Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

  1. Back To Top    #11

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Which is why FIR filtering is a different beast than IIR.
    (One can achieve phase EQ along with amplitude EQ.)
    I've heard that Dirac Live uses FIR, and that the Helix people say its not worth using in car.
    Other than that I have no idea what that means and while I can look up the acronyms I really don't understand what these filters are really doing.

    Also, other than using Dirac Live, we have no ability to utilize an FIR filter. But interested to hear more.

    (When I say have an EE degree, it was from 30 years ago and I wasn't the best EE student which is why I ended up in software).

  2. Back To Top    #12

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by preston View Post
    ...
    (When I say have an EE degree, it was from 30 years ago and I wasn't the best EE student which is why I ended up in software).
    I like morning humour... that is a classic.

  3. Back To Top    #13
    A Refined Basshead blockrocker's Avatar
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Vehicle
    2018 Nissan Frontier
    Posts
    623
    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    I'm not sure I can add anything of value to the discussion, that hasn't already been said. If you are using REW auto EQ and imputing the values from REW into your DSP, you can limit how much boost you let the feature use. I have tinkered with the preferences in the past, and limited the amount of boost that can be used when calculating the frequencies. The helix allows up to +6db boost, but you can tell REW to "pretend" it can only boost +2 or +3 when calculating the frequency adjustments. This will make you use more bands but will minimize the (sometimes) huge differences between neighboring bands on the EQ.

    Hopefully this comment isn't incoherent babble, but try limiting the availabliity of boost in REW and it might take some of the large fluctuations away. I know sometimes REW tells me to cut 1055 -7db then the next band is 1080 +6. Its my understanding that this is what you want to avoid as much as possible, not how many bands used.

    Full disclosure though, I have not noticed tonnes of audible difference between many of the different REW/Helix setups I have experimented with. Despite extensive tinkering, as blindly as can be at times, I feel sometimes the tune goes great and other times it's a complete failure. Strangely, I cannot pinpoint why that is, still learning.

  4. Back To Top    #14

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    For me over eqing and cutting everything in sight wrecks dynamics, sure take down nasty peaks in treble, but you don’t need to flatten a response to match a straight line, for example... a pillars often have a peak around 200-1k or thereabouts and then level off with a lot flatter upper mid and treble... well first off does your brain hear everything as the mic picks it up? Direct sound is prioritised by the brain... is most of that energy your mic is picking up reflected? How many times have I turned all eq off and actually listened and enjoyed listening as I’ve effectively castrated the system and took 8-10db (think about the power that required if you were to boost the same?) is there any wonder it sounded a bit flat?

    i guess I now look at a curve and try and smooth it rather than have done pre determined line I must make everything match, as long as everything sounds in proportion and dynamics aren’t stifled I have done good! And easy test is listen to a live session and decide if it actually sounds live or flat as hell

  5. Back To Top    #15
    DIYMA Janitor SkizeR's Avatar
    Real Name
    Nick
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    580
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    There have been volumes written on this and similar topics by people waaaay smarter than me, so I'm certainly not going to sum it up here. But, regarding signal manipulation, I think it has to do with "how" you EQ more than "how many times". For example, it seems to be "generally" accepted that boosting a signal via EQ is more detrimental than cutting a signal... when you introduce energy into a signal by boosting, you also introduce phase shift which becomes counter-productive to what you are trying to accomplish. There are tons of variables that come into play, speaker size, distance from the listener, early/late reflections, the volume of your interior, etc... hell, what makes one speaker sound different from another?
    I know I haven't answered your question really, but if you've heard the phrase you quoted, you've probably also heard that installation is everything. Meaning that the more work you put into the proper design of a system to begin with, the less you will have to EQ the heck out of it later on.
    I gotta stop you.. boosting is not inherently bad. You just run the risk of clipping depending on how your gain structure is set up. With IIR filters, any swing in response changes phase. But, a given frequency response has a given phase response so those changes in phase are still (mostly/usually) fixing the phase response as well.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  6. Back To Top    #16
    Noob JCsAudio's Avatar
    Real Name
    John
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Vehicle
    See signature
    Posts
    656
    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Well, I have mostly 2-way active systems and those are really hard to tune. I tune with a DSP that has just 10 bands of parametric EQ per channel and sometimes I don’t even use all of them so if some people are using all 30 bands of EQ per channel then I would guess they could be either doing something wrong like trying to fix drivers that are out of phase with each other or equalizing in REW using too high of a resolution and obsessing over stuff that doesn’t actually matter. As stated, trying to EQ things that cannot be equalized away like cancellation nulls or phase issues will cause you to use excessive bands of EQ.

    Conclusion: beating the curve doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad but it could be a sign that something else went wrong along the process of tuning and that person is trying to fix a problem with EQ that was caused by a mistake in the process. Some drivers, especially ones that are being asked to do things they aren’t really designed to do may also require more EQ.
    Mazda CX5 AF GB10, AF GB25, AF GB60, JL VX800/8i, AF GB12 sealed, Mmats M1400.1

    Ford F150
    AF GB10, AF GB25, JLC5, JL twk88/Pioneer D8604, Mosconi Pico, JBL Club 5501, Sundown SD3-10 ported @ 30 Hz

    Sienna
    AF GB15, Audiofrog GS690, JL twk88/Pioneer D9500F, JBL GTX500, Alpine SWS10 ported @ 31 Hz

    https://www.diymobileaudio.com/threa.../#post-5608901






  7. Back To Top    #17
    A Refined Basshead blockrocker's Avatar
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Vehicle
    2018 Nissan Frontier
    Posts
    623
    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCsAudio View Post
    equalizing in REW using too high of a resolution and obsessing over stuff that doesn’t actually matter. As stated, trying to EQ things that cannot be equalized away like cancellation nulls or phase issues will cause you to use excessive bands of EQ.
    This sums up the problem I was having in the first few attempts at a good tune. Your entire comment is well said.

  8. Back To Top    #18
    Wave Shepherd - aka Jazzi Justin Zazzi's Avatar
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    670
    Join Date
    Aug 2018

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jtrosky View Post
    I've seen this mentioned a few times, where someone says that your "beating your frequency response into submission" by "over-EQ'ing" the response. I'm kind of curious what is really meant by this and why it's a "bad" thing.
    It's hard to understand the intricacies of tuning so I think many folks try to follow a tuning recipe, and like many recipes people get frustrated when there isn't enough pepper for their tastes. Or like if I followed advice word-for-word in a Home and Garden magazine I would end up with a really beautiful yard that I don't like.

    I'd like to think that over-using the dsp is a sign that the user has more to learn.
    Measure with mics, mark with chalk, cut with torch, grind to fit, sand to finish, paint to match.
    Updated Justin tuning sheet (Justin and Erica tuning companion for SMAART and REW)
    Do it for them.

  9. Back To Top    #19

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCsAudio View Post
    Well, I have mostly 2-way active systems and those are really hard to tune. I tune with a DSP that has just 10 bands of parametric EQ per channel and sometimes I don’t even use all of them so if some people are using all 30 bands of EQ per channel then I would guess they could be either doing something wrong like trying to fix drivers that are out of phase with each other or equalizing in REW using too high of a resolution and obsessing over stuff that doesn’t actually matter. As stated, trying to EQ things that cannot be equalized away like cancellation nulls or phase issues will cause you to use excessive bands of EQ.

    Conclusion: beating the curve doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad but it could be a sign that something else went wrong along the process of tuning and that person is trying to fix a problem with EQ that was caused by a mistake in the process. Some drivers, especially ones that are being asked to do things they aren’t really designed to do may also require more EQ.
    When Eqing a single channel response other drivers won’t have an effect, however I suspect you mean eqing a side or a pair of drivers together at the listening position, for which I am a massive advocate of getting phase and timing bang on before adding eq

  10. Back To Top    #20
    Noob JCsAudio's Avatar
    Real Name
    John
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Vehicle
    See signature
    Posts
    656
    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by dumdum View Post
    When Eqing a single channel response other drivers won’t have an effect, however I suspect you mean eqing a side or a pair of drivers together at the listening position, for which I am a massive advocate of getting phase and timing bang on before adding eq
    That is correct dumdum. The process I use involves EQ of each driver separately, but also together with other drivers involved covering the same octave, like tweeter to mid and mid to woofer and woofer to sub and I do that left vs right sides. I don’t really want to get into too much detail about that though.

    Speaking of process, I know some people don’t actually have one (I was guilty myself and I’m still learning) where they can use it and get repeated results with the understanding of what that is. They may be blindly messing around until something appears to work and get close to the result they want. They may have all these methods/tricks that they learned can work but don’t necessarily know why and when to use them in the right situation, or why. It’s really tough for the enthusiasts though because they may only ever tune one or two systems a few times a year. That just isn’t enough experience to gain the knowledge and develop a process, so the enthusiast will always be at a disadvantage when compared to someone who does it for a living. Still, they can learn if they put the time into it, read a lot, listen to those that have more experience, and follow those that are experts in this area, and lastly actually put some time in tuning on a semi regular basis. The best way to learn is to read up and practice it. Failure/making mistakes is part of the process of learning that applies to all aspects of learning no mater who you are. Even the professional tuner who does it on a regular basis I bet sometimes screws up and has to go back.
    Mazda CX5 AF GB10, AF GB25, AF GB60, JL VX800/8i, AF GB12 sealed, Mmats M1400.1

    Ford F150
    AF GB10, AF GB25, JLC5, JL twk88/Pioneer D8604, Mosconi Pico, JBL Club 5501, Sundown SD3-10 ported @ 30 Hz

    Sienna
    AF GB15, Audiofrog GS690, JL twk88/Pioneer D9500F, JBL GTX500, Alpine SWS10 ported @ 31 Hz

    https://www.diymobileaudio.com/threa.../#post-5608901






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back To Top