I’m convinced that as I age (61), my ability to decided between what should sound better interferes with what sounds better to my hears. I’ve EQ my setup with a MiniDSP. The frequency response is shown in Green and roughly +/- 3 dB. The response without EQ is shown in RED. The miniDSP is obviously doing its job in flatting out the response. However, the EQed response sounds dull and lifeless and I much prefer the sound of response through the MiniDSP without any filtering applied. Has anyone had the same experience with EQing to a flat response.
You must log in or register to comment.
I am surprised at the uneven response achieved. Technically the equalized response looks somewhat alright to me, except that it clearly lacks for about 5 dB worth around 100 Hz, which is quite critical for the feeling of punch and warmth in the music.
There is supposed to be a general decreasing slope in the in-room response measurements, worth about 5 dB across the entire frequency response, but also an additional loudness correction bass boost is acceptable unless you regularly use very loud listening levels which do not need it. I think another +5 dB tuned around 100 Hz should be added, using broad filters. With enough bass, the speakers would sound much warmer, I think.
In my opinion, the uncorrected response below 1 kHz looks alright except for that big peak around 37 Hz that should be pulled down by some 5-6 dB, maybe. That would be the only correction I would want done, personally. Above 1 kHz, assuming the tonality corrections are very broad and smooth with low-Q (resonance factor) filters, they are probably an improvement also, as the uncorrected response there is very strange-looking. These speakers are not neutral at all, for whatever reason.
Exactly same over here, I ended up with only PEQ a peak at 70-100Hz, and leave everything else as is.
I think that may be what I eventually settle on, too. Makes sense to adjust using a method of what sounds best rather than what should sound best in theory.
Depends at what SPL you listen to.
The red curve may better align with your hearing at lower SPLs, and thus sound more flat. There should be some point as the SPLs rise that the red curve sounds like the picture shows, a little bright and a little bottom heavy.
The green curve will sound flat once the SPLs climb into the area where our hearing is flat. But this may sound foreign or ‘un-fun’ as we probably didn’t grow up hearing a flat sound system, either at home or at live events. We typically get ‘trained’ on very not-flat systems and I’ve found it rather difficult to retrain my hearing to appreciate a flat system.
In the end, it is your system, there for your listening pleasure. Live your best life is my best advice.
Unfortunately, I was hoping for an absolute ideal response. But realizing that it’s a matter of perception.
an absolute ideal response
Isn’t that what Yamaha tried to do with their loudness knob solution in the 80s and 90s? You set the max volume you wanted with the traditional volume knob and then turned down the volume with the loudness knob. This circuit would massage the frequency response to match the loudness curves associated with our ears’ variables.
Yeah, I too didn’t find it that useful as it never really matched my ears. It seems the market said, thanks, no thanks and Yamaha killed off this feature.
Preference is often what you are used to. Your ears do adjust over time, so give it some time. If after a couple of weeks it still seems lifeless, start to make some minor adjustments, or simply boost/cut the blunter bass/treble tone controls (if you have those).
I think you like a V or U shaped response. It’s a big club. I think people are over analyzing here.
Yeah. You can obsess over flat frequency response results, but you don’t listen to graphs.
My personal listening preferences line up closely to the Harman curve, so a boosted bass and warm rolled off upper frequencies. I’d likely much prefer OP’s EQd setup.
OP’s non-EQd results are textbook V shaped, which plenty of people enjoy. Neither one is better than the other for subjective enjoyment. Go with what you like.
sometimes your ears just need to adjust. i’d try it a week and see what you think. you might like the extra midrange emphasis.
but the no-eq’d FR is not bad. it leaves the 200-1k range alone which is the most important for something sounding “natural”. the treble and bass boost is well within what an engineer might do to give something more presence
Just go with what you like and sounds best to you, that’s really the only rule for a hobby like this. It’s very likely you’re hearing has changed with age and that’s fine too. Look at the graphs here.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00040-7/fulltext
But even if you were 18 and liked that non-eq curve that’s perfectly acceptable. Don’t listen to what someone else or some dogma says you have to do. We like what we like!
You sure you don’t have some reverb problems in the room?
I’d check the reverberation time because those peaks on the high end of frequency chart seem a little too loud for a treated room.
I don’t see a lot of those charts, but never have I ever had high frequencies behave near as wildly as the low end which seems to be the case here
You want downward slope. The original curve is very bright, and likely fatiguing. I’d leave the bass alone (or put a peak filter at the big hump) and then keep the top end filter. See how that sounds.
Thanks!