I've started "normalizing" to a curve I've generated from a measurement. I'll start by manually adjusting primary levels until I have a sound signature I like > take a measurement > create a target curve by smoothing the measurement > reset everything and normalize to the "generated" curve to get the peaks out > keep doing this until I have the sound I want. I feel this allows the natural response of the speakers or drivers (car audio) to come through without having to "flatten" the whole thing out. I was always chasing an "ideal curve" that someone on some forum would post until I started with this method. ( I'm with camp Don, 3,500 watts to a 15" in my car is just about enough bass :-) still well EQ'd though, I'm not a savage!) Great video guys!
Finally the video I've been waiting!!! You guys rock. I just ran Audessy today on my Marantz and was racking my brain on these curves after relocating my dual subs. I Was able to raise my subs levels today. Great video guys!!!!
Treated my Dirac curve to the Don Special with about a +8 dB frequency boost for both my subs within their respective curtains. Also extended my main L+C+R crossovers down to ~ 55 hZ and smaller satellite surrounds and heights to 80 hZ. No other tweaks to the curve outside of that for now. Initially auditioned with recommended Rockstar Atmos track (good call), as well as some more technical sweeps, and guess what? no more midrange gap, Sounds fantastic! Using the default Dirac curve without any changes sounded a little thin in the lower/lower mid midrange. Using the Bass Control export option above had great results....especially with the tactile transducers are engaged! Thanks for the great vid. And keep keepin' it real Don, nothing more fun than a few drinks and some banter with da fellow nerdz!
Since MultiEQ-X implemented the ability to import REW filters, I’ve really been pleased with the sound quality, depth and imaging that I’ve been able to achieve. Particularly when compared to what I used to do , which was export them as a text file and manually enter in the almost 150 filters one by one in Ratbuddy and than import that now modified EQ Editor App file back into the app and transfer it to my 6700h. I’ve measured the differences between the onboard XT32 running off the AVR’s GUI, the Ratbuddy+EQ Editor App, the vanilla EQ Editor app and EQ- X, both full range and limited range (which is what I run regardless) and I’ve found that EQ-X is exponentially more powerful, streamlined and user friendly than the other options. In addition, Audyssey has certainly kept up to date with EQ-X since it’s release as we get a minimum of once a month bug fixes which from a consumer standpoint is pleasing as paying $200 wasn’t the zenith of my audio life but it’s proven to be quantifiably worth its cost.
I don't actually understand why you need to import REW filters to Audyssey target curve, though? If you want to modify the target curve, you could do that directly. Why would you need to do so based on REW measurements, unless you went full manual EQ and deleted all Audyssey measurements (in which case again I'm not sure why importing automatic REW filters is any better than letting Audyssey do its thing)?
When using MultiEQ-X, do you calibrate all speakers to the same curve? If so, what is your preferred curve? I haven't yet hooked up my 6700H, but I'd kind of like to get into MultEQ-X and try to get the best imaging and depth. Did you follow any videos/tutorials?
@@galzohar Because Audyssey is always going to shape any user implemented filters to either of its flat or reference curves by default additionally, the imported REW filters are of a much different type and I use them to shape the curve more towards the natural curve and response of the specific speakers for each channel.
M. Joseph it would be cool if you can make a little video on your process , if I understand , importing your own filter in multeq-x is the only way to Eq your system without having audyssey messing it up .
Lies! Sadly it isn’t done. It’s an illusion. There are stacks of boxes on the other side of the camera. The chairs arrived but the speakers are stuck in their country of origin. Once the speakers arrive I will get them installed and get the system setup. The acoustics package is still being worked out. I likely will do a tour without the final acoustics installed once I have it to a functional state. However I suspect, based on various ETA’s, that the processor-amps and acoustics will change fairly quickly after that. I did do some STC testing. The door is rated at 47 and came in very close. The walls are STC 60 or so and tested right around there. A little higher. There is a correction you apply for certain RT60 levels that would apply in my measurements that bring it to STC 65. Feels like cheating though.
@@PoesAcoustics Ah gotcha, still good progress and those STC ratings are pretty amazing. How do you do the STC testing? Just an SPL meter or is it more involved?
@@adamjj85 hah way more involved. I wish it was that simple. I will do a video on measuring STC in a room like this. The best method is to take a sine sweep measurement inside the room and outside the room at various points around both rooms. You take the average of the difference of the two sets of transfer functions. That gives you the average transfer function of the wall which is also the sound isolation. You then take the data and smooth it to 1/3 octave and fit it to an STC curve. There are some criteria for that, a maximum amount of error between the curve and actual data points. You can’t really measure this with an SPL meter. For the sake of argument. You might have 65dB of isolation at a particular frequency. The source is playing at 100dB. Quite loud for typical speakers. The sound on the other side of that wall is just 35dB. The noise floor of the microphone is, at best, probably about 20dB and the room is likely worse, in that 30dB+ range. So the likelihood that you can accurately discern the pink noise from the other noise is very slim. What if the isolation is greater? Many good wall designs have 100dB of isolation at higher frequencies. It’s basically impossible to measure that. But the transfer function method can see into the noise floor quite a bit. I use multiple averages and very long FFT’s to maximize this. I also use very low noise measurement mics.
I set all my speakers to large and my bass was too much. When I set it to small, and added room correction, it got better but lost something magical 🧙 in the process. But here lately, thanks to Gene’s PEQ video, I set them back to large, added manual PEQ corrections, and now am in love with with my system again. Thanks you Gene 🧬 for teaching me about PEQ on my Yamaha 5200 ❤️❤️❤️!!!!
Just to comment on the preset curves: I absolutely love & use that capability. Between the Audessey paid app and the MiniDsp software I have multiple fine tuned adjustments for specific situations (solo music, solo movie, full room music, full room movie, etc.). Loving the age of audio we are currently in.
The Harmon training was pretty interesting, students were taught to differentiate various 'defects' in audio using actual music clips. So one could, say, identify a 3dB peak at 2k etc.
Ran Dirac the last night and while the delays etc. where spot on...it was bass lean as f...had to make another profile, input the delays (which were good) and added my own levels after a listen. Now the whole system is at 0.1db accuracy all channels and sounds great. StormAudio ISP mk.2.
A great video. Lots of good info that makes me want to go and measure my speakers in a field!! Don look at the graph! If trained listeners is as ‘dumb’ as you suggest then why are there distinctly different preferences? # I miss Hugo!
I do enjoy listening to these technical aspects of the audio hobby as I've been buying and trying lots of different gear in my 72 years so in reality it's all an experiment. To get what you expect can be dissapointing after spending lots of money only to try an correct some deficiencies that you perceive. The room you choose, the amplifier you choose, the preamp you choose or the speakers you choose at the volume you favor don't always get the results you expect and then we play with the eq settings. The only eq setting I have had a adjust is a center speaker in a home theater to hear clear voice as most every speaker I've tried sounds muffled or has to much bass unless it's a very small one. My hearing tops out at around 13000 hz with the age factor at this point, just something else to deal with.
This is a really good video that actually explains how it's mainly about personal preference in consumer, non-pro settings. I still really like my personal curve. A rising response that roughly follows the Equal Loudness Contour/Fletcher Munson Curve below 400 Hz, and dead flat from around 400 Hz up to 20 KHz. Since there isn't much of a difference in how we perceive mid and high frequencies between low and high listening levels, I see no reason to have anything other than a flat reference point. However, we do perceive bass differently depending on listening level. We don't listen very loud in this home (-20 is very loud movie watching to us), so significantly boosting bass according to the aforementioned curve allows us to hear and feel sound very well, without things getting uncomfortably loud. When playing around with EQ, I end up at about +12 or +15 DB by 17 Hz (How low my Rythmik FVX15s get before they drop off.) Some people may believe this would sound bright, or like a V or smile curve, but the overall perceived sound signature shifts a bit to the bassy side of neutral side due to the fact that there's a lot more energy below 400 Hz than above with this EQ. If you listen at relatively low levels and have a difficult time finding a curve, I'd recommend giving this a shot. How it sounds between -20 and -40 is what really matters here, because finding a good low volume curve is what I was trying to do. I should mention that I only have speakers with very good to excellent directivity (JBL Stage A130, Paradigm Premier 100B, and Paradigm Prestige 15B) because regardless of EQ, I always find them to sound the best. Although it's entirely down to personal preference, I'd like to see what the guys at Audioholics think of this curve after playing with it themselves.
I swear if you have just bass going and the house falling appart all around you Jamaicans would be grinning ear to ear 👂. Listening to the intro of Bob Marley's Natrual mystic where it's just the bass guitar playing creates frenzy. I think Don would appreciate. As per usual I love the work love the lessons one love .
Video is nice and easy to calibrate. There are debates about metameric failure, but for the most part, it’s pretty straight forward. SDR is Rec. 709, 100 nits in a pitch black room, d65, and a 2.4 gamma in a pitch black room. HDR has a fixed EOTF and the same d65 white point as sdr, and you calibrate to Rec. 2020, well, as far as the display can go into Rec. 2020. With audio, it doesn’t really feel like there are any standards and it drives me nuts😂
I loved the discussion, and especially the point with having different presets to flip between, though I actually use it to modify bass-response in relation to listening level. As I turn up the volume, I have curves with lower bass to compensate for the equal loudness contours, so when watching movies my curve is closer to flat, and when listening to casual music, there's more of a boost. It also helps to prevent overdriving my DIY subs, since I don't have stand-alone DSP but just use DIRAC for everything.
Very informative - I have similar curve to Don’s with steeper slope for the bass but a little less aggressive with only about a 10db boost which gives some punch when listening to kick drums without sounding too bloated in the midrange. Just my preference.
When showing the specific speaker measurements, I would've liked to know what the smoothing was. Also, I laughed my ass off with the short comments pertaining to the "magic beans" . I seriously replayed to 3 times. 🤣
It would depend on which measure you are referring to, though smoothing isn’t really a relevant discussion point here either. For the spatial average, there was no smoothing. The smoothing happens naturally from averaging multiple measurements. For the Don vs Gene comparison, that was variable smoothing uses to make the general trends easier to spot. It’s that trend that matters for such a comparison, not the peaks and dips. Dons system doesn’t have the same amount of DSP behind it nor has it received a lot of calibration time. He’s been asking me to come but it takes a day and I haven’t had the time. As for others, let me know which one and I’ll look. Forums have convinced people that lack of smoothing and a focus on precision is necessary. But no professional calibrator would work that way. It’s not an actuate way to EQ a speaker and actually risks correcting things you shouldn’t. Usually we either EQ to a weighted spatial average or use a Lowest mean square error approach.
I have a question 🙋♂️. All three of you are talking about tonality preferences with regards to response curve. However, amplitude levels dictate perceived distances to instruments 🥁 on the sound stage. Louder sound seems closer and softer sounds seem further away. So adjusting overall tonality to suit personal tastes might adjust the individual instrument tonality incorrectly so that the same instrument producing a wide range at frequencies if the amplitude levels are off the focus and placement of said instrument will suffer. Your thoughts 💭???
Great video. This explains why after equalizing my home theater (REW) using the mic in the listening position it didn't sound right! I ended equalizing each front speaker on axis at 1m distance. Then it sounded much better! The reason that I understood is that the mic in the listening position is not taking the right amount of direct sound while this can be fixed by putting the mic on axis. Is my reasoning correct?
You definitely need to take great care when applying EQ just based on in-room measurements. Personally, I use EQ to smooth out the sound below 500Hz but mostly use shelving filters for higher frequency boost or cuts if needed. Trust your ears.
What you did would be right only in the high frequencies. Not the bass. It’s an interesting approach that some auto EQ systems have used too. Yes basically by measuring at 1 meter you get the on axis direct sound and a lot less room. You still will get some SBIR that you don’t want to EQ out necessarily. At least not filling in dips. You may also be equine at a single axis that isn’t reflective of the direct sound you perceive. Some speakers have a small 10 degree window with some response anomalies that goes away quickly off axis. By 15-20 degrees the response is normal and matches the general shape out to 90 degrees. In that kind of speaker you need to be careful what you EQ. When I create DSP EQ profiles for speakers used in custom installs, I base the EQ on the full spin data and I apply the EQ to create a smooth listening window. I spend a lot of time balancing the listening window shape with that of the power response. I generally could care less about the on axis. For everything below 500hz you really need to use multiple measurements at your seat. What you hear involves increasingly more room. We don’t generally perceive the tone until a full cycle has passed so at high frequencies we can filter reflections out well. At low frequencies the brain will largely integrate the all of the reflections. The integration time is around 60ms below 1khz. Think about how many ms 100hz is. Around 9-10ms and 11 feet of travel. Now think about how many things sound will bounce off in that time. You can see how we end up hearing so much room at low frequencies.
@@PoesAcousticsthanks for your comment. The bass in my system are pretty good overal, I had problems in mids-highs. I have two towers (JBL TLX180 with 10" woofer and 10" front passive woofer) which could go also without a subwoofer but I added a Monolith THX 10 for the frequencies below 30Hz. My room is quite big (10m x 5m) and the RTA decay for mids were over 1s.. I made some DIY acoustic panels and bass traps and now it is below 400ms. I think that my front speakers have a frequency response in room far from flat: big bump in the bass frequency and dips and bumps in mids. So my goal was to flatten the on axis response to achieve a more neutral sound. Previously I tried to flatten the response in the listening position but I suppose I was trying to flatten the in room response (that according to this video is a mistake). I also remember that Gene told few times that receiver auto setup (I have YPAO with a RX-a2050) should not be trusted for mids and highs and now I have a further explanation of it. What I did is to improve the speakers response in room on axis (to match an harman curve ). I am planning to replace my front speakers in future with a couple of Wharfedale Linton (that on Eric's measurements are fantastic and have a great dispersion). I would like to have at least a more trustable front speakers. Is the Yamaha RX-A2050 good enough? However I will concentrate my next steps on bass tuning on multiple points too.
@@Audioholics So no automatic EQ above 500Hz regardless? Doesn't that nullfiy much of the need for a very specific target curve (as up to 500Hz the tilt doesn't matter nearly as much)? I was hoping that would also be mentioned in the otherwise great video.
@@galzohar you can do full band EQ but with good speakers and room acoustics, it's generally not needed. You can still use shelving filters to tilt to taste.
I’ve only watched a little of this so far but I’d like to make some points. Flat measuring speakers Anechoic put in a room measure differently. But is that 3 meters from the speaker? Is that at seating position 10 feet away? When you have an active speaker and don’t have access for an Anechoic chamber and need to measure and eq the speaker yourself. Do you measure 1 meter 3 meters, or at seating position? Even measure at 3 meters and made the speaker flat at seating position it isn’t the same. Limiting room measurements to 4ms or so in room Makes it more accurate from 2-300hz and up. Really it is just confusing how to measure and eq each speaker from different distances in a room. What I’ve done is limit the measurement to 2-300hz. Make things flat from 3 meters. Then go to the seating position and do an average pink noise(moving mic method)and adjust that curve with low q adjustment and not doing anything heavy. Not sure if this is the optimal way.
I've been playing with the Dirac Auto Target curve which tends to track your speakers in-room "tendencies" while alleviating peaks and nulls. While this makes proper speaker placement more important, it definitely helps the speaker retain its unique qualities, and can definitely add some more bass back in.
As far as I understand, EQing high frequencies modifies direct sound based on measurement of reflected sound, which often won't sound right. Is there really a point to let automatic EQ systems EQ the higher frequencies to some target curve? And if the speaker direct sound is good, is there any real reason to EQ it at all? Many say that EQing high frequencies is basically EQing the speaker, and seems like automatic EQ systems aren't really made for this? This was a very thorough and informative video, so I was surprised this topic of limiting automatic EQ frequency wasn't even mentioned. I also can't find much information about tbe relation of preference curves and loudness compensation. If it sounds balanced at reference level it will likely lack bass at -20db. How do you approach that issue?
It’s generally recommended that you limit your correction to the room transition frequency or 200-500hz as you’re correct in that Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC and older versions of Dirac, cannot differentiate direct and reflected sound using an omnidirectional microphone especially without the spinorma data from the speakers that are being calibrated.
That’s a good question. You should actually be measuring multiple positions and then averaging them. Eqing to a single point is a bad idea. Once you average there will be a natural smoothing. However the general view by a lot of experts is that some kind of smoothing that correlates with our psychoacoustic perception of these anomalies makes sense. Having more resolution in the bass and less in the treble is good for EQ because generally you don’t want to be eqing anything very fine in the treble. So variable smoothing in REW is a good compromise for that purpose (and was included specifically for room EQ with PEQ).
@@PoesAcoustics Thanks! I never thought of averaging multiple positions as smoothing but guess you are correct. I normally use 1/6 for correction of higher frequencies but will try var. Have been using a miniDSP 2x4HD for bass and getting a great response with flat group delay across my seats with 1/6 smoothing going out to double the crossover. Between the miniDSP and MultEQ X one can almost match a target curve.
30:44 about an 'accurate reference'... different music calls for different 'references' :) i like having a nice accessible knob for my subs' volume mainly because there's a great deal of variation from recording to recording, even for the same artist from one album to another, just different mixes. in some instances i need to boost the subs 6dB to bring the bass guitar and kick drum to a nice presence and then for the next album that setting would make the bass guitar swallow the whole band. the room curve is also SPL related. music can take a lot more bass at low SPLs. something that's nicely balanced at 80dB will sound super bass heavy at 100dB. not necessarily a bad thing, but it's indeed somewhat impossible to have 'one standard'
I had a car audio system that was expensive and took me at least a year with the DSP in install details to get just right. It was perfect with 95% of my music, but there are always those wonky recordings.
Thanks for this video. I just went through some serious room correction for my surround system for music (classical, most are mixed to 5.0). When you talk about bass, can you define what that means? In other words, my front three speakers include powered subwoofers. The built in crossover is 90 Hz from mid range driver to subwoofer. If I wanted "more bass" I would likely want to start the upward curve at 300 Hz????? based on your discussion. Or, are you talking about subwoofers only?
Yeah the inflection point is around 200-300hz where you start the rise. But try it where you like it. Play around with different options and see what sounds good. What I suggested in the video was to start with the Harman curve we showed and adjust from there. It’s good to start somewhere, some baseline, and work your way around from there. Since the three curves shown by Harman were preferred by multiple people, it makes sense that would be a place to start. But as I said. There is no “right” curve. These are preference curves to use as targets.
Yes exactly. A straight tilted response with no inflection point. Apparently the back story for why this was abandoned in that Olive study was that folks found it unnatural. They wanted more bass but if you kept the wedge shape it sounded chesty with mail vocals. Adding the inflection point fixed that.
Very good presentation. When I run Audyssey, it seems to destroy the phantom centre image in 2 channel listening, even though I limit it to below 200 Hz for the mains. Anybody else find this? Perhaps because I was using 3 positions?
If you use the android/iphone app, you must not use the "flat" curve in your receiver, as all target curve settings (including EQ frequency limit) in the android/iphone app apply only to the "reference" curve! Only MultEQ-X allows modifying the "flat" curve as well.
I am totally blind. I need help with the graphs. Would someone please send me example text files that I can import in to Peace project for Equalizer APO.. Format: frequency gain Q. Then I will be able to imagine those curves. I have no luck using REW or Dirac. Thanks for any help.
Seems to me that a 'trained listener' is someone quite familiar with the sound of live unamplified music. An issue to be aware of is that recording engineers in many studios (perhaps not the 'top top' studios) aren't necessarily that well trained and are typically not audiophiles. They may be more likely to be frustrated amateur rock musicians. 'Accuracy' is not as important as making a 'good' recording -- 'good' being a relative term. If you compare many of today's recordings with those made 10 - 20 years ago, the current emphasis is on 'warmth'. In particular, when heard live, cymbals and high hats can be quite loud and sharp sounding, but in many of today's recordings the sound of the cymbals is very reduced, even 'warmed' into near inaudibility except for the loudest crashes. They do that on purpose, not in the interest of 'audiophile accuracy'. The typical audiophile, while motivated to get the best sound out of his system, may not have any real reference other than his own expectations, since they have had little or no exposure to the sound of actual live unamplified instruments. The most accurate recordings are most likely to be found in non-studio settings, especially of classical symphony orchestras recorded by record labels known for their accuracy. But many audiophiles don't know (or care) about that type of music, and many have neither the motivation nor the opportunity to listen to a symphony concert to 'calibrate' their ears. Still, audiophiles can appreciate a basically non-resonant, smooth sound over sound with lots of peaks and dips in the spectrum, tuned to have the amount of highs and lows they prefer. But put them in a room with a live drummer going crazy on a decent drum set and they may be very surprised at the sound -- and may not even like it.
THIS WAS AWESOME! THANK YOU. I love my curve! And I love my sound. I HATE THAT LITTLE THING THAT I CANT FIND THAT RATTLES, that drives me mad and makes me turn caps on...
Ever tried a rattle test? You play a special rattle test signal, which is a slowly rising in frequency tone. You walk around listening for what rattles at what frequency. You will likely find the problem.
@@PoesAcoustics I only have used a song from bladerunner 2049, wich produces that rattle, but its hard to locate with all other sounds. Where can I find what you are talking about? :) would really appriciate it
I'm not happy with the curve I get out of YPAO. I have a Klipsch RP system, I feel like it gets too bright. I use the YPAO to set distances and change the EQ to through in the Yamaha which sounds more natural to my ear. It should be noted that I'm NOT a bass fanatic, I use critical listening open back headphones on a daily basis and have not changed their curve either.
@@paulgyro thanks for your reply. I've been having a nightmare recently. I had a corner sofa, and the system sounded fine. We now have a 3 and a 2 sofa set, and the side wall now has a small gap. Now all of a sudden, there's no bass coming from any speaker, hardly. Its so bizarre. It's a living room, so the family aren't too keen on acoustic panels, aesthetically speaking lol.
Gene have you watched the podcast that Shane Lee did with the president of REL acoustics, apparently you don't need to DSP REL subs because they are made with "black magic" and you should cross your surround speakers over at 40hz so you can hear the bass from them (Shane even mention talking about this on your podcast with you and Don). I'd love to see a response video from you, the president of REL sounds just like the audioquest guy, makes since since REL sell's a $700 high level cable designes to be used exclusively with NAIM amplifiers, must have some of that "black magic" in the cable that the president of the company was talking about.
Very bizarre claims. WE have a review soon to be published on an REL sub. The measurements definitely show what happens when you don't apply DSP to prevent a sub from misbehaving. While DSP can be abused and cause deleterious effects, NO DSP can be far less forgiven when driving a sub at or near its limits.
@@TokeBoisen I look forward to the review after listening to the presidents crazy clams, just a small taste, according to him bass is directional as well, and Dolby is wrong 😆 ruclips.net/video/hAF9PyV2xBQ/видео.html
REL guys are insufferable. They are like the Maserati guys thinking they're driving engineering perfection with their tight, fast cars while a z06 and M3 spank them in every performance category
Gotta love how people still obsess over that Harman study with a WHOPPING 11!!!!! listeners total.. Come on?! Were they unable to invite more people to come in, sit down, and fill out a survey after listening to some music?!
We love good quality bass in the UK. Just ask Terry Ellis from Persuit Perfect System 🇬🇧 😁. I loved the video that REL did with two stacks of three subwoofers on his channel 👌 As the Essential Craftsman says, “keep up the good work”. Merry Christmas
Not just rude but doesn’t add anything positive to the conversation. Repeats a lot that others have just said and blows other folks trumpets telling us how great Matthew or Anthony or some random dealer is. I watched this because for me, Matthew’s positive input outweighs (by some margin) Don’s negative input! I don’t think Don is a bad guy but he needs to think about what he wants to add to these discussions. Remember Hugo, he didn’t seem to have masses of inside industry knowledge but he added something ‘entertaining’ to the videos.
@@DigitalDonAV I disagree where someone says you're trying to look smart because you must have a wealth of experience but you don't share it with the viewers! We don't want to hear you praising others or swearing(!), we want to hear what you've tried, what works and what doesn't. 👍
Go outside guys and listen to real music, real instruments, bass, pianos, drums, saxophones, guitars… and you will find out, that there ist no such bass that you believe and want to have in your rooms. Hifi is reproducing music the more realistic as possible. 15 db bass boost may be your taste, but has nothing to do with „real“ music. Home cinema is another … movie.
Regarding the "trained listener": Don isn't wrong but he's also not correct. It's a terminology problem. "Experienced listener" would be more accurate. As someone who enjoyed a good career mastering music in Nashville, I can tell you that there are definitely some people who are trained to hear things and listen for specific things when they evaluate how a track sounds. It's not science. But it's not not science either.
I've started "normalizing" to a curve I've generated from a measurement. I'll start by manually adjusting primary levels until I have a sound signature I like > take a measurement > create a target curve by smoothing the measurement > reset everything and normalize to the "generated" curve to get the peaks out > keep doing this until I have the sound I want. I feel this allows the natural response of the speakers or drivers (car audio) to come through without having to "flatten" the whole thing out. I was always chasing an "ideal curve" that someone on some forum would post until I started with this method. ( I'm with camp Don, 3,500 watts to a 15" in my car is just about enough bass :-) still well EQ'd though, I'm not a savage!) Great video guys!
Finally the video I've been waiting!!! You guys rock. I just ran Audessy today on my Marantz and was racking my brain on these curves after relocating my dual subs. I Was able to raise my subs levels today. Great video guys!!!!
Treated my Dirac curve to the Don Special with about a +8 dB frequency boost for both my subs within their respective curtains. Also extended my main L+C+R crossovers down to ~ 55 hZ and smaller satellite surrounds and heights to 80 hZ. No other tweaks to the curve outside of that for now. Initially auditioned with recommended Rockstar Atmos track (good call), as well as some more technical sweeps, and guess what? no more midrange gap, Sounds fantastic!
Using the default Dirac curve without any changes sounded a little thin in the lower/lower mid midrange. Using the Bass Control export option above had great results....especially with the tactile transducers are engaged!
Thanks for the great vid. And keep keepin' it real Don, nothing more fun than a few drinks and some banter with da fellow nerdz!
Since MultiEQ-X implemented the ability to import REW filters, I’ve really been pleased with the sound quality, depth and imaging that I’ve been able to achieve. Particularly when compared to what I used to do , which was export them as a text file and manually enter in the almost 150 filters one by one in Ratbuddy and than import that now modified EQ Editor App file back into the app and transfer it to my 6700h. I’ve measured the differences between the onboard XT32 running off the AVR’s GUI, the Ratbuddy+EQ Editor App, the vanilla EQ Editor app and EQ- X, both full range and limited range (which is what I run regardless) and I’ve found that EQ-X is exponentially more powerful, streamlined and user friendly than the other options. In addition, Audyssey has certainly kept up to date with EQ-X since it’s release as we get a minimum of once a month bug fixes which from a consumer standpoint is pleasing as paying $200 wasn’t the zenith of my audio life but it’s proven to be quantifiably worth its cost.
I don't actually understand why you need to import REW filters to Audyssey target curve, though? If you want to modify the target curve, you could do that directly. Why would you need to do so based on REW measurements, unless you went full manual EQ and deleted all Audyssey measurements (in which case again I'm not sure why importing automatic REW filters is any better than letting Audyssey do its thing)?
When using MultiEQ-X, do you calibrate all speakers to the same curve? If so, what is your preferred curve? I haven't yet hooked up my 6700H, but I'd kind of like to get into MultEQ-X and try to get the best imaging and depth. Did you follow any videos/tutorials?
@@galzohar Because Audyssey is always going to shape any user implemented filters to either of its flat or reference curves by default additionally, the imported REW filters are of a much different type and I use them to shape the curve more towards the natural curve and response of the specific speakers for each channel.
M. Joseph it would be cool if you can make a little video on your process , if I understand , importing your own filter in multeq-x is the only way to Eq your system without having audyssey messing it up .
Great session guys. On an unrelated note, looks like Matt's theater is done! We need a tour!
Lies! Sadly it isn’t done. It’s an illusion. There are stacks of boxes on the other side of the camera. The chairs arrived but the speakers are stuck in their country of origin.
Once the speakers arrive I will get them installed and get the system setup. The acoustics package is still being worked out. I likely will do a tour without the final acoustics installed once I have it to a functional state. However I suspect, based on various ETA’s, that the processor-amps and acoustics will change fairly quickly after that.
I did do some STC testing. The door is rated at 47 and came in very close. The walls are STC 60 or so and tested right around there. A little higher. There is a correction you apply for certain RT60 levels that would apply in my measurements that bring it to STC 65. Feels like cheating though.
@@PoesAcoustics Ah gotcha, still good progress and those STC ratings are pretty amazing. How do you do the STC testing? Just an SPL meter or is it more involved?
@@adamjj85 hah way more involved. I wish it was that simple.
I will do a video on measuring STC in a room like this. The best method is to take a sine sweep measurement inside the room and outside the room at various points around both rooms. You take the average of the difference of the two sets of transfer functions. That gives you the average transfer function of the wall which is also the sound isolation. You then take the data and smooth it to 1/3 octave and fit it to an STC curve. There are some criteria for that, a maximum amount of error between the curve and actual data points.
You can’t really measure this with an SPL meter. For the sake of argument. You might have 65dB of isolation at a particular frequency. The source is playing at 100dB. Quite loud for typical speakers. The sound on the other side of that wall is just 35dB. The noise floor of the microphone is, at best, probably about 20dB and the room is likely worse, in that 30dB+ range. So the likelihood that you can accurately discern the pink noise from the other noise is very slim. What if the isolation is greater? Many good wall designs have 100dB of isolation at higher frequencies. It’s basically impossible to measure that. But the transfer function method can see into the noise floor quite a bit. I use multiple averages and very long FFT’s to maximize this. I also use very low noise measurement mics.
I set all my speakers to large and my bass was too much. When I set it to small, and added room correction, it got better but lost something magical 🧙 in the process. But here lately, thanks to Gene’s PEQ video, I set them back to large, added manual PEQ corrections, and now am in love with with my system again. Thanks you Gene 🧬 for teaching me about PEQ on my Yamaha 5200 ❤️❤️❤️!!!!
Gene, awesome content as always. Thank you!
Great video, especially now that I am experimenting with my brand-new Dirac room correction AVR!
Just to comment on the preset curves: I absolutely love & use that capability. Between the Audessey paid app and the MiniDsp software I have multiple fine tuned adjustments for specific situations (solo music, solo movie, full room music, full room movie, etc.). Loving the age of audio we are currently in.
The Harmon training was pretty interesting, students were taught to differentiate various 'defects' in audio using actual music clips. So one could, say, identify a 3dB peak at 2k etc.
Ran Dirac the last night and while the delays etc. where spot on...it was bass lean as f...had to make another profile, input the delays (which were good) and added my own levels after a listen. Now the whole system is at 0.1db accuracy all channels and sounds great. StormAudio ISP mk.2.
A great video. Lots of good info that makes me want to go and measure my speakers in a field!! Don look at the graph! If trained listeners is as ‘dumb’ as you suggest then why are there distinctly different preferences? # I miss Hugo!
I do enjoy listening to these technical aspects of the audio hobby as I've been buying and trying lots of different gear in my 72 years so in reality it's all an experiment. To get what you expect can be dissapointing after spending lots of money only to try an correct some deficiencies that you perceive. The room you choose, the amplifier you choose, the preamp you choose or the speakers you choose at the volume you favor don't always get the results you expect and then we play with the eq settings. The only eq setting I have had a adjust is a center speaker in a home theater to hear clear voice as most every speaker I've tried sounds muffled or has to much bass unless it's a very small one. My hearing tops out at around 13000 hz with the age factor at this point, just something else to deal with.
First minute in and he ain't lying, old people love all channel stereo
Good video/talk guys. Thanks.
This is a really good video that actually explains how it's mainly about personal preference in consumer, non-pro settings.
I still really like my personal curve. A rising response that roughly follows the Equal Loudness Contour/Fletcher Munson Curve below 400 Hz, and dead flat from around 400 Hz up to 20 KHz. Since there isn't much of a difference in how we perceive mid and high frequencies between low and high listening levels, I see no reason to have anything other than a flat reference point. However, we do perceive bass differently depending on listening level. We don't listen very loud in this home (-20 is very loud movie watching to us), so significantly boosting bass according to the aforementioned curve allows us to hear and feel sound very well, without things getting uncomfortably loud. When playing around with EQ, I end up at about +12 or +15 DB by 17 Hz (How low my Rythmik FVX15s get before they drop off.)
Some people may believe this would sound bright, or like a V or smile curve, but the overall perceived sound signature shifts a bit to the bassy side of neutral side due to the fact that there's a lot more energy below 400 Hz than above with this EQ. If you listen at relatively low levels and have a difficult time finding a curve, I'd recommend giving this a shot. How it sounds between -20 and -40 is what really matters here, because finding a good low volume curve is what I was trying to do. I should mention that I only have speakers with very good to excellent directivity (JBL Stage A130, Paradigm Premier 100B, and Paradigm Prestige 15B) because regardless of EQ, I always find them to sound the best. Although it's entirely down to personal preference, I'd like to see what the guys at Audioholics think of this curve after playing with it themselves.
Perfect timing. I have been playing with MultEQ X
I swear if you have just bass going and the house falling appart all around you Jamaicans would be grinning ear to ear 👂. Listening to the intro of Bob Marley's Natrual mystic where it's just the bass guitar playing creates frenzy. I think Don would appreciate. As per usual I love the work love the lessons one love .
Video is nice and easy to calibrate. There are debates about metameric failure, but for the most part, it’s pretty straight forward. SDR is Rec. 709, 100 nits in a pitch black room, d65, and a 2.4 gamma in a pitch black room. HDR has a fixed EOTF and the same d65 white point as sdr, and you calibrate to Rec. 2020, well, as far as the display can go into Rec. 2020. With audio, it doesn’t really feel like there are any standards and it drives me nuts😂
I loved the discussion, and especially the point with having different presets to flip between, though I actually use it to modify bass-response in relation to listening level. As I turn up the volume, I have curves with lower bass to compensate for the equal loudness contours, so when watching movies my curve is closer to flat, and when listening to casual music, there's more of a boost.
It also helps to prevent overdriving my DIY subs, since I don't have stand-alone DSP but just use DIRAC for everything.
What AVR do you have? What you’re describing is exactly what Dynamic EQ is designed to do!
@@HiFinest343, I use an NAD T758 V3 with DIRAC. It can store three presets, but it doesn't have Dynamic EQ
Great content.
A great video and a discussion. Learning everyday!!
Thanks for the awesome video! Is this power point available to download anywhere?
Loved this!!!!!!!!!
Very informative - I have similar curve to Don’s with steeper slope for the bass but a little less aggressive with only about a 10db boost which gives some punch when listening to kick drums without sounding too bloated in the midrange. Just my preference.
When showing the specific speaker measurements, I would've liked to know what the smoothing was. Also, I laughed my ass off with the short comments pertaining to the "magic beans" . I seriously replayed to 3 times. 🤣
It would depend on which measure you are referring to, though smoothing isn’t really a relevant discussion point here either.
For the spatial average, there was no smoothing. The smoothing happens naturally from averaging multiple measurements.
For the Don vs Gene comparison, that was variable smoothing uses to make the general trends easier to spot. It’s that trend that matters for such a comparison, not the peaks and dips. Dons system doesn’t have the same amount of DSP behind it nor has it received a lot of calibration time. He’s been asking me to come but it takes a day and I haven’t had the time.
As for others, let me know which one and I’ll look.
Forums have convinced people that lack of smoothing and a focus on precision is necessary. But no professional calibrator would work that way. It’s not an actuate way to EQ a speaker and actually risks correcting things you shouldn’t. Usually we either EQ to a weighted spatial average or use a Lowest mean square error approach.
I have a question 🙋♂️. All three of you are talking about tonality preferences with regards to response curve.
However, amplitude levels dictate perceived distances to instruments 🥁 on the sound stage. Louder sound seems closer and softer sounds seem further away.
So adjusting overall tonality to suit personal tastes might adjust the individual instrument tonality incorrectly so that the same instrument producing a wide range at frequencies if the amplitude levels are off the focus and placement of said instrument will suffer. Your thoughts 💭???
Great video. This explains why after equalizing my home theater (REW) using the mic in the listening position it didn't sound right! I ended equalizing each front speaker on axis at 1m distance. Then it sounded much better! The reason that I understood is that the mic in the listening position is not taking the right amount of direct sound while this can be fixed by putting the mic on axis. Is my reasoning correct?
You definitely need to take great care when applying EQ just based on in-room measurements. Personally, I use EQ to smooth out the sound below 500Hz but mostly use shelving filters for higher frequency boost or cuts if needed. Trust your ears.
What you did would be right only in the high frequencies. Not the bass. It’s an interesting approach that some auto EQ systems have used too.
Yes basically by measuring at 1 meter you get the on axis direct sound and a lot less room. You still will get some SBIR that you don’t want to EQ out necessarily. At least not filling in dips. You may also be equine at a single axis that isn’t reflective of the direct sound you perceive. Some speakers have a small 10 degree window with some response anomalies that goes away quickly off axis. By 15-20 degrees the response is normal and matches the general shape out to 90 degrees. In that kind of speaker you need to be careful what you EQ. When I create DSP EQ profiles for speakers used in custom installs, I base the EQ on the full spin data and I apply the EQ to create a smooth listening window. I spend a lot of time balancing the listening window shape with that of the power response. I generally could care less about the on axis.
For everything below 500hz you really need to use multiple measurements at your seat. What you hear involves increasingly more room. We don’t generally perceive the tone until a full cycle has passed so at high frequencies we can filter reflections out well. At low frequencies the brain will largely integrate the all of the reflections. The integration time is around 60ms below 1khz. Think about how many ms 100hz is. Around 9-10ms and 11 feet of travel. Now think about how many things sound will bounce off in that time. You can see how we end up hearing so much room at low frequencies.
@@PoesAcousticsthanks for your comment. The bass in my system are pretty good overal, I had problems in mids-highs. I have two towers (JBL TLX180 with 10" woofer and 10" front passive woofer) which could go also without a subwoofer but I added a Monolith THX 10 for the frequencies below 30Hz. My room is quite big (10m x 5m) and the RTA decay for mids were over 1s.. I made some DIY acoustic panels and bass traps and now it is below 400ms. I think that my front speakers have a frequency response in room far from flat: big bump in the bass frequency and dips and bumps in mids. So my goal was to flatten the on axis response to achieve a more neutral sound. Previously I tried to flatten the response in the listening position but I suppose I was trying to flatten the in room response (that according to this video is a mistake). I also remember that Gene told few times that receiver auto setup (I have YPAO with a RX-a2050) should not be trusted for mids and highs and now I have a further explanation of it. What I did is to improve the speakers response in room on axis (to match an harman curve ).
I am planning to replace my front speakers in future with a couple of Wharfedale Linton (that on Eric's measurements are fantastic and have a great dispersion). I would like to have at least a more trustable front speakers. Is the Yamaha RX-A2050 good enough?
However I will concentrate my next steps on bass tuning on multiple points too.
@@Audioholics So no automatic EQ above 500Hz regardless? Doesn't that nullfiy much of the need for a very specific target curve (as up to 500Hz the tilt doesn't matter nearly as much)? I was hoping that would also be mentioned in the otherwise great video.
@@galzohar you can do full band EQ but with good speakers and room acoustics, it's generally not needed. You can still use shelving filters to tilt to taste.
pure Gold 🔥 premium content
Nice Naple Theater Seats Matt!!!
I like them!
I’ve only watched a little of this so far but I’d like to make some points.
Flat measuring speakers Anechoic put in a room measure differently.
But is that 3 meters from the speaker? Is that at seating position 10 feet away?
When you have an active speaker and don’t have access for an Anechoic chamber and need to measure and eq the speaker yourself. Do you measure 1 meter 3 meters, or at seating position?
Even measure at 3 meters and made the speaker flat at seating position it isn’t the same. Limiting room measurements to 4ms or so in room Makes it more accurate from 2-300hz and up.
Really it is just confusing how to measure and eq each speaker from different distances in a room.
What I’ve done is limit the measurement to 2-300hz. Make things flat from 3 meters. Then go to the seating position and do an average pink noise(moving mic method)and adjust that curve with low q adjustment and not doing anything heavy. Not sure if this is the optimal way.
I've been playing with the Dirac Auto Target curve which tends to track your speakers in-room "tendencies" while alleviating peaks and nulls.
While this makes proper speaker placement more important, it definitely helps the speaker retain its unique qualities, and can definitely add some more bass back in.
As far as I understand, EQing high frequencies modifies direct sound based on measurement of reflected sound, which often won't sound right. Is there really a point to let automatic EQ systems EQ the higher frequencies to some target curve? And if the speaker direct sound is good, is there any real reason to EQ it at all? Many say that EQing high frequencies is basically EQing the speaker, and seems like automatic EQ systems aren't really made for this?
This was a very thorough and informative video, so I was surprised this topic of limiting automatic EQ frequency wasn't even mentioned.
I also can't find much information about tbe relation of preference curves and loudness compensation. If it sounds balanced at reference level it will likely lack bass at -20db. How do you approach that issue?
It’s generally recommended that you limit your correction to the room transition frequency or 200-500hz as you’re correct in that Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC and older versions of Dirac, cannot differentiate direct and reflected sound using an omnidirectional microphone especially without the spinorma data from the speakers that are being calibrated.
@@josephfranzen9196 That's also what I understand, which is why I find it strange it wasn't even mentioned in the video.
23:31 funny enough. Joes magic beans app is pretty incredible
When you are adjusting to a target curve what level of resolution do you use for EQ corrections? 1/24, 1/12, 1/6,etc.?
That’s a good question. You should actually be measuring multiple positions and then averaging them. Eqing to a single point is a bad idea.
Once you average there will be a natural smoothing. However the general view by a lot of experts is that some kind of smoothing that correlates with our psychoacoustic perception of these anomalies makes sense. Having more resolution in the bass and less in the treble is good for EQ because generally you don’t want to be eqing anything very fine in the treble. So variable smoothing in REW is a good compromise for that purpose (and was included specifically for room EQ with PEQ).
@@PoesAcoustics Thanks! I never thought of averaging multiple positions as smoothing but guess you are correct. I normally use 1/6 for correction of higher frequencies but will try var. Have been using a miniDSP 2x4HD for bass and getting a great response with flat group delay across my seats with 1/6 smoothing going out to double the crossover. Between the miniDSP and MultEQ X one can almost match a target curve.
30:44 about an 'accurate reference'... different music calls for different 'references' :)
i like having a nice accessible knob for my subs' volume mainly because there's a great deal of variation from recording to recording, even for the same artist from one album to another, just different mixes.
in some instances i need to boost the subs 6dB to bring the bass guitar and kick drum to a nice presence and then for the next album that setting would make the bass guitar swallow the whole band.
the room curve is also SPL related. music can take a lot more bass at low SPLs. something that's nicely balanced at 80dB will sound super bass heavy at 100dB. not necessarily a bad thing, but it's indeed somewhat impossible to have 'one standard'
I had a car audio system that was expensive and took me at least a year with the DSP in install details to get just right. It was perfect with 95% of my music, but there are always those wonky recordings.
Thanks for this video. I just went through some serious room correction for my surround system for music (classical, most are mixed to 5.0). When you talk about bass, can you define what that means? In other words, my front three speakers include powered subwoofers. The built in crossover is 90 Hz from mid range driver to subwoofer. If I wanted "more bass" I would likely want to start the upward curve at 300 Hz????? based on your discussion. Or, are you talking about subwoofers only?
Yeah the inflection point is around 200-300hz where you start the rise. But try it where you like it. Play around with different options and see what sounds good.
What I suggested in the video was to start with the Harman curve we showed and adjust from there. It’s good to start somewhere, some baseline, and work your way around from there. Since the three curves shown by Harman were preferred by multiple people, it makes sense that would be a place to start.
But as I said. There is no “right” curve. These are preference curves to use as targets.
When you mention wedge shape with elevated bass do you mean just a basic straight line tilt?
Yes exactly. A straight tilted response with no inflection point. Apparently the back story for why this was abandoned in that Olive study was that folks found it unnatural. They wanted more bass but if you kept the wedge shape it sounded chesty with mail vocals. Adding the inflection point fixed that.
Very good presentation. When I run Audyssey, it seems to destroy the phantom centre image in 2 channel listening, even though I limit it to below 200 Hz for the mains. Anybody else find this? Perhaps because I was using 3 positions?
Interesting. Double check you're using the limited bw correction and it didn't default to the Audyssey reference curve.
If you use the android/iphone app, you must not use the "flat" curve in your receiver, as all target curve settings (including EQ frequency limit) in the android/iphone app apply only to the "reference" curve! Only MultEQ-X allows modifying the "flat" curve as well.
Agree, room correction kill the low frequency.
I am totally blind. I need help with the graphs.
Would someone please send me example text files that I can import in to Peace project for Equalizer APO..
Format: frequency gain Q.
Then I will be able to imagine those curves.
I have no luck using REW or Dirac.
Thanks for any help.
What I don't get is why sometimes you see a Harman line straight through and at others a spike from 5-8Khz
Seems to me that a 'trained listener' is someone quite familiar with the sound of live unamplified music.
An issue to be aware of is that recording engineers in many studios (perhaps not the 'top top' studios) aren't necessarily that well trained and are typically not audiophiles. They may be more likely to be frustrated amateur rock musicians. 'Accuracy' is not as important as making a 'good' recording -- 'good' being a relative term.
If you compare many of today's recordings with those made 10 - 20 years ago, the current emphasis is on 'warmth'. In particular, when heard live, cymbals and high hats can be quite loud and sharp sounding, but in many of today's recordings the sound of the cymbals is very reduced, even 'warmed' into near inaudibility except for the loudest crashes. They do that on purpose, not in the interest of 'audiophile accuracy'.
The typical audiophile, while motivated to get the best sound out of his system, may not have any real reference other than his own expectations, since they have had little or no exposure to the sound of actual live unamplified instruments.
The most accurate recordings are most likely to be found in non-studio settings, especially of classical symphony orchestras recorded by record labels known for their accuracy. But many audiophiles don't know (or care) about that type of music, and many have neither the motivation nor the opportunity to listen to a symphony concert to 'calibrate' their ears.
Still, audiophiles can appreciate a basically non-resonant, smooth sound over sound with lots of peaks and dips in the spectrum, tuned to have the amount of highs and lows they prefer.
But put them in a room with a live drummer going crazy on a decent drum set and they may be very surprised at the sound -- and may not even like it.
THIS WAS AWESOME! THANK YOU. I love my curve! And I love my sound. I HATE THAT LITTLE THING THAT I CANT FIND THAT RATTLES, that drives me mad and makes me turn caps on...
Ever tried a rattle test? You play a special rattle test signal, which is a slowly rising in frequency tone. You walk around listening for what rattles at what frequency. You will likely find the problem.
@@PoesAcoustics I only have used a song from bladerunner 2049, wich produces that rattle, but its hard to locate with all other sounds. Where can I find what you are talking about? :) would really appriciate it
Very informative. Don’s perspective spoke to me and helped me tremendously with my system👍🏼
I'm not happy with the curve I get out of YPAO. I have a Klipsch RP system, I feel like it gets too bright. I use the YPAO to set distances and change the EQ to through in the Yamaha which sounds more natural to my ear. It should be noted that I'm NOT a bass fanatic, I use critical listening open back headphones on a daily basis and have not changed their curve either.
I wish YPAO was better
Me either. YPAO is my least favorite. I believe the target curve is wrong. At a minimum it needs to be adjustable.
Most artist only need 2 Studio speakers, what music you create?
Depends what they are mixing. I design immersive sound rooms. The few mixing rooms I did were for mixing Atmos.
Trying to remaster Fatboy Slim into 11.2.4 atmos
Can reflections in a room affect frequency response from the sub/speakers?
They absolutely do thus why the room is the most important component to good sound
@@paulgyro thanks for your reply. I've been having a nightmare recently. I had a corner sofa, and the system sounded fine. We now have a 3 and a 2 sofa set, and the side wall now has a small gap. Now all of a sudden, there's no bass coming from any speaker, hardly. Its so bizarre. It's a living room, so the family aren't too keen on acoustic panels, aesthetically speaking lol.
@@Adam9306 so the only thing that changed is you add new furniture? You didn't more change anything else? Did where you sit in the room change?
@@paulgyro where I sit, is pretty much the same
@@Adam9306 so nothing else changed? Do you think your seating position even moved a foot? Have you tried different seats?
Gene have you watched the podcast that Shane Lee did with the president of REL acoustics, apparently you don't need to DSP REL subs because they are made with "black magic" and you should cross your surround speakers over at 40hz so you can hear the bass from them (Shane even mention talking about this on your podcast with you and Don). I'd love to see a response video from you, the president of REL sounds just like the audioquest guy, makes since since REL sell's a $700 high level cable designes to be used exclusively with NAIM amplifiers, must have some of that "black magic" in the cable that the president of the company was talking about.
Very bizarre claims. WE have a review soon to be published on an REL sub. The measurements definitely show what happens when you don't apply DSP to prevent a sub from misbehaving. While DSP can be abused and cause deleterious effects, NO DSP can be far less forgiven when driving a sub at or near its limits.
@@Audioholics can't tell you how long I've waited for you guys to review a REL sub.
@@Audioholics I know that your a busy man, but take the time to listen to that podcast, it will give you weeks of content 😆
@@TokeBoisen I look forward to the review after listening to the presidents crazy clams, just a small taste, according to him bass is directional as well, and Dolby is wrong 😆
ruclips.net/video/hAF9PyV2xBQ/видео.html
REL guys are insufferable. They are like the Maserati guys thinking they're driving engineering perfection with their tight, fast cars while a z06 and M3 spank them in every performance category
The lesson here is imperfection is actually perfection. Nature is imperfect, it does not function by being a straight line.
Gotta love how people still obsess over that Harman study with a WHOPPING 11!!!!! listeners total.. Come on?! Were they unable to invite more people to come in, sit down, and fill out a survey after listening to some music?!
Hahahah 😂, don is so funny ! Lol totally agree with don
We love good quality bass in the UK. Just ask Terry Ellis from Persuit Perfect System 🇬🇧 😁. I loved the video that REL did with two stacks of three subwoofers on his channel 👌
As the Essential Craftsman says, “keep up the good work”.
Merry Christmas
59:35 Don??
Don’s a little cringey sometimes. But great content! This is fantastic info. Thanks!
Floyd Toole is a trained listener. Don just sounds like a fool. He made this video nigh-insufferable to sit through.
Does Don have his own channel ? I'd like to chat with him.....
Don's curve for the win!
Bro Don seems like a legit liability on these streams 😂 he is so off putting
I'm with Don, gene needs more Bass, I run mine 15db hot.
Dirac doesn’t set subs way too low like previous marantz with audysey. P.s Don is funny as,,, 😂😂
Don’s on, I turn it off, rude.
I agree when Don is on he brings down the quality and professionalism which Gene and Matt exude. Way too much swearing and off comments.
Not just rude but doesn’t add anything positive to the conversation. Repeats a lot that others have just said and blows other folks trumpets telling us how great Matthew or Anthony or some random dealer is. I watched this because for me, Matthew’s positive input outweighs (by some margin) Don’s negative input! I don’t think Don is a bad guy but he needs to think about what he wants to add to these discussions. Remember Hugo, he didn’t seem to have masses of inside industry knowledge but he added something ‘entertaining’ to the videos.
@@asx1248
I agree. You can tell Don does not understand some things being discussed, but agrees trying to sound smart.
Wow! I'll try to be better :-)
@@DigitalDonAV I disagree where someone says you're trying to look smart because you must have a wealth of experience but you don't share it with the viewers! We don't want to hear you praising others or swearing(!), we want to hear what you've tried, what works and what doesn't. 👍
😂😂😂😂😂
Go outside guys and listen to real music, real instruments, bass, pianos, drums, saxophones, guitars… and you will find out, that there ist no such bass that you believe and want to have in your rooms. Hifi is reproducing music the more realistic as possible. 15 db bass boost may be your taste, but has nothing to do with „real“ music. Home cinema is another … movie.
Go outside and fly a kite. Seriously, thats it.
@@bryanguest2807 ???
Regarding the "trained listener": Don isn't wrong but he's also not correct. It's a terminology problem. "Experienced listener" would be more accurate. As someone who enjoyed a good career mastering music in Nashville, I can tell you that there are definitely some people who are trained to hear things and listen for specific things when they evaluate how a track sounds. It's not science. But it's not not science either.