Target Curves

[Le Concombre Masqué]

I had a quick look at the article, saw your crucify yourself choice of room target curve and lost any interest in reading whatever you might say. I caught the word analog though, guess that anything taming your crucify yourself room target curve will be a relief.

 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I have no idea what you just said. 

 

 

Really? For a better understanding just ask Mitch Barnett to provide u with corrections files following the target curve chosen by Michael Lowe (cf https://accuratesound.ca/testimonials ). You have obviously chosen to target an almost flat response curve. Unless you're listening only to records mastered on monitors tuned to that very unnatural response curve you are boosting highs way above the intention of artists/producers/engineers that would have done nothing to tune their monitors (then they had natural downward slope at Listening Position) or of artists/producers/engineers following Industry standards operational room response curves (cf https://accuratesound.ca/standards)

 

Maybe you assume that you do a better reviewing job by inflicting yourself very unnatural listening conditions but I personally wish and avocate that records be mastered with Industry standards operational room response curves and so that gears should be judged and reviewed accordingly, not in artificial highs stressing, unnatural conditions that necessarily call for unwanted tricks to best perform in said artificial conditions such as the one you promote

[mitchco]

Hello, not to take a away from Chris's nice review of the Lumin X1, but not sure what the issue is here. Chris's response is not flat at the listening position. It follows the EBU 3276 standard of flat to 2 kHz and then slopes down at a rate of 1 dB per octave in the high frequencies.

 

We initially tried the Harman target of 20 Hz to about -10 dB at 20 kHz which was a bit too dull sounding given that Chris's space is large, well damped, and the speakers have wide directivity. This included trying a partial correction to 500 Hz and letting the speakers handle above that. As a side note I have written about the Harman curve for both speakers and headphones in a number of articles on this site.

 

We also tried the ITU, B&K and Bob Katz target, all of which is covered off in the range of operational room response curves. This is part of the process of trying various industry standard room response curves and determining which one is the most preferred given ones speakers and room.

 

As you can see in the testimonials, there are a variety of different high frequency roll offs to accommodate size of room, how damp versus live, how far away from the speakers, etc., all play into what is subjectively heard. This is the balancing act between direct and reflected sound in ones room. 

 

More lively rooms tend to favour the Harman target (like mine, which I use), whereas well damped rooms in larger spaces trend towards the EBU target with increased direct sound as there are fewer reflections. both of which arrive at the same neutral tonal response at the listening position. This is why there are a variety of target response, 

 

Put the target curves together on overlay like I have done on my site, shows all responses roll off in the high frequencies to varying degrees, but all in tight grouping. A/B switching between all 4 target curves is fun and educational as they sound more alike than different. It boils down to a matter of personal preference given ones room and speakers.

 

To be clear, we are not eq'ing the steady state response to be flat at the listening position. None of the targets are flat and we using frequency dependent windowing to differentiate between room sound included below 500 Hz and direct sound above 500 Hz. See DSP Technical Application Note on my site under DSP tab for an explanation of the approach.

 

Kind regards,

Mitch

[STC]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Measurements at 6 Finnish concert halls

The measurements at 6 Finnish concert hall were the measurements of direct and indirect sound. What you want is measurement at your listening position to be like that after applying whatever position, room treatments, DSP, EQ , convolution filter and etc etc. 

 

But that doesn’t mean all your albums would sound good. Concert hall slopes are best for classical. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

The measurements at 6 Finnish concert hall were the measurements of direct and indirect sound. What you want is measurement at your listening position to be like that after applying whatever position, room treatments, DSP, EQ , convolution filter and etc etc. 

 

But that doesn’t mean all your albums would sound good. Concert hall slopes are best for classical. 

Good points. 
 

Makes me wonder what slope should be used for recordings that never existed in real space. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I’ve been looking at this subject quite a bit this morning and the “discussion” has helped me understand a bit more about the topic. 
 

I definitely had some wrong assumptions. Fortunately Mitch has been extremely helpful in designing the convolution filter and guiding me over the last couple months. Now I see why he had me listen to several slopes using many of the standards (settling on EBU 3276).

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I removed some of the personal comments and my own comments that may be misleading. 
 

The thread now is more factual and may help people understand what’s going on and how this works. 

[STC]

50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Good points. 
 

Makes me wonder what slope should be used for recordings that never existed in real space. 

 

You have to try all of them. I do not use any kind of DSP to alter the original sound. The original sound as in the recording still comes out from the speakers untouched with any process. The slope is shaped by the room ambiance using the 30 speakers. There too the theoretical Harman curve and reality is very different.  Anyway, here after my input will be not useful for your purpose. I just hope you have a better understanding what the Harman curve is all about because many literally think that's how the response of the speakers should be.

 

Sorry if this is OT.

[semente]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

You have to try all of them. I do not use any kind of DSP to alter the original sound.

 

I though that you were using some kind DSP processing software to create 3D spatial effects.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve been looking at this subject quite a bit this morning and the “discussion” has helped me understand a bit more about the topic. 
 

I definitely had some wrong assumptions. 

 

 

Good. I then accept your rewriting of history and pseudo creation of the topic by myself. It's perfectly covered by Mitch (see infra)

 

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the rom gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist."

 

Sean Olive, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html

 

In bold is the point I wanted to make

[Solstice380]

@The Computer Audiophile  Thanks for including your in-room response and making this a thread.  There are now a few custom prepared room correction / convolution methods available.  Maybe comparing them could be your next in-depth article?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

Good. I then accept your rewriting of history and pseudo creation of the topic by myself. It's perfectly covered by Mitch (see infra)

 

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the rom gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist."

 

Sean Olive, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html

 

In bold is the point I wanted to make

You're abrasiveness knows no bounds.  

[jaaptina]

Using Dirac on Minidsp SHD Studio I decided I like the response of my speakers except for the boomy bass region. So I made the target curve follow the original curve. Smoothed it a bit and only really reducing the peak of the bass. The resulting target curve still has a downward slope but isn't straight. I like this better than the EBU and Harman curves I tried. 

[mitchco]

@jaaptina sounds good! Do you have a screen shot to share?

[Account Closed]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're abrasiveness knows no bounds.  

Don't feel bad. He is the same way elsewhere.

[Ralf11]

gotta peel Le Concombre first

[jaaptina]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:51 PM, mitchco said:

@jaaptina sounds good! Do you have a screen shot to share?

The above curve I like best. 

Below the straight curve I used to compare. 

[flak]

@jaaptina

 

I think that your approach is quite reasonable and a sort of "BBC dip" is preferred by many,

I'm not sure though that the following are as good an idea, personally I'd smoothen them unless you incur into clipping:

[Le Concombre Masqué]

On 12/4/2019 at 8:34 PM, bobflood said:

Don't feel bad. He is the same way elsewhere.

are we surfing the same spots?

[Le Concombre Masqué]

I now have 5 Correction FIR Sets based on 5 Target curves

 

I hâve created an Excel Chart to map right usage of each based on label decade etc

 

I ll share and will readily receive too

 

Targets are

 

-1 dB/octave that I probably won t use for it s just a base for the more advanced 

RR1 by Olive/Toole advocated by Harman

B & K to which I bet a good deal of albums have been eQed

Bob Katz to which at least his stuff has probably been eQed too, including Chesky tests

JBL Synthesis. As someone puts there https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/1014060-room-curve-after-room-calibration-2.html #I've been listening to many commercial recordings and it sounds more true what I think the producer intended out of all the curve discussed previously. My mixing translates better too. #

Interestingly enough, it s the best fit to the smoothed L + R average of my in room system s natural response and that s a factor per se I think. Taking into consideration in room system s natural response, Bob Katz s seems a good compromise for movies while applying movie industry standard (X curve) would force me to boost above 1 K, bad idea I think

 

SETTING OPTIONS.xlsx Harman Curve.txt

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Am I just taking notes for myself here, on IMO the most rewarding and effective usage of computers in audiophilia?

 

First impressions notes about comparisons then :

 

Dropped the 1 dB/octave for it s rather a metaphor than an actual target in Harman s literature

 

Dropped the JBL Synthesis but for Movies. Even on Bruce Botnick (advertised to use JBL for mastering) 's gorgeous Doors DVDAs, I can t convince myself it beats RR1: clearer thinner vocals less carnal with Synthesis. I believe it's intended for films not for music and is a clever round about X curve. I rather look at it as a 2 + dB 400 hz center several octaves dipped RR1 than as a LF bumped target. While RR1 is a LF bumped B & K.

 

Won't bother with the Katz, except if the album, ie Chesky s, is BK mastered. I understand the strategy in the mastering room though : if one's non eQued non treated room follows a natural downward slope, mastering following Katz's will translate with more bass less treble and will generally be perceived as warmer/ more pleasant. 

However, latest extended research for the Cinema industry tends to prove that the X curve is a myth and good sounding theatres believed to implement it have proved to modern properly measure with a LF rise. Thus all the standards resembling it more or less, even when room size is taken into account for the HF downward slope and inflexion point are wrong, IMO. And even toxic for it requires very unnatural eQ to flatten the LF.

But standards are standards.

 

I thus keep B & K 1974 in my quiver. Seems to fit quite a lot of masterings. Especially europeans, tbc with more samples...

 

RR1 is my default. If I'm bothered with excess LF I switch to B & K. I would really have to suffer from a lack around 1K Hz to start wonder if Katz's was the mastering target.

 

So life made simple : RR1 but if... So don't expect the xls mapping chart, unless someone is really willing to share such a mapping of Target Curves per mastering...

 

Personally, I would have started to wonder if my speakers or Speakers/Room fit is kosher if i had been to find that neither of the B & K or RR1 standard was the one to go.

 

Curves below are actual convolved measurements done PN/RTA/MMMethod of Up to Down (as read in LF region )   : Synthesis, RR1, B & K, Bob Katz. L + R are averaged for clarity and were judged close enough to call it a day (well, took me more than a day...)

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

Am I just taking notes for myself here

Most likely yes because of your abrasive tone when talking to others. 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Most likely yes because of your abrasive tone when talking to others. 

 

And yet the sentence "Personally, I would have started to wonder if my speakers or Speakers/Room fit is kosher if i had been to find that neither of the B & K or RR1 standard was the one to go." has been edited to be as mild as possible.

I have redesigned filters and questioned my comfort/certitudes ; have you?

[jaaptina]

On 1/8/2020 at 11:38 AM, Le Concombre Masqué said:

Curves below are actual convolved measurements done PN/RTA/MMMethod of Up to Down (as read in LF region )   : Synthesis, RR1, B & K, Bob Katz. L + R are averaged for clarity and were judged close enough to call it a day (well, took me more than a day...)

 

 

Hi, what color belongs to what measurement (resp. Synthesis, RR1, B & K, Bob Katz)? Thx! 

[cjf]

For the time being, I've settled on a curve that has a 2db bump at 20hz and is flat to 1khz and then ends at -10db down at 20khz in my room which has zero physical treatments and is quite large and open. This seems to work pretty well so far but at some point I may reduce the correction a touch to let the main speakers return a little more of their natural sound which is a bit more realistic sounding than the current curve with room correction in place. All in all, I like the corrected room much better as a whole but some may find it on the duller side.

 

Target curve shown in Red via Audiolense...Actual measured in room response shown via multi colored REQW curve.