You're avoiding the time behaviour of the room and just looking at the frequency response. That's like overlooking quality to large degree and is exactly correcting what's not minimum phase.
You're avoiding the time behaviour of the room and just looking at the frequency response. That's like overlooking quality to large degree and is exactly correcting what's not minimum phase.
Which shows nothing of the time behaviour of the room. We're talking about room correction, not speaker correction.
REW's "Var Smoothing" roughly corresponds to this:
"Variable smoothing applies 1/48 octave below 100 Hz, 1/3 octave above 10 kHz and varies between 1/48 and 1/3 octave from 100 Hz to 10 kHz, reaching 1/6 octave at 1 kHz. Variable smoothing is recommended for responses that are to be equalised"
View attachment 29642
Which still shows nothing about the time domain of the room.
Which still shows nothing about the time domain of the room.
Post mine? What has that to do with correcting non minimum phase behavior.
Yesterday, Stereophile made a comparison between Magnepan LRS and KEF LS50.
Herb Reichert, the subjective listening
* https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-page-2
John Atkinson, the objective measurements
* https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-measurements
But two different technologies and a very different frequency and spectral response! And Magnepan: 50 Hz at -3dB and LS50 79 Hz at -3dB. Column versus bookshelf speakers (without subwoofer).
Fig.6 Magnepan LRS, cumulative spectral-decay plot on mid-panel tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).
https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-anniversary-model-loudspeaker-measurements
Fig.9 KEF LS50, cumulative spectral-decay plot on HF axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).
You have clearly shown that you don't understand what minimum phase behaviour of the room means. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to learn the fundamentals if you're going to involve yourself in the discussion about it. Just showing you a graph isn't going to give you this understanding, but something you need to learn by reading yourself.This is in-room phase measurement showing actual phase, minimum phase and excess phase of my left speaker. What other measurement you had in mind?
It would demonstrate your point better than constantly making statements without proof. It would also demonstrate your credibility about this topic.
Which would imply a lot of the room modes cannot be fixed either, since a great deal of them are not minimum phase behavior. A general statement that room modes can be corrected by room correction is simply wrong.
Regardless, his point is valid. dealing with that 12dB peak by EQ is still appropriate.You have clearly shown that you don't understand what minimum phase behaviour of the room means. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to learn the fundamentals if you're going to involve yourself in the discussion about it. Just showing you a graph isn't going to give you this understanding, but something you need to learn by reading yourself.
You can’t hear spacial placement (imaging) in mono, correct. However, if a speaker has a well controlled off-axis (correlates to good imaging) then the reflections will be close in tonal response to the on-axis, which is more preferable to speakers with suckouts or peaks off-axis.About mono Vs. Stereo testing. I just can't understand how a single mono speaker in a testing room can have any spatial quality! It should be sharp. I am glad to see that now Harman has multichannel listening rooms. Stereo and multi-ch imaging is crucial for hifi.
You have clearly shown that you don't understand what minimum phase behaviour of the room means. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to learn the fundamentals if you're going to involve yourself in the discussion about it. Just showing you a graph isn't going to give you this understanding, but something you need to learn by reading yourself.
My experience is that is has always been better to EQ a large room mode generated peak than not, assuming other methods such as acoustic treatments or multiple subs are not an option.
Good advice. I do the same thing: measure the same sweep from several locations and EQ only what they have in common. Also you can't fix big dips through EQ, they require room treatment. Not because I read the book but because I learned the hard way through trial & error....
Very important slide - don't make EQ based on a single sweep made at one point, what you need to make good equalisation are spatial measurements and aim for resonances:
...
In my limited experience pretty much all peaks can be fixed, dips not that much.
I have not idolized any one individual. I have praised the research that goes miles and miles beyond anything that the rest of the industry has done combined. Credit is of course given where it is due. But no one has made any appeal to authority here. In every argument research data is provided to stand as proof, not someone's opinion.
In reverse, you keep displaying this irrational allergy to this work in post after post. That is not data. Put forward contrary research and we can examine that. Without it, constantly objective is of no value and actually does damage to people who want to get through these topics and have to sort through these emotional posts.
This is a myth created by people who go by sound bytes rather than reading the full texts. THe statement against room EQ is in regards to attempting to fix directivity problems with a speaker. This is something that cannot be done since any electric manipulation impacts both direct and indirect sound. No such position is taken at all against usefulness of EQ.
Everyone at Harman including Dr. Toole are completely in favor of EQ for fixing room modes. This is so without exception.