I dont actually know what EQ to dial in or which modes to cut in the above room responses... Please guide me about those aspects.
This was the comment from Kimmosto that I was talking about (In fact there is a lot of interesting discussion in that thread)
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/neumann-kh150.33454/post-1364894
Thanks, its nice kimmosto is posting again his amusings
I see new term coined "acoustic resolution" which seems to relate to directivity and room positioning and acoustics, as well as the speaker itself. As suspected the notion that "1" + 10" is worst" is application dependent. I understood his message its about directivity vs. the room, "deep horn" makes narrow dispersion on top so very high DI, where as 10" will have very low DI to somewhere 1kHz, perhaps magnified with poor directivity match around crossover. I see a cure for something like this is to have lower or higher DI all the way through crossover region so that the whole bandwidth is uniform in a way. As narrow coverage angle is not so easy below 1kHz it would be perhaps better to have wide coverage angle all the way to top without a horn/waveguide. He mentions resolution mismatch and other issues besides coverage, like difference in dynamic capability to distortion splitting the full bandwidth sound in two in many respects.
Well, only way to understand and figure out stuff like this is to listen the options and take notes. We can read his message like bible or listen various systems by ourselves and figure out whats it all about in our environments
Its very hard to connect dots without having auditory experience to go with words and visuals. When there is experience of various systems, then it would be easier to interpret and relate to what he is saying. Or anyone else for that matter. Phase matched xo is mentioned again like in his c-c stuff few years back, so what we learn here at least is that low order phase matched xo is good for sound, and the physical system should be made so that it works in a room with such xo (or FIR to have good step response).
For the room EQ, I'm not pro at it, there is plenty of resources on the forums and for example
REW doc. This I know though, getting low / high balance right is important and it depends on the room and what you like to listen to. When anechoic axial response is flat the sound at listening position is probably not, unless its outdoors. You get something like the power response and possibly great peaks for the lows depending on toe-in and positioning to boundaries. You'd probably also spot any issues in measurements used in simulation, or errors in DSP implementation and all sorts of things. Opportunity to match left and right to improve stereo image and stuff like that. Balance response to toe-in. All kinds of stuff that affect perceived sound quality. What ever you do is good, it helps to connect sound to the graphs and gain knowledge what sounds better.
I found out that the speaker matching was off as said earlier, need to measure both and simulate both sides if want very smooth response or leave out micromanaging. Another thing was, after balancing out the bass section all of a sudden there is lots of clarity in the mid as less masking I think, also its now evident my bass boxes aren't that good, I think I'm hearing how the boxes sound (both are different size prototypes). Well, all in all a good learning exercise for measurement techniques, listening, connecting graphs to sound, translating speaker properties like directivity to sound and so on. I used just simple MMM technique with REW "Psychoacoustic" smoothing enabled to tune in the balance, adjusting DSP settings some to bring the sides closer together and fine tune the "slope". I have not much experience on this so better listen to fluid or others what one should do
My advice is just get messing with it so understanding the advice gets easier.