Equal Loudness Contour filter with MiniDSP. Can be done? - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Manufacturers > miniDSP

miniDSP Low cost, modular Digital Signal Processor (DSP) kits for the DIYer from miniDSP.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd October 2013, 05:45 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Soldermizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tamper, FL, USA
currently my MIniDSP drives a custom sub and also the Bose 901,
all with my custom EQ. As set up the sub gain is independent of the highs. This gives the option, indeed mandatory, that I adjust the bass to match the highs. Not hard to do, a low tech solution that works for me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2013, 10:54 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
The curves traditionally called "Fletcher-Munson" are sort of a lab curiosity. Just think for a moment how you would establish your F-M level with music of varying loudness?

I do like bass boost when playing music softly late at night. But something of an intellectual misunderstanding to think our hearing needs "F-M correcting" like some physical device. This is similar to what is known as the "El Greco fallacy."

Better to simply start with the observation that boosting the bass makes softly played music sound better. Then pick a slope and turn-over point (F-M middle curves are as good as any). Then, if you think it is worth the fuss, make the slope variable with loudness. Then, key the curves to how it sounds to you at different levels (there's no way to do it with a sound level meter).

We don't listen critically when music is played softly. We're just happy to have music in the middle of the night and not wake the kids or neighbours.

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (20-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 12th October 2013 at 10:58 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2013, 01:17 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Soldermizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tamper, FL, USA
Good day, eh?* I too am a Ben but here I am the Soldermizer! You make some good points...

I'm not familiar with the "El Greco" fallacy but a quick web search gives me the idea it has something to do with incorrectly explaining a misperception. Is this like explaining a mirage is actually not water, but a volatile liquid that evaporates just before the thirsty traveler will reach it?**

While it would be nice to automate the whole process (or would it? You might spend much time tweaking only to find the best solution may be...) or should we just do it manually, adjusting levels depending on our listening volume. In a way, I already do that with my "1/3 octave subjectively flat pink noise" EQ. If you listen at an "average" volume, you will soon dial in to your own optimal spot. After much listening and testing, I have settled on a curve that works fine for me. The only downside I see is if you like to blast once in a while, as I do: then your boosts of low (and high?) will be a bit much for high dB levels. To each his own.

*We yanks do so like to make fun of you Canadians. For your entertainment in return, I offer our political system

** I think I will go spill random puddles of [insert quick-evaporating solvent name here] on the highway to f**k with people's minds.

Last edited by Soldermizer; 13th October 2013 at 01:33 PM. Reason: subtly insult a person's nationality
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2013, 04:07 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
If El Greco had astigmatism, his stretchy paintings would look distorted to him as he painted them and he would have made them "accurate" (if he wanted to) as he went along. So they look oddly long because he wanted them to look that way, not because eyeglasses (or F-M correction) would have made any difference, astigmatism or not.

Whenever ear versus mic results are discussed at DIYaudio, it ends up that even the most die-hard measurement types (and I fall mostly in that direction) agree that, like Soldermizer, folks prefer a "house curve" with extra oomph in the bass... no matter what the mic says.

I'd say somebody could (and likely has) produced nested F-M-like curves (AKA "house curves") for home music rooms.

Those F-M curves do reflect a reality of hearing. They might be good to use if you listened to pure tones a lot. Otherwise, just EQ as you please.

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (20-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 13th October 2013 at 04:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2013, 07:25 PM   #25
gpapag is online now gpapag  Greece
diyAudio Member
 
gpapag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Ben
Thank you for posting.
I understand your reservations on the validity of any loudness correction scheme
e.g.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
The essential problem
Nevertheless, do you happen to know any paper discussing loudness correction contours based on complex –music- signal as opposed to F-M which are based on pure tones?

George
__________________
["Second Law is a bitch." - SY] ["The Road To Heaven:Specify the performance & accept the design. The Road To Hell:Specify the design & accept the performance"-Bruno Putzeys]
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2013, 12:53 AM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpapag View Post
Ben
Thank you for posting.
I understand your reservations on the validity of any loudness correction scheme
e.g.
Nevertheless, do you happen to know any paper discussing loudness correction contours based on complex –music- signal as opposed to F-M which are based on pure tones?

George
Possibly a good question. Sorry, I am not current on that kind of research.

I'm not sure how the successors to F-M do their research - darn clever, these psychologists, if I may say so myself.

But the original studies sat people down and played a 1000 Hz note. Then they said, "I am going to play a 80 Hz note and you tell me if it is as loud as the 1000 Hz note." That very roughly is how it was done.

Yes, even with screwball instructions like that, you can create stable, repeatable, representative (AKA scientific) curves at different loudness levels of the 1000 Hz note. (And probably somewhat different curves if you used square waves, 1/3 octave white noise, or music.) But does that mean anything to you in your music room?

I know this will disappoint people with an engineering soul, but the "house curve" is the curve you think has good balance or is otherwise satisfying to you.

I'd be curious if representative house curves (maybe even the famous movie-house curves.... which just got adjusted) resemble F-M.

Why do you accuse me of objecting to ALL loudness compensation when I said I use bass boost several times in earlier posts? In fact, I use one of the glorious pre-amp of yesteryear, Kenwood Basic2. Unlike Basic1 which was a wire-with-gain (that I also use), Basic2 is complicated and has the four-pot F-M-like loudness compensating volume control. Moreover, I've done my "gain management" chain so that Kenwood's idea of compensation tracks-and-suits my ears OK. Yup, I often use loudness compensation late at night.

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (20-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 14th October 2013 at 01:12 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2013, 06:58 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Soldermizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tamper, FL, USA
I remain a fan of just EQ using pink noise, at your normal listening level, and adjust until each band is subjectively same loudness. No engineering required, it is no doubt "wrong" but it sounds right to me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2013, 08:51 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldermizer View Post
I remain a fan of just EQ using pink noise, at your normal listening level, and adjust until each band is subjectively same loudness. No engineering required, it is no doubt "wrong" but it sounds right to me.
Assuming somebody could actually do what you describe and get stable results, what could be wrong with that as a means of producing equal "volume" of sound? Seems a suitable method to get equal volume in real-room tests. Unlike the false belief that a mic can produce that curve.

However, just because you achieved a kind of textbook/rational harmony of volume among your room, system, and ears (at least at one loudness level), it doesn't mean that you've achieved the sound balance that makes great listening to the most recordings in your setting even at that loudness level.

That's a different question.

In practice, first with a mic, then with ears, perhaps as Soldermizer has conscientiously done appropriately, then inevitably, tweaking with music.

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (20-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 20th October 2013 at 08:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2013, 04:46 PM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
Soldermizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tamper, FL, USA
I found that it got dialed in eventually. Yes it did change using just noise bands but surprisingly little. In fact, dare I claim I am satisfied! For now.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2013, 06:24 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldermizer View Post
I found that it got dialed in eventually. Yes it did change using just noise bands but surprisingly little. In fact, dare I claim I am satisfied! For now.
There's something in your method (or something similar) that represents the "missing link" between the machinery (and physical measurements) and actual human hearing. Most people just listen to music and say, "Ummm, needs to be a little brighter" rather than use an articulated method like yours.

So I wonder what elaborations of your method would be improvements?

For example.... I've often wondered if there is a kind of orchestral-music random noise (perhaps in the traditional 1/3 octave bands) that reflects the statistics of orchestral music better than pink noise does? Why doesn't somebody make that test signal?

Ben
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (20-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Speaker, trying to figure out a contour filter SState13 Full Range 7 9th September 2009 12:10 AM
contour/notch filter for Fe208e sigma? adamt Full Range 1 16th April 2009 02:15 PM
Preamp with Loudness compensation and Subsonic filter quicknick Solid State 7 7th April 2009 05:16 PM
Equal-Loudness-Curves / Fletcher-Munson / ISO 226 / etc. - WHY do we care? smellygas Multi-Way 29 25th February 2009 04:11 PM
Equal-Loudness Curves for low frequencies? Sjoerd v L Subwoofers 4 9th June 2005 10:22 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2