Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Room Acoustics & Mods A place to discuss measuring and modifying room Acoustics for better sound

Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th June 2019, 06:46 PM   #1
bentoronto is offline bentoronto  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Default Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid

Some of you might be aware of Toole's critique of room EQ.

See:

An Enticing Marketing Story, Theory Without Measurement? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

And if you look at post 386, you'll find my explanation of the psychology heuristics underlying stereo perception.

B.
__________________
HiFi aspirations since 1957. "When the toilet paper of Experience is depleted, the backside of Reason goes unwiped"

Last edited by bentoronto; 28th June 2019 at 06:49 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2019, 07:09 PM   #2
digitalthor is offline digitalthor  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
I tried to read most of it. And what I got out of it, is that EQ works well from around 500hz and below. And this is something I see very few people argue against.
It's not the EQ itself, It's mostly a problem with measurements and interpreting the measurement in general - which can go totally wild when pushing some "auto" button in any program.
There is no free lunch - so it's still very important to understand what you do, when manipulting the signal. Just MO.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2019, 07:36 PM   #3
bentoronto is offline bentoronto  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Toole's critique is that the room doesn't disappear no matter what sound you pipe into it.

When you EQ, you aren't EQ'ing the room (which you can't do by changing the input signal, eh). You are correcting the speakers. The room and its eigentones remain and do not change by EQ.

At some level of analysis, you are falsifying the recording so as to satisfy a mic placed where your head normally is but perhaps just confusing a brain that has learned and retains the schema for that room.
__________________
HiFi aspirations since 1957. "When the toilet paper of Experience is depleted, the backside of Reason goes unwiped"

Last edited by bentoronto; 14th September 2019 at 07:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2019, 11:37 PM   #4
adason is offline adason  United States
diyAudio Member
 
adason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Interesting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2019, 07:26 AM   #5
digitalthor is offline digitalthor  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
Toole's critique is that the room doesn't disappear no matter what sound you pipe into it.

When you EQ, you aren't EQ'ing the room (which you can't do by changing the input signal, eh). You are correcting the speakers. The room and its eigentones remain and do not change by EQ.

At some level of analysis, you are falsifying the recording so as to satisfy a mic placed where your head normally is but perhaps just confusing a brain that has learned and retains the schema for that room.

And I agree. My experience tells me the following 4 things - which by the way works great here at home.

1. Above around 3-500hz you measure the speaker without the room and make it work smoothly, both on and off axis.
2. Below 3-500hz you can and should use EQ according to the listening position and speaker placement.
3. Use multiple subs below around 80-100hz with EQ.

4. It helps with integration if the main speakers can manage to play deeper than the 80-100hz, where subwooferes are normally crossed - this means having an overlap from the mains to the subs, where the mains fall off slowly and the subs steeper.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 03:42 AM   #6
Robbintip is offline Robbintip  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Amsterdam
Is it Schrödingers frequency, at which we like to switch over between room EQ to speaker EQ?
Anyway, I don't like to carve space for the room out of the speakers responses above this certain frequency.

Music production and reproduction are two seperate things in my book.
Listening to a studio album and an accoustic recording therefore can require different systems to my opinion. That is, if you want your room accoustics to be present more when you listen to it.
__________________
Sub: 16x Peerless XXLS P835037 (8-80Hz) awaiting Motional Feedback, Fronts: Satori WO24P-4 (80-200Hz), Satori MW16P-4 (200-1780Hz), SB26ADC (1780Hz-20kHz)

Last edited by Robbintip; 5th November 2019 at 03:50 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 10:01 AM   #7
bentoronto is offline bentoronto  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbintip View Post
Is it Schrödingers frequency, at which we like to switch over between room EQ to speaker EQ?...
Schroeder was bound to show up in this discussion, so let me offer my interpretation of his "law": at higher freq you don't need to fret about eigentones and at lower freq you do; "higher" and "lower" depends on your hearing, the room absorption, and the bounce-scope (or maybe size) of the room.

What Schroeder did was offer a rule-of-thumb with minimal parts count, nothing more. He said you take the room volume and the Sabine reverb time (-60dB) and his fudge factor. If you check the previous paragraph, you'll see that's what I said.

I don't believe it is any more helpful than the soft guidance you get from other rule-of-thumbs or rules-of-thumb.

B.
__________________
HiFi aspirations since 1957. "When the toilet paper of Experience is depleted, the backside of Reason goes unwiped"
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 10:06 AM   #8
bentoronto is offline bentoronto  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmith1315 View Post
I'd say neither, but a logical deduction.

From another thread:
The two threads come together this way. If the room never disappears (this thread) then stereo is just a "parlour trick" (the other thread, in the Lounge) which you can cherish or dispense with, depending on your taste.

Only a small fraction of music listening (even for us audiophiles) is ears-forward and fully focussed on the stereo speakers. The rest of the time, we do dispense with stereo. But we still value the room-filling ambience that stereo speakers provide.

B.
__________________
HiFi aspirations since 1957. "When the toilet paper of Experience is depleted, the backside of Reason goes unwiped"

Last edited by bentoronto; 5th November 2019 at 10:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 06:13 PM   #9
academia50 is offline academia50  Argentina
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Going to the topic, the OP again proposes a new thread about something that is universally accepted as an evolution, that is, musical reproduction with two channels instead of just one, the stereo sound. (Ohhh, a speaker for each ear, isn't it wonderful ?)
Who can seriously object to this?
The feeling of depth and the sound stage achieved with two channels is impossible to achieve with just one. Point.

Everything else is pure blah, blah, blah, and, like the dog that spins trying to bite its tail, it leads nowhere.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th November 2019, 06:16 PM   #10
bentoronto is offline bentoronto  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by academia50 View Post
...Everything else is pure blah, blah, blah, and, like the dog that spins trying to bite its tail, it leads nowhere.
Would I be correct to understand that you have no idea who Toole is?

B.
__________________
HiFi aspirations since 1957. "When the toilet paper of Experience is depleted, the backside of Reason goes unwiped"
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupidHide 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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Floyd Toole (Harmann) discusses LS testing jackinnj Multi-Way 2 7th September 2015 01:25 PM
Good talk by Toole and which loudspeaker is this? tkno1 Multi-Way 14 12th June 2015 07:26 PM
Peter O'Toole RIP jackinnj The Lounge 6 16th December 2013 09:22 PM
Floyd Toole, Loudspeakers: Objective evaluations c2cthomas The Lounge 1 6th January 2011 08:21 PM
Toole makes a grown man (who likes ESLs) cry bentoronto Planars & Exotics 158 21st September 2010 11:55 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki