D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
You're kidding.. Right?Yes. EQing with all the reflections included is a ticket to sonic disaster
Well I digress. I'm quite happy with my "sonic disaster" Dirac profile..
You're kidding.. Right?Yes. EQing with all the reflections included is a ticket to sonic disaster
I've had very bad luck trying to EQ based on ungated measurements. Dirac does ungated correction?You're kidding.. Right?
Well I digress. I'm quite happy with my "sonic disaster" Dirac profile..
Don't know. Does anyone know exactly how Dirac Live does its corrections?I've had very bad luck trying to EQ based on ungated measurements. Dirac does ungated correction?
Yes, you can also read it in the first link in my signature.Dr.Toole defends that if a box does not measure according to what he considers is a good measurement for him, what you have to do is to buy a better one.
Yes, but again especially the early directivity (index) of the Edifier isn't too bad as I showed above.Dr. Toole himself recommends not to equalize loudspeakers above 500hz,
because he says that the directivity problems are not corrected after that
Exactly, this is a result of its decent directivity, if the directivity would have been really poor the score difference would remain larger.The Edifier R1280T prior to equalization had a score of 4.6, the worst of those tested,
but after EQ they were only 2 tenths below the Neumann KH80.
And it is likely that the on-axis response could have been tuned a bit more with some more subtle EQ tweaks.
Doesn't it use multiple microphone positions to analyze the room?Don't know. Does anyone know exactly how Dirac Live does its corrections?
Yes.Doesn't it use multiple microphone positions to analyze the room?
Uhm...Yes.
Thank you for this clever observation, very true and funny. One might add that at the end of the day, cable is a perfect example of "snake oil", as the measurements are clear and the scientific conclusion is understandable by most.But at the same time, this is almost the opposite of the cable discussion, which I find a bit funny:
Cable discussion:
Person 1: You can see from the measurements that it can't have any difference at all, you have to believe the readings, your subjective feeling is deceiving you.
Person 2: But I do subjectively hear a difference, so I don't believe you and your measurements. There is certainly a lot that you can't measure.
Room acoustics discussion:
Person 2: You can see from the measured values that there are huge improvements when I use absorbers.
Person 1: But the measurements are deceptive, your brain works differently than a microphone, you can't trust the measurements.
My main issue to reduce the early lateral reflections too much (high DR ratio) is that it mimics near-field. Near-field is to me quite unnatural. While you will hear the details in the recording, you are getting a brighter presentation than you would get in the small-room far-field that includes early reflections. What I know from experiments was that adding damping on the wall behind the speakers caused better dynamics but without the bad that comes with too much damping around the listening area. One effect was also that I needed to increase the volume of the amp to get the same kind of loudness, and notes/beats decayed faster. Due to the volume increase and faster decay, there was more detail heard.If we move the speakers, we also will likely change the frequency response. In some cases, and unless the room is heavily treated, the response can change considerable in the lows due to SBIR. So one might end with comparing something else as well.
The highlighted part here is very true. Manfred Schroeder's study on the best concert halls revealed that they had lateral reflections arriving between approximately 20-25 ms after the direct sound in common (shoe box halls). In our small listening spaces, they arrive anywhere between 2 ms and 10 ms in most cases. Psychoacoustically that's very different.
Late arriving reflections should either be partially reflective or preferable diffused. They shouldn't be absorbed.
Yep. I may have some mid band loss too...who knows, and must admit don't really care.It's actually not the HF roll off that's the issue here but the loss of mid band frequency hearing. An audiogram will tell you how much you have lost. On iOS a free app called mimi hearing test is comprehensive enough.
managed? - you put springs and rocks under your speakers - what did that manage?...
What? Are you saying a speaker has only one set volume/SPL level?Inverse square law doesn't actually happen indoors because reflections reinforce the direct sound. This reinforcement doesn't happen outdoors. Therefore at a given distance indoors, all else being equal, SPL will always be higher than outdoors, improving intelligibility.
Uhm...
Yes, of course. It's far more sophisticated than simple time gating. But both serve to get the room out of the equation.Because I am willing to look dumb if it helps me learn, I’ll go ahead and ask: like @Holdt , I’ve used Dirac and it seems to work well, including at higher frequencies.
So is the idea here that by requiring the user to take multiple measurements from different locations (9-17, but most typically 13), Dirac collects data enabling it to EQ the higher frequencies based on quasi-anechoic measurements, or at least based on some info about reflections based on the differential readings obtained from the various measurement locations?
I agree that it is very difficult to evaluate room acoustics products before buying and make a rational decision about what is useful and helpful. There are often measured values, but ultimately it comes down to who you trust. Because the products are so big and bulky, because you have to mount them first, etc., you can't easily compare different products, there are almost no helpful reviews, etc. And even if there are measured values, you still don't know how well the changes do to your subjective feeling. Here in the thread was pointed out that these products can have harmful consequences as well.
But at the same time, this is almost the opposite of the cable discussion, which I find a bit funny:
Cable discussion:
Person 1: You can see from the measurements that it can't have any difference at all, you have to believe the readings, your subjective feeling is deceiving you.
Person 2: But I do subjectively hear a difference, so I don't believe you and your measurements. There is certainly a lot that you can't measure.
Room acoustics discussion:
Person 2: You can see from the measured values that there are huge improvements when I use absorbers.
Person 1: But the measurements are deceptive, your brain works differently than a microphone, you can't trust the measurements.
I just noticed this when you said that room acoustics are "the new snake oil". In both cases there are perceived differences between subjectice and objective measures, so it can be hard to find commen ground when it comes to evaluating these products. But at the same time, the situation is very different.
Dr. Griesinger's method is that, for a highly accurate reproduction with headphones, he records the sound waves at his eardrums, and then reproduces it with headphones such that the reproduced sound waves at his eardrums are as close as possible to the ones he recorded.Oh very cool thank you.
But it looks to me HRTF is what the ear/brain processing is doing..
Looks to me it's about creating an inversion of the ear mics capture, as shown per snip below.
Seems to me that inverse frequency response leveling reflects it what takes to make things sound right, .....no?
View attachment 290298
Exactly björn,the problem is that if there is a certain reflected energy that arrives so little delayedIf we move the speakers, we also will likely change the frequency response. In some cases, and unless the room is heavily treated, the response can change considerable in the lows due to SBIR. So one might end with comparing something else as well.
The highlighted part here is very true. Manfred Schroeder's study on the best concert halls revealed that they had lateral reflections arriving between approximately 20-25 ms after the direct sound in common (shoe box halls). In our small listening spaces, they arrive anywhere between 2 ms and 10 ms in most cases. Psychoacoustically that's very different.
Late arriving reflections should either be partially reflective or preferable diffused. They shouldn't be absorbed.
I do hope you don't mean those millions of discs with lousy brickwalled, dynamically over-compressed sound... I'm sure we can trust the people making those discs.The ones that make the mixes and sell millions of records know, what is important and what not.
Yes, of course. It's far more sophisticated than simple time gating. But both serve to get the room out of the equation.