Analyzing the Data
As mentioned earlier, one problem with measurements is the incorrect use of the results. Once you achieve your measurements through the aforementioned methods, here’s some things you should ask yourself before heading straight to the EQ:
Let's look at some real examples...
Low Frequency EQ'ing (tuning below the Schroeder Frequency):
Taking off from the above, I'm only going to focus on the response below 300hz (graphs are out to 400hz for the sake of resolution).
The following is with no EQ. Time alignment and levels have been set, however.
First off, let's take a look at the difference measured from the driver's seat vs the passenger's seat.
The results show the same response show pretty much the same curves above 70hz. I've seen this numerous times; almost as if the car has varying Schroeder frequencies. One is for the entire cabin; the other is for one location at a time. Of course, I'm not talking about moving the mic to the rear of the car... that's an entirely different can of worms. The point in this measurement, however, is to show that there is actually a sub-band that really needs attention below the seated Schroeder frequency: the midbass band is entirely subject to this. As shown, 70hz is the starting point for different results between seats but 300hz is about the starting point for different results within the same seat. So, 70hz to 300hz is gonna be a total PITA in my car. Through about 5 years of dealing with this same car, my measurements show me what I already know, so it's definitely been vetted.
Next...
After doing that, it's time to get back to the driver's seat and start measuring response from there.
One might choose to measure the system response as a whole and use the RTA that way, but it's a bit more conclusive to study each individual side's response (left and right side response). This is easy to do: just pan the balance to one extreme or the other and measure. When you do, you'll have the left side stereo contribution vs the right side stereo contribution.
So, here we have just that. Panned left is Green. Panned right is Purple. No EQ. 1/12 octave (to show the crappy little modal stuff that 1/3 doesn't get).
What this really shows me is that both the left and right side stereo contributions have their own problems. Notice that slight dip around 85hz at the driver's seat? Everyone has that problem to some degree because of their proximity to the speaker. Bottom line, that dip is a cancellation mode. There's nothing I can do to fix it, either. I can EQ it up but what will happen is I'll just keep applying more power to the driver's side midbass, causing distortion to ramp up and likely audible issues due to it. And while it may raise the response there, it'll also make resonant modes more problematic. The potential to damage the driver certainly exists. There's just not a whole lot you can do here. Some EQ will help but if you try to flatten it out by adding 4-5dB of EQ you'll alter the response curve in a negative way and create other issues. The only way to really fix a problem like this is to move from the boundary causing the null or move your driver(s). So, I just ignore this. Truth be told, it's not a real big issue when listening. And this is just one more example of why you should not rely entirely on the RTA. You should always use your own ears to accompany what you've measured. If you have a narrow dip it's not as audible as a broad dip; the same goes for a bump in response.
So, yea... I'm not going to sweat that dip at 85hz measured at the driver's seat. It's a lost cause and serious waste of time to try to flatten it. I just want to smooth it so a bit of EQ here and there will help that.
Now, look at the rest of the curves. That dip around 85hz on the left side is exacerbated by the rise in response around 125hz. After looking at the decay plot, measured by REW, I see why...
This is a plot of response over time, laid out in 2-D. The highest levels are closer to the initial response time. As the graphs change color below one another, you're seeing 'slices' of the response in time. Look at the legend. It shows time in milliseconds (ms). Each color corresponds to a time slice/section. Ideally want to see is each slice dying out quickly and contributing less and less to the results. However, what you actually get is modal issues showing up... these are the ones that linger around and don't taper off smoothly. Looking at these plots is pretty subjective and really should be used with some subjective listening as well. But, I'll give some thoughts on how I look at it...
The 125hz issue showing up in the left side FR plot... now look at the decay plot around that frequency. See how the darker blue looks pretty mountainous here with a dominant spike at about 125hz? Notice how the shade of blue just before this has the same spike? This is an indication of a modal issue. Luckily, I have an EQ band right here... I can cut it some. The problem, however, is cutting here also affects the tonality in other ways. With a parametric EQ, I can set a narrow Q and cut accordingly. But, I don't have that, so I have to cut here with the 31 band EQ. Here is the result when I use the EQ to cut 125hz by 3dB:
Not surprisingly, there was no miraculous alteration of the issue. It cut the problem by 3dB as it should but it didn't make the ringing issue go away. It did lessen the effect some. This is where subjective listening will tell you if it helped. The drawback here is you also changed the tonality of the system because the Q (bandwidth) of the 1/3 octave equalizer is so wide; it doesn't just change a single frequency.
This site is a great reference for what frequencies influence what you hear and can help you understand the tradeoffs you deal with when changing EQ bands to fix problem areas:
Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network
There are other frequencies that do the same thing. 100hz definitely lingers. 83hz lingers as well. Remember earlier my bit about bumping up 80hz to fill in that hole caused by the left side response? What do you think happens when you do that regarding the modal issues? It's a nasty problem. What you really need is a way to target specific modes without negatively affecting the other areas you want to fix with standard EQ methods. This would be a really good intro in to why parametric EQs are so good. So, I'll stop here and pick up there when I have the chance.
Keep in mind I've only really discussed one component of the system response here. The right side response has it's own problems as well.
Cliffs:
As mentioned earlier, one problem with measurements is the incorrect use of the results. Once you achieve your measurements through the aforementioned methods, here’s some things you should ask yourself before heading straight to the EQ:
- Is what I’m seeing audible? Is it a dip or a peak? Here’s a good quote from Floyd Toole regarding this:
- Attenuation of excessive levels appears to be very safe, but avoid trying to fill deep holes. A narrow dip is probably caused by a null in a standing wave or interference pattern. As such it is the acoustical equivalent of a bottomless pit - it cannot be filled. Narrow dips are difficult to hear in any event, and all that will happen if you dial in a lot of gain is that the amplifiers will have reduced headroom, and the loudspeakers will be working harder to no avail. The result will be increased distortion.
- In other words, don’t worry about dips. But do worry about large peaks.
- If it’s a peak, use the EQ to drop it down some and re-measure. Did it go away? If not, are you really sure it’s a peak, or is it just a spot next to a null that looks like a peak? A-ha!!!!
- If you are looking at the overall system response, try measuring each side individually and see if you notice something that may be causing the issue. IOW, take it down a level and see if the issue is caused by just the left midrange (for example). Then evaluate and tweak (or don’t) as necessary.
Let's look at some real examples...
Low Frequency EQ'ing (tuning below the Schroeder Frequency):
Taking off from the above, I'm only going to focus on the response below 300hz (graphs are out to 400hz for the sake of resolution).
The following is with no EQ. Time alignment and levels have been set, however.
First off, let's take a look at the difference measured from the driver's seat vs the passenger's seat.
The results show the same response show pretty much the same curves above 70hz. I've seen this numerous times; almost as if the car has varying Schroeder frequencies. One is for the entire cabin; the other is for one location at a time. Of course, I'm not talking about moving the mic to the rear of the car... that's an entirely different can of worms. The point in this measurement, however, is to show that there is actually a sub-band that really needs attention below the seated Schroeder frequency: the midbass band is entirely subject to this. As shown, 70hz is the starting point for different results between seats but 300hz is about the starting point for different results within the same seat. So, 70hz to 300hz is gonna be a total PITA in my car. Through about 5 years of dealing with this same car, my measurements show me what I already know, so it's definitely been vetted.
Next...
After doing that, it's time to get back to the driver's seat and start measuring response from there.
One might choose to measure the system response as a whole and use the RTA that way, but it's a bit more conclusive to study each individual side's response (left and right side response). This is easy to do: just pan the balance to one extreme or the other and measure. When you do, you'll have the left side stereo contribution vs the right side stereo contribution.
So, here we have just that. Panned left is Green. Panned right is Purple. No EQ. 1/12 octave (to show the crappy little modal stuff that 1/3 doesn't get).
What this really shows me is that both the left and right side stereo contributions have their own problems. Notice that slight dip around 85hz at the driver's seat? Everyone has that problem to some degree because of their proximity to the speaker. Bottom line, that dip is a cancellation mode. There's nothing I can do to fix it, either. I can EQ it up but what will happen is I'll just keep applying more power to the driver's side midbass, causing distortion to ramp up and likely audible issues due to it. And while it may raise the response there, it'll also make resonant modes more problematic. The potential to damage the driver certainly exists. There's just not a whole lot you can do here. Some EQ will help but if you try to flatten it out by adding 4-5dB of EQ you'll alter the response curve in a negative way and create other issues. The only way to really fix a problem like this is to move from the boundary causing the null or move your driver(s). So, I just ignore this. Truth be told, it's not a real big issue when listening. And this is just one more example of why you should not rely entirely on the RTA. You should always use your own ears to accompany what you've measured. If you have a narrow dip it's not as audible as a broad dip; the same goes for a bump in response.
So, yea... I'm not going to sweat that dip at 85hz measured at the driver's seat. It's a lost cause and serious waste of time to try to flatten it. I just want to smooth it so a bit of EQ here and there will help that.
Now, look at the rest of the curves. That dip around 85hz on the left side is exacerbated by the rise in response around 125hz. After looking at the decay plot, measured by REW, I see why...
This is a plot of response over time, laid out in 2-D. The highest levels are closer to the initial response time. As the graphs change color below one another, you're seeing 'slices' of the response in time. Look at the legend. It shows time in milliseconds (ms). Each color corresponds to a time slice/section. Ideally want to see is each slice dying out quickly and contributing less and less to the results. However, what you actually get is modal issues showing up... these are the ones that linger around and don't taper off smoothly. Looking at these plots is pretty subjective and really should be used with some subjective listening as well. But, I'll give some thoughts on how I look at it...
The 125hz issue showing up in the left side FR plot... now look at the decay plot around that frequency. See how the darker blue looks pretty mountainous here with a dominant spike at about 125hz? Notice how the shade of blue just before this has the same spike? This is an indication of a modal issue. Luckily, I have an EQ band right here... I can cut it some. The problem, however, is cutting here also affects the tonality in other ways. With a parametric EQ, I can set a narrow Q and cut accordingly. But, I don't have that, so I have to cut here with the 31 band EQ. Here is the result when I use the EQ to cut 125hz by 3dB:
Not surprisingly, there was no miraculous alteration of the issue. It cut the problem by 3dB as it should but it didn't make the ringing issue go away. It did lessen the effect some. This is where subjective listening will tell you if it helped. The drawback here is you also changed the tonality of the system because the Q (bandwidth) of the 1/3 octave equalizer is so wide; it doesn't just change a single frequency.
This site is a great reference for what frequencies influence what you hear and can help you understand the tradeoffs you deal with when changing EQ bands to fix problem areas:
Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network
There are other frequencies that do the same thing. 100hz definitely lingers. 83hz lingers as well. Remember earlier my bit about bumping up 80hz to fill in that hole caused by the left side response? What do you think happens when you do that regarding the modal issues? It's a nasty problem. What you really need is a way to target specific modes without negatively affecting the other areas you want to fix with standard EQ methods. This would be a really good intro in to why parametric EQs are so good. So, I'll stop here and pick up there when I have the chance.
Keep in mind I've only really discussed one component of the system response here. The right side response has it's own problems as well.
Cliffs:
- Room modes suck. They muddy up system response as a whole.
- When the midbass is muddy it overshadows everything good about the rest of the system.
- All cars have modal issues smack in the midbass area.
- Standard EQ can only go so far. But when properly used, EQ can help tame some of the modes which results in a much more tonally pleasing car stereo and much better blending with sub on the low end and midrange on the high end.
Menu
Buy Your Stuff Here
Recent Posts
