Why would a normalized graph be more complicated?
Btw, the suggested EQ for that speaker is kinda weird.
EQ'ing dips is rarely a good suggestion, and in this example a couple of those are clearly from diffraction problems.
Clearly visible in the power response.
Which now has to much energy at certain frequencies (it's not that horrible, I have seen far worse).
Looking at the first graph, there seem to be als quite a bit of room reflections (or similar) left in the measurements.
There is no reason that driver does these kind of scribbles by itself.
Upsetting that these days people think everything can be EQ'ed without thinking.
Worst I have seen, is the suggestion to boost well over 6dB to "get rid" of a certain dip. Not knowing that the dip in question was actually a destructive resonance from the port. Meaning this will always be a dip no matter how much you boost that particular frequency (acoustics 101).
So in the end it's nothing more than a artifact of the representation of the measurements why it looks better after EQ'ing.
Really bad that such kinda of terrible misinformation is just being shared left and right, especially by people that clearly have a certain status in the community.
Big thumbs down. 👎
No, the other way.
The non-normalised graph was purported to be:
And that normalised was easier to view.
Yes it IS easier to view, because it’s all related to the reference axis. Assuming a flat on-axis was a good idea to start with. And sometimes it’s not. Eg. EQ for flat!
Exactly.
EQ it all and it’s all better, according to ASR…
Final time, to be clear, EQ for flat on axis or listening window is NOT always a good idea. And that is why a non-normalised graph can be useful.
If you don’t like looking at non-normalised graphs, move along, nothing to look at or learn here.
If this doesn’t help you see the difference in vertical response of the KEF Blade 2 Meta and R11 Meta (both with 4 6.5” woofers) one which is side facing and the other which is one the front panel, please look at spinorama.org
The non-normalised graph was purported to be:
And that normalised was easier to view.
Yes it IS easier to view, because it’s all related to the reference axis. Assuming a flat on-axis was a good idea to start with. And sometimes it’s not. Eg. EQ for flat!
Exactly.
EQ it all and it’s all better, according to ASR…
Final time, to be clear, EQ for flat on axis or listening window is NOT always a good idea. And that is why a non-normalised graph can be useful.
If you don’t like looking at non-normalised graphs, move along, nothing to look at or learn here.
If this doesn’t help you see the difference in vertical response of the KEF Blade 2 Meta and R11 Meta (both with 4 6.5” woofers) one which is side facing and the other which is one the front panel, please look at spinorama.org
Last edited:
It's not just easier, there are things that are simply not visible on a non-normalized graph.
(And vice versa obviously)
So much for the science part in that name. 👎
The irony....
I’ve been preaching this for decades coming from the engineering side of things……..I’ve bought, built and sold too many ultra flat monitors to count and I wouldn’t listen to ANY OF THEM if I were listening for pleasure. Just like the NS10 phenomena, I’ve come to know and understand the Q150’s off axis response over the past 2 years so they’re staying on my bridge……I get to make critical decisions on mid side mixes without cringing while the point source reveals the phase information and preserves the detail often lost on conventional mid tweeter two ways.
Listen with your ears……not your eyes……and…..we ARE NOT all the same as listeners which has nothing to do with experience over time and critical listeners……music moves the soul. Remove the soul and all that’s left is a boring clinical mess of extended and chaotic test tones. We’re not wired like that……win-stay-lose-shift still applies despite the ruling classes morbid attempts to extinguish it and homogenize everything……critical thinkers take note…….it’s not what you think, it’s how.
The difference between visual perceptions of test tones and complex music are exponential to say the least.
You basically mean, don't listen with ignorance?
Because my eyes see a lot of things that just would never sound well.
But in the end I do agree. The proof is in eating the pudding.
Some people just enjoy a certain sound or tone, and there is also nothing wrong with that either.
That's right, the answer lies between the two.
Here is how I do it, with Dr Geddes in agreement - https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/geddes-on-waveguides.103872/post-3389842