What is your favorite house curve

[Sokel]

Don't be stupid. B&K 1974 Target Curve is successfully applied to an already auto-EQ-corrected room. Sonarworks, for example

Oh,that's good to know,I suppose they know better than that:

What is your favorite house curve

OK. Next question for you folks. As far as I can tell there is no spinorama for the Focal Aria 926's, which happen to be my main speakers. However, Amir did do a spinorama for the Aria 906 standmount speakers. They use the same tweeter and mid driver as the 926, but lack the two woofers as they...

www.audiosciencereview.com

(unless @Floyd Toole is also stupid)

 

[landco]

@Floyd Toole is also stupid

Did Floyd Tool develop software for room correction (Dirac, Sonarworks, etc.)? No? Well then he is not an expert in the field of room correction.

 

[Sokel]

Did Floyd Tool develop software for room correction (Dirac, Sonarworks, etc.)? No? Well then he is not an expert in the field of room correction.

Dear God
I rest my case.

 

[StigErik]

I rest my case.

Yes, please do so.

 

[landco]

Dear God

Perhaps for you Floyd Tool is a god, and his every word is a commandment of God, but not for me. I am not a fanatic or a supporter of a blind cult of personality.

 

[StigErik]

Here's my current target, and as you can see - a huge bass lift. And that is because I don't have any room decay in the bass, so it's more like headphones, where much more bass lift is typically preferred.

A couple of articles about headphone EQ here:

How earphones should sound: Talking about target curves

When we discuss what makes a headphone or earphone sound “good” and “bad”, we inevitably need to ask the question, well how should a headphone sound?

usound.com

A Crucial Question: Does flat response for speakers and harman curve for headphones tend to be individual’s favourite response?

I respect Toole and Olive’s research and I understand that these are preferred response in blind test, though I do think Olive’s sample size is too small (usually 200-300 people in his various papers and only 50-60 in each strata like region, age etc) to safely establish a solid standard/target...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Basic Channel]

Here's my current target, and as you can see - a huge bass lift. And that is because I don't have any room decay in the bass, so it's more like headphones, where much more bass lift is typically preferred.

By this you mean the decay is even across the spectrum? Or that it’s below 200ms or some limit?

 

[StigErik]

I have a double bass array, which almost eliminates the decay in the bass. Above 100 Hz I'm well below 200 ms, its' more like 100 ms decay time.

 

[StigErik]

 

[restorer-john]

Perhaps for you Floyd Tool is a god, and his every word is a commandment of God, but not for me. I am not a fanatic or a supporter of a blind cult of personality.

An independent and opinionated thinker. You are a very rare breed indeed, especially on ASR.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I was notified that my name had come up in this conversation, and I have not been following this forum for some time. It is remarkable that this debate is still going on. People don't read, or don't learn, and are inclined to put more faith in profit making products than in the real science underlying the process. I am flattered that my name and "god" are in the same sentence, but I am just a retired research scientist, reporting facts as they are observed in accurate measurements and controlled listening tests. I think I need to repeat something I have said before in this and other forums:
Let me state now: there isn’t, nor can there be, an ideal steady-state “target” room curve. The room curve is a “result” of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex semi-reflective listening environment, it is not a “target”. If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests – if you see such a curve there is a good chance you have well-designed loudspeakers. That is all the so-called Harman curve is about. But misinterpretations and folklore have taken over.

In the end it is comprehensive anechoic measurements that are definitive of sound quality, not the steady state room curve. If the loudspeaker is not “well designed”, and many are not, especially in off-axis behavior, the steady-state room curve will not be a smooth decline. The shape of a steady-state room curve at middle and high frequencies is dominated by off-axis radiated “early reflections” and that is a property of loudspeakers that cannot be equalized. Equalizing an irregular room curve to have a more visually appealing shape – even the Harman curve - guarantees nothing. The loudspeaker is at fault, and the solution is most likely a better loudspeaker. That is why, these days, it is such a powerful advantage to have anechoic measurements presented in “spinorama” format available on so many products. It takes much of the guesswork out of getting genuinely neutral sound reproduction.

Those are the hard facts in a nutshell. Those having a long attention span might find value in the attached long document I wrote a while back and probably posted somewhere in ASR, or wait for the 4th edition of my book which is currently being written.

 

[landco]

Floyd Toole has repeatedly referred to spinorama.org, this resource is biased and overestimates popular products on the market

For example, advertised as "superior" acoustics, built on 5" low-frequency drivers, which in itself is absurd
This is a design decision, successful marketing, but why adjust the “measurements” to marketers??

 

[landco]

here isn’t, nor can there be, an ideal steady-state “target” room curve.

I never mentioned that this solution is "ideal", but using presets like B&K 1974 Target Curve is better than NOT using it.

 

[dlaloum]

Floyd Toole has repeatedly referred to spinorama.org, this resource is biased and overestimates popular products on the market

For example, advertised as "superior" acoustics, built on 5" low-frequency drivers, which in itself is absurd
This is a design decision, successful marketing, but why adjust the “measurements” to marketers??
View attachment 368172

Actually 4 x 5" drivers - and given that measurements have been taken that supports its performance claims, what exactly are you basing your remark on?

It's specifications claim -6db @ 26Hz... (-3db @ 31Hz)
Erin's measurements show it roughly -6db @ 20Hz - which is pretty damn good performance.

And Floyd Tool, made the posting before yours.

 

[landco]

Erin's measurements show it roughly -6db @ 20Hz - which is pretty damn good performance

Don't mislead the public! We know what tricks marketers go to in order to write the coveted numbers in the parameters.

These numbers have nothing to do with reality, this is a manipulation of measurements when they add room gain and so on.

The real lower frequency does not even come close to the passport frequency, if you don’t believe me, carry out a normal test in an anechoic chamber.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I never mentioned that this solution is "ideal", but using presets like B&K 1974 Target Curve is better than NOT using it.

Prove it with double-blind testing and then we can talk. Without anechoic data on the loudspeaker it is not possible it interpret a steady-state room curve.

 

[landco]

I thought a lot, and came to the conclusion that Bruel Kjaer 1974 Target Curve is ingenious and simple.

This curve is specifically calculated (averaged, if you will) for an average, unprepared or poorly prepared home environment.

A rise of about 3 decibels, starting from 2 kHz and below, gives expressiveness to the most important range for us - the mid frequencies,

and adds solidity to the bass, which is missing if you simply make the frequency response linear.

A smooth roll-off from about 3 kHz onwards provides us with restrained high frequencies, devoid of loudness and harshness.


This target curve is a great invention, created by a man who understands great sound quality. It's a pity that Floyd is not able to appreciate it.
PS. BK 1974 is NOT the Harman curve, please do not confuse it

 

[Sal1950]

This target curve is a great invention, created by a man who understands great sound quality. It's a pity that Floyd is not able to appreciate it.

Maybe when you grow up and finish your education you'll be able to appreciate Floyd's decades of work in the industry.

 

[restorer-john]

I was notified that my name had come up in this conversation, and I have not been following this forum for some time. It is remarkable that this debate is still going on. People don't read, or don't learn, and are inclined to put more faith in profit making products than in the real science underlying the process. I am flattered that my name and "god" are in the same sentence, but I am just a retired research scientist, reporting facts as they are observed in accurate measurements and controlled listening tests. I think I need to repeat something I have said before in this and other forums:
Let me state now: there isn’t, nor can there be, an ideal steady-state “target” room curve. The room curve is a “result” of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex semi-reflective listening environment, it is not a “target”. If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests – if you see such a curve there is a good chance you have well-designed loudspeakers. That is all the so-called Harman curve is about. But misinterpretations and folklore have taken over.

In the end it is comprehensive anechoic measurements that are definitive of sound quality, not the steady state room curve. If the loudspeaker is not “well designed”, and many are not, especially in off-axis behavior, the steady-state room curve will not be a smooth decline. The shape of a steady-state room curve at middle and high frequencies is dominated by off-axis radiated “early reflections” and that is a property of loudspeakers that cannot be equalized. Equalizing an irregular room curve to have a more visually appealing shape – even the Harman curve - guarantees nothing. The loudspeaker is at fault, and the solution is most likely a better loudspeaker. That is why, these days, it is such a powerful advantage to have anechoic measurements presented in “spinorama” format available on so many products. It takes much of the guesswork out of getting genuinely neutral sound reproduction.

Those are the hard facts in a nutshell. Those having a long attention span might find value in the attached long document I wrote a while back and probably posted somewhere in ASR, or wait for the 4th edition of my book which is currently being written.

With respect Mr Toole, why is it remarkable that a "debate is still going on"? Without debate, nothing changes or advances- surely you know that.

People do read, and they do learn. Why should they not question, debate and discuss? And what does that have to do with "profit making products"?

 

[Floyd Toole]

I thought a lot, and came to the conclusion that Bruel Kjaer 1974 Target Curve is ingenious and simple.

This curve is specifically calculated (averaged, if you will) for an average, unprepared or poorly prepared home environment.

A rise of about 3 decibels, starting from 2 kHz and below, gives expressiveness to the most important range for us - the mid frequencies,

and adds solidity to the bass, which is missing if you simply make the frequency response linear.

A smooth roll-off from about 3 kHz onwards provides us with restrained high frequencies, devoid of loudness and harshness.


This target curve is a great invention, created by a man who understands great sound quality. It's a pity that Floyd is not able to appreciate it.
PS. BK 1974 is NOT the Harman curve, please do not confuse it

View attachment 368182

Well now, for your information, I personally knew Per Bruel, the "B" of B& K, and Henning Moller, the author of the B&K curve, and visited the company in Denmark around that time. The so-called target was the average of steady-state 1/3-octave room curves measured using several highly regarded loudspeakers of the day - 1974. At the time none of the loudspeakers were as timbrally neutral as the best of today's products, but they all had the familiar cone & dome forward-firing construction which meant that directivity ranged from omnidirectional in the bass, becoming progressively more directional at higher frequencies. In other words, loudspeakers with flattish on-axis responses, which was the universal goal, radiated less sound power as frequency rises. So, the resulting room curves had a gentle downward tilt. That is the same now as it was in 1974, except that now we know how to design loudspeakers with fewer resonances and more neutral timbre. B&K was a renowned acoustical measurement instrument maker, and they were interested in promoting sales of their pink noise generators, microphones and 1/3-octave analyzers, all of which I knew well and used when I was at the National Research Council of Canada. But that was a long time ago, and technology has moved on.
The problem with room curves is that they cannot reveal resonances in loudspeakers that listeners can hear. For that one needs anechoic data. See for example: Olive, S.E., Hess, S.M. and Devantier, A. (2008). “Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room Equalization Preference for Multichannel, Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?”, Audio Eng. Soc. 124thConvention, Preprint 7492.