, and bring up those frequencies that are too low, regardless of the speaker type, a room will always make each brand sound differently.

The only catch is, that along with using the EQ, and depending on the distance from the speakers and placement, you would also need some type of delay, so that you can further make the music sound better in the room, without having to install traps and baffles.

A lot of people use EQ's for tone control, or to kill those frequencies they do not wanting passing through a sub woofer, which is not the real reason why Equalizers, specifically Parametric EQ's were made for.
gregzoll is offline  
post #10 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 11:23 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Low frequency modes are unavoidable and EQ is the most efficient way to

No need for that if your room design is good and speakers are set up correctly within.
We can use the word "if" in broad ways, can't we?
diomania is offline  
post #11 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 12:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Just a small comment in regards to the "physical treatments are unavoidably massive".

That is actually not true. May I suggest that one NOT ignore a very significant segment of the market, name that of tuned resonant absorbers. They (e.g RPG Modex modules, VPR panels, etc.) are typically much smaller, are ideally suited for boundary placement, and are more more efficient than either porous absorption of EQ in addressing modal behavior.

But many ignore them as they are not trivial to tune.

It really speaks volumes that this segment of the market seems to remain totally unaware of such treatments which are the norm in the professional world.

I cannot vouch for any one else but I am not only aware of such, I have reviewed one and have some others on order. The reason you see little of it discussed in these forums as this is that they are "not trivial to tune" and can be expensive to purchase. They also require more knowledge to select and implement than do the broad-band passive bass panels.

For these reasons, as well as the ubiquitous WAF, many (most?) are forced to rely on bass EQ as an alternative.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #12 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 12:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

No need for that if your room design is good and speakers are set up correctly within.
We can use the word "if" in broad ways, can't we?

Certainly. However, "if your speakers are good and set up correctly in your room" does not apply to you, you are off to a bad start and no good will come of it.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #13 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 02:00 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

and can be expensive to purchase.

Not really compared to "high-end" disc players, amps and cables.

Quote:


For these reasons, as well as the ubiquitous WAF, many (most?) are forced to rely on bass EQ as an alternative.

Based on what I've observed over the years, audiophools (some post on this forum) consider EQ as another signal tainting circuit in chain so it's a taboo in their view. They rely on swapping out power cords, speaker / interconnect cables, DAC, cable lifters, wooden shelves for their CD players, ...etc.
diomania is offline  
post #14 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 05:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
SierraMikeBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 1,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:


As this would be a characteristic of the speaker itself, why would you propose EQing 'one' speaker and not another? (e.g. left versus right, for example.) As any issue existing in one would similarly exist in the other.

EQ'ing a single speaker may be necessary. One example would be poor quality control of the speaker by the manufacturer (not going to get into the weeds regarding physics of voice coils, crossovers, and such). Suffice it to say, I have encountered this problem in the past. Only way to deal with it is through EQ'ing a single speakers response.

One thing to keep in mind is that most receivers use a graphic EQ and not the more useful parametric EQ.

Shawn Byrne
Erskine Group
CEDIA Certified Professional EST II - HAA Level III Certified -THX Certified Professional


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SierraMikeBravo is online now  
post #15 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Not really compared to "high-end" disc players, amps and cables.

Based on what I've observed over the years, audiophools (some post on this forum) consider EQ as another signal tainting circuit in chain so it's a taboo in their view. They rely on swapping out power cords, speaker / interconnect cables, DAC, cable lifters, wooden shelves for their CD players, ...etc.

I agree with you.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #16 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 11:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
teckademic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

The real use of a EQ in home stereo/music listening is to flatten out or bring down those frequencies that are too bright, and bring up those frequencies that are too low, regardless of the speaker type, a room will always make each brand sound differently.

This is mainly what I am trying to achieve here. I have an onkyo 805 which uses audyssey, but no matter what I do, I am never happy with the way it EQs the sub. There's no presence from the sub and overall, sounds weak. Unfortunately, when I go into the manual settings, it has a 7 band equalizer that adjust, front, center, surround and sub, but does allow adjusts for left and right. I have a cd with test tones for those frequency that compensates for an spl meter to make adjustments so I have to pick speaker do I choose to EQ, left or right. Since the right side of my setup is near a wall and the left side is open, I thought treating that wall would help with the reflections, but from what I read in a previous comment, it wouldn't and would just make things sound worse???
teckademic is online now  
post #17 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 11:27 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
This 'mixed metaphor' is confusing as heck!

What ARE you trying to do?
First you lead by saying you do not like how the unit Auto-EQs the sub, and then you immediately launch into how the EQ does not allow you to individually select left/right/front/rear speakers!

This is two separate issues confused into one!

EQ is legitimate for addressing modal peaks and is limited to the sub.

EQ is legitimate for EQing the DIRECT source signal of the main speakers, but it is NOT appropriate for trying to compensate for speaker-room issues which must be addressed with treatment.


So, please first determine what is the problem: the sub or the main speaker response.

Then, if it it has to do with the specular frequencies and the main speakers, if the problem is comb filtering and other response anomalies caused by the destructive interaction of non-minimum phase direct and indirect signals, use the proper tool which is NOT EQ, but analysis and room treatment.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #18 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 11:28 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
This 'mixed metaphor' is confusing as heck!

What ARE you trying to do?
First you lead by saying you do not like how the unit Auto-EQs the sub, and then you immediately launch into how the EQ does not allow you to individually select left/right/front/rear speakers!

This is two separate issues confused into one!

EQ is legitimate for addressing modal peaks and is limited to the sub.

EQ is legitimate for EQing the DIRECT source signal of the main speakers;

BUT:
EQ is NOT appropriate for trying to compensate problems resulting from comb filtering and other response anomalies caused by the destructive interaction of non-minimum phase direct and indirect signals, use the proper tool which is NOT EQ, but analysis and room treatment.


So, please first determine what is the problem: the sub or the main speaker response.

Then, if the problem has to do with the specular frequencies and the main speakers, and if the problem is a result of speaker-room boundary issues causing comb filtering and other response anomalies, use the proper tool which is NOT EQ, but analysis and room treatment.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #19 of 33 Old 04-08-2012, 11:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
teckademic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 45
excuse my lack of words or terminology needed to make this clear, but this is my understanding of EQ. A speaker's freq response is suppose to be flat, but when a speaker is used in a home, there are many things to alter that response, correct? The purpose to EQ your system is to adjust the dips and peaks in the response to best you can to achieve that flat response. correct? When I use the auto calibration, it seems to adjust everything just fine, but the sub. When I adjust it manually, I can pretty much get my system to sound the same as if it were adjusted by audyssey. I am not concerned with the sub right now. The manual adjustments are limited and only allows adjustments for both front and both rear speakers and not individually so I have to choose which speaker to adjust as it will apply the settings for both. I understand that where it may fix one issue, it may introduce another with the other speaker since I am unable to address the speakers individually. So, my question is, which speaker would you choose? I'm not asking about the sub or anything else, but perhaps some patience as not all of us in this forum are experts and may find it difficult to express the issue, thank you.
teckademic is online now  
post #20 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 01:11 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Your understanding of the use of EQ to correct for speaker-room interaction response anomalies above the modal region where specular behavior dominates is incorrect.

Thus the question of "which speaker do I choose" is not a valid approach to solve the problem.

Except in very limited cases where a minimum phase condition exists amidst a complex characteristic non-minimum phase soundfield, EQ is not appropriate nor effective for affecting correction of specular speaker-room interaction issues above ~200-300 Hz.

What all this means is that EQ affects only the direct signal of the speaker. It will NOT correct for modifications to the sound you hear that results from the interaction of the direct signal with high gain indirect reflections at the listening position. EQ is the wrong tool for this.

For any given speaker(s), such issues are properly addressed via analysis and the subsequent surgical application of room treatment addressing high gain reflections.

Thus, instead of EQ, the solution to the problem is (in part) to perform analysis* of the specular region at the listening position, and to identify anomalous high gain reflections and to treat them appropriately with either absorption or diffusion, so as to mitigate the cause of the response anomaly.


As far as EQ, here is a short list that mentions limitations of EQ as a solution from Toole's The Acoustical Design of Home Theaters:

"...there is no doubt that equalization has acquired a bad reputation over the years...

There are four principal reasons :

1. The popular measuring instruments, 1/3-octave real-time analyzers, do not have enough resolution to describe the problems accurately.

2. The popular equalizers, 1/3-octave “graphic” equalizers, do not have enough resolution to address the problem resonances specifically, without doing a lot of “collateral” damage.

3. Attempting to fill deep frequency response dips caused by acoustic cancellations or nulls is an absolutely futile effort, because no matter how much sound energy one pumps into a room the cancellation persists. All that happens is that amplifiers clip, and woofers distort, or worse, destruct. The only solution to this kind of problem is to relocate the loudspeaker or the listener, whichever is sitting in the null.

4. Equalization is attempted at too high a frequency. Low-frequency room resonances behave like minimum- phase phenomena, and addressing them specifically with parametric filters is a true solution. Above a few hundred Hz, the situation is very different, because we are using steady-state measurements to examine a complicated combination of direct and reflected sounds – time domain phenomena. The measurements may show “comb filtering” that is alarming to the eyes, but the ears hear only the natural sounds of a room – not necessarily a problem at all. If the reflections are perceived to be too energetic, the solution is not equalization, but rather the addition of some strategically placed sound absorbing or diffusing devices. As stated earlier, if there are obvious sound quality problems at middle and high frequencies, the only true solution is a properly designed, room friendly, loudspeaker."



*A freeware program such as RoomEQWizard and a mic pre-amp such as an ART Dual USB Pre-amp (~$69 at B&HPhoto), an calibrated Dayton/Superlux EMM6 microphone (Parts Express or Cross Spectrum for a calibrated version) and a laptop computer are a sufficient entry level package capable of doing this.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #21 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 01:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
teckademic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 1,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 45
well, since this is what I have available at the moment, I figured some kind of EQ was better than no EQ. So pretty much, I am better off at just leaving EQ alone?
teckademic is online now  
post #22 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 02:30 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckademic View Post

well, since this is what I have available at the moment, I figured some kind of EQ was better than no EQ. So pretty much, I am better off at just leaving EQ alone?

Yes.
It is not the proper tool for the job.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #23 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 04:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

If effectiveness is judged on the amount of audibility, it would be the mid-range audioband where our hearing is most sensitive to.

While the point is valid taken in a vacuum, the real world intrudes. The room's greatest audible effects usually relate to low frequencies. Speakers generally vary more in terms of how they respond in the low frequencies.

If you take the approach: "Well, I'll get the bass right and then listen to determine what else there is to worry about", you just might be doing yourself a big favor.
arnyk is offline  
post #24 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 05:32 AM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
What speakers are you using? Where is your sub positioned? How many samples did you take with the audyssey software?
gregzoll is offline  
post #25 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 09:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

What speakers are you using? Where is your sub positioned? How many samples did you take with the audyssey software?

........and have you read this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14456895

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #26 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 10:23 AM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Yes, and I still disagree with how people are using and depending on Audyssey to do something that has been done manually for years.
gregzoll is offline  
post #27 of 33 Old 04-09-2012, 07:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,456
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

Yes, and I still disagree with how people are using and depending on Audyssey to do something that has been done manually for years.

Nope. Only a rare few have been able to do this manually. The vast majority were totally unaware, had not even tried to setup/EQ properly and lacked the tools even if they were aware and tried.

Even if you abjure Audyssey, you should acknowledge that it has (along with siimilar apps) finally raised a wider awareness of acoustical issues with home systems.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #28 of 33 Old 04-10-2012, 04:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

Yes, and I still disagree with how people are using and depending on Audyssey to do something that has been done manually for years.

I'm will Kal on this one, with a bullet.

I've manually eqed a number of large and small systems over the years. There's no way that the average audiophile is going to manually master this technology for a surround system.

By most accounts facilities like Audessey are improving the average level of sound quality in typical audiophile/videophile media rooms.

Yes, a well-educated, well-experienced professional or dedicated amateur might do better.

But that ain't the real world for most people, by a long shot!
arnyk is offline  
post #29 of 33 Old 04-10-2012, 05:05 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

By most accounts facilities like Audessey are improving the average level of sound quality in typical audiophile/videophile media rooms.

Yes, they said the same thing about tone controls 40 years ago.
But hey, one has to admit that automated tone controls are quite an advancement....

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

But that ain't the real world for most people, by a long shot!


With all due respect, and before everyone becomes too teary-eyed to continue reading at the amazing advancements, that reality to which you refer is also one where most cannot find Chicago on a map and where those who favor a survey determined reality can rest easy in the knowledge that more people believe in ghosts than believe we landed on the moon.


It would be amazing what the average person could do if they spent but 1/10 the time an effort wasted edumacating themselves reading marketing brochures and actually read a good book on acoustics.

But pardon me, as I need to run as the Audio Adviser has a new amazing deal on a $250 cable conditioner and I need to check out the Brodule - guaranteed to resolve the finest nuances sure to solve whatever ails me - except ignorance.

I just wish I had had the foresight to invest in the AudioAdviser's water insulated and light insulated cables they featured back in the mid 1980s! Then I would not have the problems I have today!

dragonfyr is offline  
post #30 of 33 Old 04-10-2012, 10:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1041 Post(s)
Liked: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckademic View Post

Unfortunately, when I go into the manual settings, it has a 7 band equalizer that adjust, front, center, surround and sub, but does allow adjusts for left and right. I have a cd with test tones for those frequency that compensates for an spl meter to make adjustments so I have to pick speaker do I choose to EQ, left or right.

IF you want to stay within the limits of your measuring tools (SPL meter & CD with test tones) and adjustment (fixed-band graphic equalizer), then you might want to attempt improving consistency across your front soundstage by trying to get the three front speakers to sound more similar to each other than they currently do. Your wording is a little confusing, so can you clarify: can each of the 3 front speakers be EQ'd individually or are the L/R speakers EQ'd as a pair?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off