Does digital room correction and equalization make all speakers sound the same?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Kal and I are multichannel guys, so we both do the xovers prior to the Mch DAC.  If you have a stereo DAC, then you are limited to doing it after the DAC, since you do not have the 3 DAC channels necessary for 2.1. 

 

Don't know about your sub, but possibly you can send post-2.0 DAC analog line or speaker level input to it while the main channels get full range signal in parallel.  This is not a true xover situation, though.  It involves just a low pass filter in the sub.  Not ideal, but perhaps better than nothing.  REL likes that arrangement for their subs, but I don't.  However, it does not revert to the cascaded d-a-d-a chain for the main channels.  I also do not know how well that gets along with DSP EQ like Dirac.

 

A miniDSP unit could do it for you in place of your current DAC, but is that too much a compromise?  A few expensive analog true crossovers exist - Wilson, for example - but I think you would be better off with a Mch DAC, doing the xovers in software.

 

 

 

 

[HardrockInMiniMac]

Oh boy, what a question:

 

Digital room correction and "equalization" are two totally different things. 

 

Does gasoline make all cars the same? Does bodybuilding make all people the same? Does war make all people the same?

 

1. LS do not care about what you do with a signal, they just reproduce what they receive

2. Room correction as it says corrects the room not the speaker

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 minutes ago, HardrockInMiniMac said:

Oh boy, what a question:

 

Digital room correction and "equalization" are two totally different things. 

 

Does gasoline make all cars the same? Does bodybuilding make all people the same? Does war make all people the same?

 

1. LS do not care about what you do with a signal, they just reproduce what they receive

2. Room correction as it says corrects the room not the speaker

I am afraid it is more complicated than that.  In simple terms, so called "room correction" operates by altering frequency response in the signal chain ahead of the speakers and room, so it changes what comes out of the speaker.  Ideally, that corrects measurably the response in the room and heard by us in a way complementary to the frequency non-linearities due to the room. It is perfectly legitimate to call that equalization, though it is directed primarily at correcting room behavior.  Applying calculated, calibrated frequency domain filters to the signal, as room correction does, is equalization.

 

But, if the speaker, or less likely, amps or electronics are altering frequency response vs. the target curve, then that will get corrected, too.  The mic during calibration does not know whether the room or something else caused a deviation from target curve response. 

 

Some room EQ also attempts to correct timing or impulse response as well as frequency response, again by altering what comes out of the speakers.

 

So, room correction can't just correct the room.  The room is passive.  It can only correct what the calibration mic hears, which, ideally, is a perfectly linear speaker and sound system in a room that is the only thing corrupting that perfect linearity,  If so, then, yes, it corrects only for the room by altering the sound that comes out of the speaker.  But, in the real world it is EQing for any and all non-linearities, not perfectly, but, hopefully, making the sound better.

 

I think room EQ also does a good job in Mch systems of more closely voicing the frequency response between channels, either when dissimilar speakers are used or when the positions of identical speakers cause frequency response differences. It helps achieve better sonic integration. This has its limits, however.

 

 

 

 

[anwaypasible]

On 11/6/2017 at 7:59 AM, firedog said:

No it doesn't. Speakers still have their own tone, attack, top to bottom frequency response, their own coherence.

DRC should reduce the amount of extra reflected sound reaching the listener. This adds clarity and tightness, and can get rid of "fuzz", "harshness", "bloated bass" or some other anomalies in the sound. 

Sometimes until you've reduced room effects, you don't realize what they are, and think the room added distortion is the "correct" sound. 

 

yeah we are used to hearing combing, which is the rippling of soundwaves from the room reflections.

when the sound cleans up & the darkness exists, the difference is enough to cause an ire as the sound effects don't sound the same & the sleuth appears to go away when really there's additional texture in the 'more simple' that exists.

from there is the additional movements & new sound effect shapes that don't seem to be anywhere near as active as what they once where & we sensationalize the desire of the activity because it posturizes a system that is not only capable but also examplifying those capabilites - that means raising the class because the speakers & system is good, but also raising the class because of the quality of the music being played.
though the flat bottom-line effort leaves isolation strong enough to conceivably say there are secrets being said by the speakers most people don't hear.

[anwaypasible]

On 11/6/2017 at 3:51 AM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Does digital room correction and equalization make all speakers sound the same?

 

perhaps another question is why would you want to do that?

if it were colors on the television screen, do you want green & purple faces or do you want true colors?

it's the same with speakers & their balance/tone.

or are you stuck at not caring as long as you can watch|hear?

[anwaypasible]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:44 AM, mansr said:

DSP correction reduces the differences between speakers but doesn't eliminate them. Also, it's obviously impossible to make a poor speaker perform as well as a high-end one, no matter what filters are applied.

untrue.

clamp the voice coil & magnet with a chip & you can virtualize whatever speaker you want within the limits of the chip|voice coil|magnet combination.

[anwaypasible]

On 11/7/2017 at 7:27 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

Agreed.  Also note that the size of effective physical treatments is inversely correlated with the frequency, so they become increasingly difficult to accommodate in many rooms.

yeah, soundwaves have a physical size because there's only so much of a molecular net possible|necessary to create the wave (such as wanting to plot the dots of the soundwave on graph paper but you run out of intersection points, or more specifically - the soundwave is only as tight as what the grid limits the spacing of the dots).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/12/2018 at 12:44 AM, anwaypasible said:

if it were colors on the television screen, do you want green & purple faces or do you want true colors?

it's the same with speakers & their balance/tone.

or are you stuck at not caring as long as you can watch|hear?

 

If talking about *calibration* to neutral and faithful to the source, then yes. If talking about colouring the response, then no. Hacking the the speaker amplitude response to "correct" for room timing problems (ringing resonances) is closer to colouring IMO.YMMV

[anwaypasible]

only when you do, for example, a ten band equalizer by ear one at a time.

in the end your phase & timing was good individually, but you'll never hear it because of the room's reflections.

use a microphone to hold constant to a specific period in time (cycle the same rate) & the amplitude becomes visible.
equalization can happen for any sweet spot - but any uncalibrated spot cannot be imagined.

 

**edit**

plus there is no telling what portion of the room the person is listening to as the sinewave is just rumbling away in the room while adjusting an equalizer knob & that point proves time & true why a calibrated microphone is better than adjusting by ear.

 

**edit**

 

though some say make a tail & then move the line down with pink noise until the sound is as diminished (the audio turns the room to heat) as much as possible - that is how it is done without a mic on a 31 band.