FR vs time domain - Page 6  

Right....





So yeh, all of that came about from you two agreeing....

You know what the term technical means. You are, once again, being dishonest in how you represent what others have said.

It would be novel if just once you would stop deflecting the discussion to inconsequential sidebars and just own up to your mistakes and say "yeah, I guess I didn't know what I was talking about."

Nah. It is all the fault of AVS for keeping these records:






[Repeat after me: it is just a hobby... It is just a hobby....]

I was incorrect. You don't know what the term technical means.

Amir, are you going to apologize for blatently lying about what you said as shown above? Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting what others have said? Are you going to admit that you made a simple misstatement because you don't understand a complicated subject?

How sad.

Nah. This is happy times compared to this:

The real irony that you are apparently desperate to escape, is that Bigus' error was that he accepted one of the most insane statements that I have read in quite a while made by YOU.









So let's see, if we take the Fourier transform of the material we are trying to reproduce...

And if we utilize an 'ideal speaker' with an ideal power response, the speaker-room *system* will create a case where the direct signal and the indirect signals incident off the room boundaries will superpose in a minimum phase condition and we be "golden"....

- and ABSOLUTELY clueless!

This is wrong in so many ways that its hard to distinguish the hysterical laughing from the simultaneous crying in lamentation over the utter insanity of the statement.

This is not true in the Time domain, the Frequency domain, nor in the TWILIGHT ZONE!

Take a bow for uttering what is perhaps the most insane technical assertions ever uttered on any forum.



And one might wonder - is Heyser responsible for the above apparent reference to the use of acoustic energy as sonar to locate objects in your room? (I guess I have to explain this one; given as how few here even know who Richard Heyser was, let alone are aware that TDS originated from his research with sonar?)

Anyone know why? I mean it is not like we are immortal here. We will all go way of the dodo birds eventually.

I was talking about Keele, but Chu ya know I always have you in my heart
By the way, I think Keele worked on sonar stuff as well with the Navy as I recall. Big long snakey things that "listened" for subs but it was secret at the time. Boy I am old.

Considering that both of us might be thinking of subs that predate both the Hunley and Monitor, maybe we're not old so much as institutions. Or is that institutionalized?

First, thanks for confirming again the relationship between time and frequency being old news. Didn't say it was a new revelation but that the equivalency there is fundamental to anyone's demonstration of what happens in frequency or time domain.

Now, for the second or third time, you are spinning that into what must be the solution from Harman. I say must be because I didn't explain what Harman's solution to EQ is. You did however by using Bose as evidence of what they must be doing. Even though I corrected the obvious here that the professional solutions Harman group has have no relationship to Bose, as did Krab, you seem to be continuing to use that campaign. If you have some use for facts as you mentioned to Bigus, here are some.

The EQ product from Harman group comes courtesy of JBL SDEC-4500 (and its little brother, SDEC-3000):



This is general purpose DSP platform which comes from the pro division of Harman (BSS). It is high-performance DSP with 12 input channels and 20 outputs. The large number of channels means that you can have multiple subwoofers and bi-amp/tri-amp your speakers. If 20 channels are not enough, the unit can be expanded to 40 with just a cat-5 wire connecting them. In our configuration, we run it as 14 channels with 4 dedicated to subwoofers, and bi-amp of the fronts although for a brief period, we had it up to 40 channels, correcting two simultaneous *and independent* bi-amped systems!

On top of this platform Harman runs an automated measurement and EQ system (which is fully configurable by the calibrator) called HATS and ARCOS respectively. The HATS system is the universal measurement architecture at Harman now, obsoleting various other schemes they used to use (SMAART, MLSSA, and LMS). Its internal resolution is 1/48th of an octave or a very fine resolution of ~1.3 Hz at the lowest frequencies. That means you can modify frequency variations there with very high precision as is required in correction in that region.

The user can choose the display resolution for HATS but that does not change the underlying resolution, nor how the system programs its filter bank. This is important as some systems lack high resolution filters or measurement in addition to display. The ARCOS correction software which runs on top of SDEC uses a multi-rate scheme where its display resolution is variable across the spectrum as to match the perceptual model of the ear. This is unlike the tools folks are used to where you select an averaging method and the whole graph becomes that way. The graphs you see below all have this variable scheme applied to them. I explained the justification of this from Flody's book earlier.

The ARCOS system is unlike any consumer EQ. For one thing, it doesn't put up a marketing show of claiming to perform a correction but never showing you what it did. It is fully transparent and will display all of its filter settings. Furthermore, its filters and work is all *real-time*. This means that post correction you can modify them and instantly hear the effect. This is unlike consumer EQs where a process runs, a magic correction gets loaded and you have no idea what it is doing, much less make minute changes and hear them immediately.

Here is a sample run for low frequency optimization in ARCOS:



Notice how the system clearly shows the before (faint lines) and how it is now relative to the target it wanted to achieve. There is no Kabuki theater as there is in consumer or even so called pro products. You get what it is, even if it is not perfect.

If you look at the bottom of the graph you see what filters ARCOS has programmed into the DSP. Every dot is a filter which you can instantly access to change its bandwidth, frequency etc. We see a ton of them bunched in there showing the high resolution that is applied to the correction which only spans 80 Hz here. No averaging EQ here I am afraid.

Compare the solid line to the faint line lowest from it. See how it has managed to dial out so much of the room variations? While not shown here, this is representative of the 8 seat measurements. If you are a master ARCOS calibrators like we are, you can escape out of this into HATS and see all of those channels at 1/48 octave resolution as I mentioned. Again, no consumer nonsense here.

Talking about nonsense, this is not just about pretty graphs but whether it actually sounds good. Harman is the only company that has performed double blind tests of automated "Room" EQ systems and published them. Here are the results:



The orange bar is applying no EQ. The purple all the way to the right is Audyssey EQ. As shown there, in that example it actually made the system worse than not having an EQ. The left two highest scoring bars represent ARCOS. The difference between them is optimization for one seat or 8.

In addition, Harman is the only company who is not shy about publishing their actual results. The two graphs I post earlier came from a show setting. Tell me who is brave enough to post such information in the harsh environment of the show.

Back to EQ, importantly Harman is a vertically integrated company, offering an entire chain of products used in production and playback. While you don't have to, if you use that integrated chain, you get some significant advantages. One is that if you use a Harman group speaker (Revel, JBL, etc.), you can tell ARCOS that. Once there, the automated correction will take into account the acoustic chamber measurements of that speaker. It then uses that knowledge to apply the target curve appropriate to the power response of that speaker. This can then have useful properties of not forcing speakers to do things they cannot, or apply mild EQ to even higher frequencies as to correct for timbre variations (e.g. if speakers are behind screen).

Again, since the calibrator has full, real-time control of anything ARCOS does, you can use your "two ears and a brain" to make sure the EQ applied does what it is supposed to. Indeed, we do this post any automated correction. We can look at the sample correction for LCRs:



As you see, very wideband and mild EQ is applied to the high frequencies. Sometimes we disable these, sometimes we leave them there, and sometimes we modify them. As I said, two ears and a brain.

I have not really begun to scratch the surface of this system. Earlier I talked about SFM which uses sub delay and level to optimize for in situ optimization of up to four subs relative to smoothest response across multiple seating positions. There is "auto-sum" (Mains to sub smoothing) which goes after the cross-over region between the subs and rest of the speakers to make sure they arrive at unity response. And as mentioned earlier, you can bypass all of this and get down to the highest level resolution and do everything manually.

I hope we can dispense with the FUD campaign now regarding Harman products being nothing more than "averaged EQ." If you don't know about this system, then please ask questions. If you do know it and still said what you said, then please save it for other people who are not familiar with this technology.

Didn't accept, just didn't specifically address. Seemed to be covered by my other comments and a line by line rebuttal isn't always necessary.

How many Harman ARCOS systems have you installed and calibrated in client's homes (i.e., excluding your showroom theater)? I'm trying to get some context for your "Master Calibrator" status.

Amir, you're deflection campaign is truly pathetic. I know you understand at least basic English, and despite the multiple times I've drawn your attention to the fact that I specifically said "technical grounds" you continue to post utterly irrelevant quotes that are obviously not arguments of technical fact. No matter how many times you try to change what I said into something else, you can't.

You continue with your dishonest, misrepresentative, manipulative quoting for no reason other than to deflect attention from your lies, your erroneous statments, and your inability to own up to your mistakes. You've blatantly lied about my words in the past. You blatantly lied about your own words in this thread.

And to top it off, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Amir ...

And yet you still don't understand that relationship.


And yet the "JBL SDEC-4500 (and its little brother, SDEC-3000)" still cannot correct time domain superposition errors introduced by the room, because all of its filters are IIR.

Really? What kind of filter does that Bigus?

ROFLMAO!!!!!



"The HATS system is the universal measurement architecture at Harman now, obsoleting various other schemes they used to use (SMAART, MLSSA, and LMS). Its internal resolution is 1/48th of an octave or a very fine resolution of ~1.3 Hz at the lowest frequencies. That means you can modify frequency variations there with very high precision as is required in correction in that region."

More advanced than Smaart, LMS and MLSSA? I would hope so! And yet you claim that frequency domain measurements obsolete them? The fact is that the TEF12 from 1988 still has capabilities it lacks!

And you sure take on the 'big boys'! Smaart! MLSSA, and LMS?????

Considering MLSSA is a near 20+ year old program, that quite frankly I am not even sure if it is even supported anymore and that MLS sweeps are supported by just about ALL platforms - including ARTA which surpasses its capabilities. And Smaart, considering it, until just recently was an essentially 20 year old programs optimized for live sound, aside from its anything but stellar history since Sam Berkow sold it to EAW and its subsequent abysmal support from LOUD, and its only recent revival by Rational. And LMS - a decent speaker measurement product but Hardly an acoustics analysis platform for bounded spaces!

What, pray tell, determined your choice of programs? My guess is that these are the only ones with which you are aware.

It’s rather apparent that you have never worked with any of the tier 1 acoustics analysis programs, seeing as how you don't mention even one.

"As you see, very wideband and mild EQ is applied to the high frequencies. Sometimes we disable these, sometimes we leave them there, and sometimes we modify them."

Wow!
If they were properly determined based upon minimum phase conditions, and accurate filters can be generated, why would you need to toggle them on an off?

"The ARCOS correction software which runs on top of SDEC uses a multi-rate scheme where its display resolution is variable across the spectrum as to match the perceptual model of the ear. This is unlike the tools folks are used to where you select an averaging method and the whole graph becomes that way. The graphs you see below all have this variable scheme applied to them. I explained the justification of this from Flody's book earlier.

The ARCOS system is unlike any consumer EQ. For one thing, it doesn't put up a marketing show of claiming to perform a correction but never showing you what it did. It is fully transparent and will display all of its filter settings. Furthermore, its filters and work is all *real-time*. This means that post correction you can modify them and instantly hear the effect. This is unlike consumer EQs where a process runs, a magic correction gets loaded and you have no idea what it is doing, much less make minute changes and hear them immediately. "

Oh my!

"This is unlike consumer EQs where a process runs, a magic correction gets loaded and you have no idea what it is doing, much less make minute changes and hear them immediately."

Astounding!


"Back to EQ, importantly Harman is a vertically integrated company..." Yup, as it has bought company after company and the resulting "Harmonization" has garnered only wonderful(sic) reviews in the field. ...But only if you ask the Harmon folks.

It will apparently come as shocking news that there are other very advanced programs that not only provide myriad additional small and large acoustic space, and numerous additional acoustical measurements and calculations, but also identify ALL of the minimum phase regions and precisely identify all of the regions that can be EQ'd based upon precise evaluation of the existence of the minimum phase regions and completely calculate the precise filters and evaluate the results.

And these have been available for 10+ years.

But there IS indeed a fundamental difference. These alternative platforms are not "automated EQ systems". Instead they go FAR further in their capabilities both for measurement, analysis and the affection of solutions.

But are you guys really "masters" of EQ? Congrats.

You see, for 'the rest of us', EQ is the very last thing that is addressed AFTER all of the more fundamental issues are addressed, such as measuring, analyzing and addressing the causal non-minimum phase direct and indirect specular variables apparent in the time domain whose superposition creates the frequency domain artifacts for which EQ is ineffective!

And then AFTER all of those causal issues are addressed, THEN EQ can be properly applied based upon an analysis of whether the anomaly is minimum phase and can even be EQ'd.

Let's see. Even TEF has had Precision EQ (PEQ) and EZTune that does all of that for 15+ years now.

And WaveCapture has EQ Capture.

Heck, even SysTune has the capability to provide the input spectrum and frequency response of up to 8-channels that can be averaged via multi-channel-FFT.

Even RoomEQWizard even allows for the identification and generation of parametric EQ filters as well, and it’s FREE.

But then, those products can actually explain the concept and explain their procedure without having to result to name dropping proprietary trademark acronyms as does this 'in depth' marketing brochure.

But the larger fact is that EQ is but a very SMALL aspect of what is involved in a complete analysis and treatment of speaker-room interaction.

And it’s always refreshing to learn that instead of actually understanding the acoustical concepts that are fundamental to the analysis and application of such principles, that this is ultimately all about a marketing brochure review of an "automatic EQ system". And of course we wouldn't want to reduce it to an averaged EQ system, despite it being exactly that! That is assuming that one can actually find a use for averaged EQ that extends beyond distributed minimum phase spatial regions.

And you'll pardon us if we are not very impressed with a marketing schema equivalent to: "This is like Audyssey, but per the customer surveys, many like ours better."

But even more significant and telling is the absolutely ERRONEOUS fundamental assertion that:

“… think of minimum phase as the defining characteristic of a *system.*
And Fourier a way to go back and forth between time and frequency of a *signal*.
What I post from Floyd says that you are wasting your time looking at that area. You should get a good speaker whose on and off-axis response combine nicely and you are golden.”

If only a speaker-room system was able to be characterized as a minimum phase system where EQ was a sufficient and appropriate solution to non-minimum phase issues!

FIR, for a small region of space. I'm not a particularly big fan of this convolution process.

Is the extent of your knowledge marketing material?

Still waiting on that admission, or apology, or both.

I said they have standardized on a system that is used for everything they do from speaker design to acoustic research. You turn that into a competition with the other solutions and then complain? About what? You have used HATS? I assume not. But hey, don't let lack of experience with the tool you are putting down get in the way of your FUD campaign.

For your information, Hats is a proprietary software and infrastructure for measurement and storing data plus visualization. It is independent of the measurement hardware system. By standardizing on this, Harman is able to share data and research across multiple groups. For a multi-billion dollar audio company to use this system instead of buying, it means it is a capable system. For us as consumers, it means that we are using the same system they use to design their audio equipment and to evaluate pro products used to produce the music and movies we enjoy. That consistency does have value.


You are so confused with this comment I don't even know where to start. Let's start at the top. You claimed that I was advocating averaged ED as acoustic solution. I described how the *system* we use works. What we use is an integrated hardware, software, measurement, EQ and crossovers. You have no experience with this system whatsoever so have confused yourself into thinking it is an acoustic tool. It wasn't. It was a *solution* to electronic processing for high performance systems.


You would know if had read the post instead of quoting it and making up your own version of it. I gave an example of screen attenuating high frequencies and wanting to compensate. I realize for a guy who lives in time domain, such concepts are foreign.


You said nothing, I will say the same thing .



And you think the ARCOS system just flips a coin and decided what to correct? Oh, I know. You don't think that correcting frequency response matters. All of those graphs where the peaks were taken away were fictional. How about those double blind listening tests showing preference over no EQ? Folks imagined those too?


Oh, the truth comes out all of a sudden. Those systems are better, except that they are not systems. We are talking about what car is better and all along you were talking about having a better screwdriver. Since none of those systems apply "EQ" to the system and the one I mentioned does, then trust all of this was a misdirection and noise and unrelated to the topic you asked me to address.

Reminds me of a story . Guy goes to a butcher and asks how much the steaks are. He says $20/pound. Customer replies, "that's too expensive. The butcher across the street is selling them for $10/pound." Butcher asks, "why don't you go and buy it from him?" Customer answers, "He doesn't have any!"

No doubt these tools you speak of enable you to run test signals in time domain looking for toothpicks in the carpet . I am sure it is fun for folks who want to become human sonars and look like they know what they are talking about. You know, like the Verizon technician with screwdriver pocking out of his shirt pocket.


It is for us too. Read the article: http://www.madronadigital.com/Showroom/HomeTheater.html

What is the first step you see? Computer visualization and CFD simulations of the room before one piece of equipment is ever bought, or a single screw nailed on the wall. From a recent presentation I made on video for audiophiles:



Surprise, surprise! Acoustics comes next and "final step" is EQ. You think those smooth graphs in the charts came from a random room?


Or you could let the system do what it does as with ARCOS, then use your ears and your brain to optimize rather than starring at spikes on a chart.


They can explain? Really? All this time we didn't need this forum and could just run those programs and it would explain to us what is going on? It would tell us a speaker has poor directivity? It would tell us how we are supposed to set the levels and phase for four subs to get the smoothest response across 8 seating positions?


That's right. So you better know what you are *really* doing. If you don't, trust the people who do like Harman.


So much stream of consciousness and misdirections in your posts. Let me get you back to the topic. You made an accusation of I was advocating averaged EQ. I showed you that what I was advocating was anything but. An entire response comes back from you full of emotion and zero counter to the fact that the systems I advocate are anything but "averaged EQ." I trust we are done with that argument.

Despite the flowery marketing language, technospeak, and your insistance to the contrary, any IIR filtering can be fairly described as "averaged eq" in the appropriate context. Since there is no ability to individually address time variant phenomenon (there's that 'wrong' word again) which may superpose to create an effect that may (or often may not) be apparent in the time invariant frequency domain, the only thing IIR filters can do is treat the averaged contribution from many such time domain events. No matter how sophisticated or surgical in approach, the tool fundamentally lacks the ability to do any more than this averaged correction.

If you understood the preceding discussion in the least, or had bothered to try and improve your knowledge during, you would see dragons statement for the blunt truth that it is.

What context is that? A plumber explaining signal processing?


"Create an effect?" "Time variant phenomenon?" "Time invariant frequency domain?" Next you are going to tell me what a flux capacitor does in this instance .


"Surgical in approach?" "Averaged correction?" How about photon torpedoes? When do we get to talk about them?


Yeh, the blunt truth it is as he addressed you:


When in Rome....

Didn't know you carried that degree as well.

Eight posts in a row from you now where you absolutely ignore your technical errors, your blatant lies, your dishonest and manipulative quoting, and do not even make a cursory attempt to address my comments on their technical merits. If you were capable of doing so, you would. Go ahead... keep posting cartoons though. That's the way to show your customers at Madrona Digital that they are in good, competent hands.


If you understood even the surface meaning of those terms in the context of this thread, you would not have made the erroneous statements you did.


Only more dishonest, out of context quoting from you. His statement isn't even remotely related to the technical discussion at hand.

Again, do you have no bounds Amir? Is lying to cover up an error that much easier than just admitting the error? Do you lie to your customers at Madrona Digital as easily? Are they easily fooled by big technical words and marketspeak?

From the HARMAN press release:

If FIR is good, wonder why Audyssey which uses them finished below no EQ at all in that double blind test.


Me neither. The whole word sounds bad. "Convolution." Sounds like someone having seizure. Oh wait, that is convulsion. Must be the same thing....

Or maybe filters do some good:


Frequency response variations 10 db before EQ, 3-4 db after.


Variations 15 db before EQ, 3-4 db after.

There must be a new undiscovered school of thought that says those peaks are good for me and I should live with them. Who needs flat frequency response? The whole thing must have been a fraud all these years.

Those expert listeners who voted the above as significantly better than no EQ and FIR based EQ must have been deaf too. We don't believe their vote or objective measurements of the system.

I have a better idea. We start to listen to those people who do this for a living rather than forum posts! What a novel idea! Here we go:

Audio Engineering Society Paper:

The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt and Sean M. Hess

"A panel of eight trained listeners gave comparative ratings for five different room correction products based on overall preference and spectral balance. The room corrections were applied to a single loudspeaker/subwoofer in a typical semi-reflective listening room, and evaluated using three different music programs. The same loudspeaker/subwoofer without correction was included as a hidden anchor. The results found significant differences in sound quality among the room correction products based on listeners' preferences and spectral balance ratings. These differences can be largely explained by examining the steady state, spatially averaged frequency response measurements of the room corrections measured at the listening location." "

How can that be? The system that won had the best frequency response? And averaged too? Nah, we must believe that flat response is no good and stare at those sonar charts instead.

"5. DISCUSSION
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from
these experiments. The first research question this
experiment addressed was:

To what extent do room correction products improve
or degrade the overall quality of reproduced sound
based on listener preference and spectral balance
ratings?

The experimental results provide evidence that room
correction, when done properly, yields significant
improvements in the sound quality of reproduced music
in a listening room. Three of the five room correction
systems received significantly higher preference ratings,
and better spectral balance ratings and comments than
the uncorrected loudspeaker/subwoofer.

It is also true that when room correction is not done
properly, it can produce significant degradation in sound
quality equal to, or much worse, than the uncorrected
loudspeaker/system. The best RC5 could do is
statistically tie the uncorrected loudspeaker/subwoofer
(RC4), and RC6 was rated a full 2.6 preference ratings
(strong dislike) below RC4.

The second research question this study addressed was:
Can the subjective ratings of the room correction
products be explained by objective measurements
such as the combined in situ loudspeaker/room
frequency response?

The more preferred room corrections had smoother inroom
frequency responses that were more extended at low frequencies.
The two least preferred room corrections tended to produce in-room
curves that had flat slopes, whereas the more preferred ones had a downward tilted response.

As a final note, there has been much controversy
related to whether room corrections should attempt to
equalize the loudspeaker/room above the room
transition frequency (about 300 Hz). These
experimental results provide evidence that broadband
loudspeaker/room equalization above the room
transition frequency can yield positive benefits, even
when the directivity of the loudspeaker is not smooth or
constant. In these tests, both preference and spectral
balance ratings improved by filling in the 3 kHz dip in
the loudspeaker's sound power response. The uniformly
distributed broadband acoustical treatment of our
listening room may be an enabling factor in achieving
good results with broadband equalization by minimizing
the room's spectral tampering of the reflected sound
produced by the loudspeaker. More perceptual research
in needed to better quantify how the performance of the
acoustical treatment of the room affects the sound
quality of broadband room correction."

But yeh, it is all about FIR, IIR, time invariant frequency response, blah, blah, blah....

Strawman. I of course never said FIR room correction is "good." I simply stated what they are technically capable of, something you are obviously ignorant about. When your ignorance is exposed I suppose knocking down strawmen is easier. And as you know, and later quoted, I actually said I'm no big fan, so not only were you arguing with yourself, but once again being dishonest about what another forum member said.


Strawman. In fact, you can find quotes from me in this very thread where I have spoken out in support of using traditional IIR filters full spectrum. I favor using the right tool to measure and then the right tool to address a specific problem. So you are being dishonest about my position again. How many times can you lie in one thread, Amir?


Look, you are the one who made the technical errors and then kept repeating them. I tried to quite unemotionally point out the mistake. After you kept providing erroneous information, I pointed it out again. You then put on your hat of superiority and began to "correct" me, stating you didn't have the heart to do it earlier, stating you were providing the ABC's of signal processing theory, and now you "blah blah blah" the discussion when it becomes technically over your head.

How many cartoons, excerpts, graphs, etc will you post in an attempt to cover over both your technical ineptness and continued dishonesty?

Just noticed this Ethan. That isn't true. EQ won't change the rate of decay, but because it reduces the energy input into a mode it does reduce the actual decay time. What it doesn't always do well is manage multiple measurement/seating locations. It can, given enough sources and control, but this is where physical treatments find their legs.

No, you didn't simply state that. This is what got us here:

Bigus: "And yet the "JBL SDEC-4500 (and its little brother, SDEC-3000)" still cannot correct time domain superposition errors introduced by the room, because all of its filters are IIR."

Amir: Really? What kind of filter does that Bigus?

Bigus: FIR, for a small region of space.

So IIR filters *cannot* fix something, but FIRs can according to you. How come then an IIR system won a shoot out in double blind tests? If it is not capable of fixing "time domain superposition errors introduced by the room," how did it manage to get results better than no EQ in AES paper?


I am just looking for data Bigus. I quoted how a system using IIR, using unbiased double blind tests produced superior results to no eq. If it is not fixing "time domain superposition errors introduced by the room," what is it fixing Bigus?

Do you agree with the authors that smooth frequency response was important? Do you agree with the authors that correction above the minimum phase region worked to improve things?


You mean this statement? "there are other frequency domain issues that may or may not benefit from acoustic source IIR filtering, namely non-flat on or off axis frequency responses, baffle step correction, etc. "

"May or may not" is speaking in support of IIR filters? And what earth on earth is an "acoustic IIR filtering?" What is a non-acoustic IIR filter?


It is either the cartoons, or letting someone like Dragon smack the back of your head so many times as to forget who is your friend, who is your enemy in this thread . I can't bring myself to his level so as long as you keep going with these emotional and unprofessional outbursts, I am going to bring levity to them with cartoons.

hey, not fair. Last time you addressed (some..where is the rest?) my points you ended with 'want to take it further, take it 'elsewhere'..well I too thought, as frickin usual, another thread around here had died due to silly personal bickering...

and here you are sneaking in more?!

Told us everything about the system except the price..anyway just a few thoughts that occurreds to me in the middle of reading it




seems a lot of capabilty! price? (cept I doubt I'd need it, already have my units to do this task, and these units DO place a lot of importance on 'time' in audio....a concept that seems to be lacking in this part of the audio world. )



Rather a broad brush conclusion there amir. Wonder if mine is a consumer correction unit? Anyway, what you talking about, I have all my before and after correction graphs, I can see exactly what was done both in the FR and time domains.

Let's say any given unit does not, well most (on these forums for example) would be running REW, it takes them a second to do the comparative sweeps (they DO check their results no?) and voila. Maybe leaving that out of the units and in the hand of the user makes the unit more affordable? hahaha



You seem to be stressing this, even if not fully true.


I assume you have many settings of recall?? I ask because you may be the only one present, surely the 'optimised' response for a single seat gives a better result at that seat than the result optimised for eight seats??


Except when you go against harmon, eh AJ. When sometimes it suits our purpose we go with it, when it comes to conclusions we don't like we look for faults...part of the emotional human condition.


of course, I covered that earlier (took a bit of stick too) but hey, if you like how the sound changes (after hearing of course) then yeah, what is wrong with salting to taste?

You are still learning the m/c, so could be toins of screens we have not seen yet, can you show us the 'time' sections of the gui??



Now, I thought the entire point you wanted to get across was 'get the right speakers' and in a normal room etc etc you are golden.

Ok, I can accept you don't say that for the bass region, use multiple subs and eq, NONE of which I disagree with btw!! I do it ALL, multiple bass sources, eq, treatment (both bass and remainder) AND time......still, (I assume) those graphs you showed (of eq in mids and highs) were done with harmon products? (in their own room)

Well, assuming that those harmon products fulfill all the requirements laid out by toole (??) why on earth is eq needed?

Possibly because ALL we can ever strive for is the theoretical ideal, which never appears in the real world.

So beware the fundamentalists of any stripe, and come at you with cookie cutter solutions to real world problems.

ALWAYS eq, NEVER eq, ALWAYS trap, NEVER trap. Whatever.

I'll stick with taking what I need from whatever field.