Took the time over the last couple of days to work on the DSP with the new drivers. I already had a quick correction in place up till now and I just needed more time to do it properly. Today I have the room to myself and I really should be measuring, if I just can stop listening that is...
Here's the theoretical prediction for the two main speakers:
As can be seen, the subs need to even out the 100-200 Hz part. The change in the room (a big table that is no longer there) I can't correct the null's I get with mains alone. So I need the subs to fill in that part. That is the reason I showed the distortion plots starting at 200 Hz. As by themselves, the mains can no longer solve it among themselves. Due to a couple of room changes, everything has changed. The change has created more symmetry. The above is what I'm listening to today and I just can't stop. Well, the above and the subs that fill in the spots at 100-200 is what I'm hearing
. It just works and makes me enjoy lots of different songs. Listening to this I can't believe some would prefer mono, as I definitely prefer multi channel for it's ability to transport you to the event.
With all that I have cooked up over here, I'm really feeling I'm transported and just flowing away with the music. Clarity, spaciousness and envelopment. They say one cannot have them all... I think you can. It's all about timing... timing of the reflections and their level...
It may still be a little rough here and there (which is why I do need to measure) but it is so seductive! I get goose bumps and shivers down my spine just listening. It's no longer listening to songs, but separate events (I've said that before)... fun compositions in sound and placement plus intelligibility. Hearing all the words very clear. Well, at least it is My-Fi!
Here's the theoretical prediction for the two main speakers:
As can be seen, the subs need to even out the 100-200 Hz part. The change in the room (a big table that is no longer there) I can't correct the null's I get with mains alone. So I need the subs to fill in that part. That is the reason I showed the distortion plots starting at 200 Hz. As by themselves, the mains can no longer solve it among themselves. Due to a couple of room changes, everything has changed. The change has created more symmetry. The above is what I'm listening to today and I just can't stop. Well, the above and the subs that fill in the spots at 100-200 is what I'm hearing
. It just works and makes me enjoy lots of different songs. Listening to this I can't believe some would prefer mono, as I definitely prefer multi channel for it's ability to transport you to the event.With all that I have cooked up over here, I'm really feeling I'm transported and just flowing away with the music. Clarity, spaciousness and envelopment. They say one cannot have them all... I think you can. It's all about timing... timing of the reflections and their level...
It may still be a little rough here and there (which is why I do need to measure) but it is so seductive! I get goose bumps and shivers down my spine just listening. It's no longer listening to songs, but separate events (I've said that before)... fun compositions in sound and placement plus intelligibility. Hearing all the words very clear. Well, at least it is My-Fi!
These days I seem to have a helper... my son has become quite interested in my listening tests and experiments. He enjoys the listening as much as me. Today I let him listen to a variety of songs to judge my latest balance tweaks. I put him trough the torture of listening to "Pink Froid" from Infected Mushroom's album Converting Vegetarians II. He knows a couple of Infected Mushroom songs like "Avratz" from the first "Converting vegetarians" album. After listening to it, and experiencing lots of goose bumps, he said with quite a serious face: "If music is considered an art form much like painting, then Infected Mushroom are the Picasso's of music."
It certainly made me smile.
It certainly made me smile
.
After I found my preferred room curve, quite a while ago, I noticed it's resemblance to one of Toole's published curves. You may remember me mentioning as much in this thread.
I even showed a couple of composites, where I had overlay-ed my EQ-ed frequency curve to compare. The one that resembled the curve I ended up with was the dashed line in the above graph, the one marked: "Trained listeners only". What I didn't manage to figure out is why I liked that curve so much... Until I watched a Toole video linked in another thread today and was reminded of something he said in that presentation. Remember that I ended up with that curve trough lots of experiments and over time slowly EQ-ing towards the end goal: a transparent sound. I found out about the above paper after I had found "my house curve".
Here's the most probable reason I like that dashed curve:
An overlay of the traced "Trained listeners only" curve and the predicted "Power response" of my array in Vituixcad.
I ended up with only a few deviations compared to that published curve from Toole's papers. I think I just found out the reason why.
It only works if the speaker behaves itself though. Luckily for me, a line array of these 3.5" drivers does behave itself rather nice:
I had seen that Toole presentation video long ago. But by then I didn't have a simulation including a power curve, nor enough measurements that could have told me this earlier. I was glad to re-watch that video today.
I even showed a couple of composites, where I had overlay-ed my EQ-ed frequency curve to compare. The one that resembled the curve I ended up with was the dashed line in the above graph, the one marked: "Trained listeners only". What I didn't manage to figure out is why I liked that curve so much... Until I watched a Toole video linked in another thread today and was reminded of something he said in that presentation. Remember that I ended up with that curve trough lots of experiments and over time slowly EQ-ing towards the end goal: a transparent sound. I found out about the above paper after I had found "my house curve".
Here's the most probable reason I like that dashed curve:
An overlay of the traced "Trained listeners only" curve and the predicted "Power response" of my array in Vituixcad.
I ended up with only a few deviations compared to that published curve from Toole's papers. I think I just found out the reason why.
It only works if the speaker behaves itself though. Luckily for me, a line array of these 3.5" drivers does behave itself rather nice:
I had seen that Toole presentation video long ago. But by then I didn't have a simulation including a power curve, nor enough measurements that could have told me this earlier. I was glad to re-watch that video today.
Last edited:
Yep, even Vituixcad nor CEA power response curves from ed. Klippel NFS can't predict real room measured responses of "abnormal" speaker constuctions. Line arrays, ob/dipoles and horns are such. Relation of direct vs. wide off-axis and rearside radiated power is different from typical monopoles.
I believe that Toole&Olive studies were done in well damped room and response was measured with long gating. REW default is 500ms and ok for listening spot response. It is also good to check decay spectrogram.
I believe that Toole&Olive studies were done in well damped room and response was measured with long gating. REW default is 500ms and ok for listening spot response. It is also good to check decay spectrogram.
I set my room curve (as I need one with arrays) using a 20 cycle frequency dependent window, as over time that has brought me the best results.
The sound curve still changes after that, due to what happens inside the room, but it has way less effect on perception. I have tried using a longer window than 20 cycles, but that makes the imaging seemingly flat and disengaged. The same happened to imaging when I EQ-ed even a 20 ms gated window. So far, using the frequency dependent window of 20 cycles is key for me for predictability of the tonal balance. Well that, and the information above for curve info.
@Juhazi you mentioned all 3 concepts that I have considered for use in my room. I did not have the free floor space available for OB/dipoles, my other half did not like the look of horns so I ended up with arrays. Mostly because of their floor space saving characteristic though, that I killed anyway by adding subwoofers. The only other concept i could have considered would have been coaxial, unity/synergy horns being a part of that sub group in my view. These last two can also be seen as very tight patterned MTM which almost makes them arrays.
The sound curve still changes after that, due to what happens inside the room, but it has way less effect on perception. I have tried using a longer window than 20 cycles, but that makes the imaging seemingly flat and disengaged. The same happened to imaging when I EQ-ed even a 20 ms gated window. So far, using the frequency dependent window of 20 cycles is key for me for predictability of the tonal balance. Well that, and the information above for curve info
.@Juhazi you mentioned all 3 concepts that I have considered for use in my room. I did not have the free floor space available for OB/dipoles, my other half did not like the look of horns so I ended up with arrays. Mostly because of their floor space saving characteristic though, that I killed anyway by adding subwoofers. The only other concept i could have considered would have been coaxial, unity/synergy horns being a part of that sub group in my view. These last two can also be seen as very tight patterned MTM which almost makes them arrays.
For those interested, I've attached a paper from Toole on the subject.
In this paper and in posts online Toole explained the line of thought why one should not use automated EQ systems to tune speakers in a room.
Ideally one should make sure to get flat response in an anechoic environment and place those speakers in your room and be set, aside from some bass EQ. With arrays we don't have that luxury, at least not quite like that. We can't move close to the array and measure them nearfield like with other speakers for EQ purposes. We've seen a couple of people that dragged their line arrays outside to measure them there. But it isn't until they are inside the room that they fully come to their potential. Which is why I do all this processing from the listening spot. The above graphs and even this write-up from toole in combination with the simulated spinorama data from Vituixcad should go a long way explaining why we can get away with equalizing the array inside the room. The smoothness of the directivity/power curve predicts/shows how it is going to behave inside the room.
While I did not have that data available and I just worked on it in an experimental fashion growing into a preferred curve, it is fun to realize how close one ends up to the prediction on pure listening/EQ/repeat over a long period of time, using a wide range of music material. At the I could not figure out how I would end up with a very similar curve as these published results. My arrays were way different, right?
It wasn't until more speakers that were designed with the spinorama in mind, like the JBL M2 and the Genelec models started appearing as graphs that we could more easily compare results among different speakers and even different type of speakers. With the help of Vituixcad simulations we get more insight how a line array stacks up there, compared to those speakers. And quite obvious if you look at them, there are similarities, look at the paper attached and look at that simulated spinorama plot I showed and you'll come to the conclusion that this array is rather well behaved. Smooth directivity, well behaved frequency response and listening window (after EQ).
But even before EQ we can now predict this by looking at the directivity curve and the way the listening window tracks the frequency curve...
Good times ahead! As long as the data we put into these simulations correspond to reality.
In this paper and in posts online Toole explained the line of thought why one should not use automated EQ systems to tune speakers in a room.
Ideally one should make sure to get flat response in an anechoic environment and place those speakers in your room and be set, aside from some bass EQ. With arrays we don't have that luxury, at least not quite like that. We can't move close to the array and measure them nearfield like with other speakers for EQ purposes. We've seen a couple of people that dragged their line arrays outside to measure them there. But it isn't until they are inside the room that they fully come to their potential. Which is why I do all this processing from the listening spot. The above graphs and even this write-up from toole in combination with the simulated spinorama data from Vituixcad should go a long way explaining why we can get away with equalizing the array inside the room. The smoothness of the directivity/power curve predicts/shows how it is going to behave inside the room.
While I did not have that data available and I just worked on it in an experimental fashion growing into a preferred curve, it is fun to realize how close one ends up to the prediction on pure listening/EQ/repeat over a long period of time, using a wide range of music material. At the I could not figure out how I would end up with a very similar curve as these published results. My arrays were way different, right?
It wasn't until more speakers that were designed with the spinorama in mind, like the JBL M2 and the Genelec models started appearing as graphs that we could more easily compare results among different speakers and even different type of speakers. With the help of Vituixcad simulations we get more insight how a line array stacks up there, compared to those speakers. And quite obvious if you look at them, there are similarities, look at the paper attached and look at that simulated spinorama plot I showed and you'll come to the conclusion that this array is rather well behaved. Smooth directivity, well behaved frequency response and listening window (after EQ).
But even before EQ we can now predict this by looking at the directivity curve and the way the listening window tracks the frequency curve...
Good times ahead! As long as the data we put into these simulations correspond to reality
.
Last edited:
Still to do: averaging various measurements to see if my "steady state" results match the above. I plan to do a DRC-FIR correction based upon a single measurement, with some phase tweaks using RePhase if needed. After that I'll make some varying height and horizontal position measurements and average them to make sure I don't use a too strong single position correction. In the past I have found not to use an average for things like phase correction but it should be OK to use it as a guide for a couple of EQ tweaks using a longer window (like the 20 cycle FDW mentioned). In the end, that should result in a neutral balance corresponding with the room sound.
Based on the first few listening sessions it is becoming obvious that the filtered array has less room contribution than an unshaded array. It doesn't make it that much easier though, to find the right balance. I don't know if it's the driver change or the filter change, but I'm experiencing more depth in imaging. (or it's imagination) and it is much easier to get the vocal position image in front of the speaker plane. More forward on close mic recordings. I do feel these new drivers are more "sharp" or "more direct". Paper being more forgiving? Not a bad thing, but it does make the tonal balance work more important to get right. The lack or lower level of early reflections kind of makes little differences stand out more.
I once said that an array gives you the driver you use back on steroids. that seems to be true.
All this still is preliminary, I have a lot of work ahead of me to fine tune. And I still want to build my 6 channel pré amp. The parts are just waiting to be used. A winter time job?
Based on the first few listening sessions it is becoming obvious that the filtered array has less room contribution than an unshaded array. It doesn't make it that much easier though, to find the right balance. I don't know if it's the driver change or the filter change, but I'm experiencing more depth in imaging. (or it's imagination
) and it is much easier to get the vocal position image in front of the speaker plane. More forward on close mic recordings. I do feel these new drivers are more "sharp" or "more direct". Paper being more forgiving? Not a bad thing, but it does make the tonal balance work more important to get right. The lack or lower level of early reflections kind of makes little differences stand out more.I once said that an array gives you the driver you use back on steroids. that seems to be true.
All this still is preliminary, I have a lot of work ahead of me to fine tune. And I still want to build my 6 channel pré amp. The parts are just waiting to be used. A winter time job?
Last edited:
This weekend I spend way too much time upgrading from JRiver 22 to version 29. Usually when one upgrades it takes over the settings of prior versions. But when one has skipped this many versions: no luck! And version 22 wasn't really that user friendly to save certain settings...
Anyway, just as I had setup everything like planned, one of my vst plugins acted up, not running right under the new software. After much hair pulling an updated Metaplugin solved it though. I can get the guys that want a stand alone solution, not based on a PC, really I do. But figuring I was running this version like: "forever", a heartbreak weekend once every 5 years or so should not make me doubt my prior choices.
Up and running again and up to date... well, except for the Windows version....
Anyway, just as I had setup everything like planned, one of my vst plugins acted up, not running right under the new software. After much hair pulling an updated Metaplugin solved it though. I can get the guys that want a stand alone solution, not based on a PC, really I do. But figuring I was running this version like: "forever", a heartbreak weekend once every 5 years or so should not make me doubt my prior choices.
Up and running again and up to date... well, except for the Windows version....
What started it is that I got a Graphics card upgrade a while ago. I went from a GTX 1070 to an RTX 3060 TI. That's about the biggest graphics card my PC would hold and it has a lot of power for my 3D design apps and for Home Theatre using Mad VR. But... version 22 of JRiver didn't like the High Res video replay at 4K. Ever so often it would lag and skip a few frames (once every hour or so). So I decided to test version 29. Video went smooth as butter,now playing at my LG's native resolution everything checks out. Great audio/video sync etc. The settings didn't migrate though, so that's what started my weekend job.
All in all I had a lot of work to get it migrated, but I'll forget it ever happened in a week or two, after a couple of movies. To get the benefit of all its HDR capabilities I'll have to move to Windows 10 (yes I'm one of the idiots that's still on Windows 7 Pro), I think I'll pass for the time being.
All in all I had a lot of work to get it migrated, but I'll forget it ever happened in a week or two, after a couple of movies
. To get the benefit of all its HDR capabilities I'll have to move to Windows 10 (yes I'm one of the idiots that's still on Windows 7 Pro), I think I'll pass for the time being.
my PC box still has Win 8.1 on it... although I very rarely fire it up.
Most of my apps I run on it were made during the XP era, so not much need to upgrade!
My JRiver version is 21, I believe. But at the time, I was using Audirvana for music, but they since moved to a subscription based app, and I just can't do that.
I've never been a huge fan of JRiver's mentality. When I asked if they would support more options on the Mac that were available on Windows, they told me I should buy the app now and maybe more functionalities would be added on later, if they felt like it. When I said that's usually not how it works, one makes an app with features and we buy it. They replied that they wanted to get paid first, for options that may (or may not) come later. Geez!
So, I'm backing up the little guys! Colibri for music, and IINA for video. But of course, I don't have the functionalities you get with your setup. That's ok for now. I've only got a small 1080p TV in a tiny apartment now and I don't need much (sold the big house and projector a few months ago).
Sorry for the rambling... it's been a week of heavy rain and I've got cabin fever lately!
Most of my apps I run on it were made during the XP era, so not much need to upgrade!
My JRiver version is 21, I believe. But at the time, I was using Audirvana for music, but they since moved to a subscription based app, and I just can't do that.
I've never been a huge fan of JRiver's mentality. When I asked if they would support more options on the Mac that were available on Windows, they told me I should buy the app now and maybe more functionalities would be added on later, if they felt like it. When I said that's usually not how it works, one makes an app with features and we buy it. They replied that they wanted to get paid first, for options that may (or may not) come later. Geez!
So, I'm backing up the little guys! Colibri for music, and IINA for video. But of course, I don't have the functionalities you get with your setup. That's ok for now. I've only got a small 1080p TV in a tiny apartment now and I don't need much (sold the big house and projector a few months ago).
Sorry for the rambling... it's been a week of heavy rain and I've got cabin fever lately!
It's raining here, but I had planned a day of fun with the Stereo, hence the upgrade in settings and software this weekend... but... I didn't get the house to myself and here I am just typing behind my desk. Trying hard to find a way to make good use of this day.
actually, you should move to windows 11 instead of 10. Guys I work with have reported no problems but I still haven't pulled the trigger myself. Normally I upgrade at every opportunity because the further behind you get, the harder it is to catch up. I think Wesayso knows what I'm talking about
Yep... oops! . Big house gone, big setup gone.
But... I also bought a land right in front of the ocean, and will turn it into a little slice of heaven, if it all goes as planned.
It still will be small, so probably no more OB speakers for me, but I'll set something. Already have plans to do a small music room inside a container.
The view from my land, and a shot of my little camper too!
. Big house gone, big setup gone.But... I also bought a land right in front of the ocean, and will turn it into a little slice of heaven, if it all goes as planned.
It still will be small, so probably no more OB speakers for me, but I'll set something. Already have plans to do a small music room inside a container.
The view from my land, and a shot of my little camper too!
