UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Audio (record players, hi-fi etc)

Notices

Vintage Audio (record players, hi-fi etc) Amplifiers, speakers, gramophones and other audio equipment.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 10th Jun 2021, 12:06 am   #21
jamesperrett
Octode
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Liss, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 1,870
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by m0cemdave View Post
In general, trying to correct the effects of room acoustics with equalisation is frowned upon. It's really just a quick and dirty fix for situations where there isn't the time, or money, or facilities, to do it by acoustic means. One night stands in dodgy sounding concert halls are a prime example.
The current thinking seems to be to fix the glaring issues by configuring the room and adding absorption and trapping where needed but then use digital equalisation (which can be very finely controlled) to fix the last few little issues. There are products like Sonarworks, Room Eq Wizard, Trinnov's ST2 and Dirac which all claim to offer room correction.

In live sound the 31 band third octave equaliser seems to be the tool normally used although there are now digital equivalents.
jamesperrett is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 12:53 am   #22
mhennessy
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 4,241
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
About 50 years ago I was experimenting with linear phase speakers i.e. stepped units I set up a good quality condenser microphone with a scope
standing 2 meters away i noted a distinct change in a 1 khz square wave when i moved my head left or right
So is phase so important ?
Trev
The phase relationship between drive units in a speaker is very important - something a speaker designer has to worry about.

It's not necessary to offset the drive units to achieve the right result - and the resultant reflections from a stepped baffle introduces more problems - but it's a powerful idea that chimes with a lot of people. But as a rule of thumb, given that sound travels at around 34cm per millisecond, a contrived-but-not-unrealistic 3.4cm offset between woofer and tweeter voice coils is a tenth of a cycle at 1kHz (36 degrees).

But a crossover filter has an associated phase shift. You choose the filter frequencies and slopes so that the phases add up correctly with the microphone on the chosen "reference axis" (usually the tweeter).

Sometimes the tweeter has to be connected with the phase reversed to make this work - this is common in BBC speakers (and the many designs inspired by them) where there is a 2nd-order filter on the woofer and a 3rd-order filter on the tweeter.

Regarding what you heard when you moved, I'd bet that was a room effect. When running a loudspeaker measurement practical at work, I start by playing a 1kHz sine wave and ask people to walk slowly around the room. What they're hearing is standing waves - almost complete cancellations at some points; reinforcement at others. Once the effect is heard, you can easily recognise it when sat back down by just moving side to side. Remember, the wavelength of 1kHz is 34cm, so walking around isn't required - but it's a bit of fun!

When you change to a square wave, you've then got 3kHz (~11cm) and 5kHz (~7cm) in the room, each making their own standing waves. So now even small head movements are going to change the character of what you hear.

To separate the effects of standing waves in the room from the basic question of phase alignment, you'd need to do that test in a good anechoic chamber. Perhaps you did?

But if so, you've still got to consider the effect of moving your head relative to the speakers. I obviously don't know your setup, but chances are 1kHz came from the woofer, 3kHz came from both woofer and tweeter, and 5kHz came from the tweeter. As you move, you're changing the path length between you and these drive units, and that affects the way they sum together - so even in an anechoic chamber I'd expect some change in response.

Indeed, when you design a speaker, you move the microphone around all over the place to see how the frequency response changes with position, and the goal is to find the right crossover slopes that result in the smallest changes possible as you do this.

While we pick up on relative phase - between two speakers, for example - we're relatively insensitive to absolute phase.

Mark
mhennessy is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 1:00 am   #23
mhennessy
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 4,241
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

A note about the Behringer ECM8000...

They are not ultra-flat, and they vary from sample to sample (I've 2 here). This plot is rather sobering:

https://www.cross-spectrum.com/audio...onse_large.jpg

This came from this page: https://www.cross-spectrum.com/weblog/2009/07/

Scroll to the bottom and have a read - especially the last update.

At this price point, you're sacrificing consistency - no-doubt they're fitting any old electret capsule they can find.

Dayton Audio make some good-but-cheap measurement mics - they cost a bit more, but that's because they measure them before shipping. You download the calibration file from their website in exchange for the serial number.

https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/...ent-microphone
https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/...ent-microphone

They also make the Omnimic system that I use, which is a bit basic for full-blown commercial speaker design, but very good for the playing I do.

https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/...urement-system

Mark
mhennessy is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 1:50 am   #24
mhennessy
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 4,241
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Room correction is a complicated subject, and is controversial for good reason.

If you have a midrange "honk", for example, in a listening room, it is because of reflections. Reflections take time to decay, and the human hearing system is very good at detecting this energy hanging about.

If you use some sort of EQ to reduce the response at this frequency, you might get a nominally flat response from a measurement mic. But we will still notice that there is more energy than there should be at the frequency. If anything, you need to have a dip to replace the peak, but that's no guarantee!

It's the same problem when designing speakers. Peaks and dips are caused by resonances, and like reflections in a room, resonances are caused by energy storage that takes time to decay. As I say, we are good at picking up on these - much more so than a dumb measurement mic.

This is just one reason why results from measurement systems need careful interpretation. And why a flat response is not always the right answer. And why room treatment will always give better results than room correction.

It is a common mistake to aim for a flat response at the listening position. There should be a gentle HF rolloff as HF is more readily absorbed so will naturally fall away as you move away from the source. By all means turn up the HF to overcome age/exposure related HF hearing loss (we all have it!), but adjust to taste, not because a measurement mic says so. A good starting point is to aim for flat at 1m, then introduce a gradual lift (rather than a sharp lift with one band only) if desired. That massive lift at 16kHz is rather worrying!

Different curves for each speaker:

Imagine identical twins with identical voices in your room where the speakers are - then imagine putting a face mask on one of them. You wouldn't do it, and if you did, you'd hear the difference.

We hear differently to the measurement mic. We as humans are very good at differentiating between the reflected sound in a room and the direct sound. A measurement mic has no ability to do that - it's a omnidirectional pressure sensor that is very different to our ears.

Whatever you introduce, it needs to be the same on both channels. An average of the two current results might not be a bad starting point...

dBs and watts:

Just a reminder: every 3dB is a doubling of power. +12dB is 4 doublings. ATCs are very inefficient to begin with - I wouldn't use them with less than 100 watts per channel in even a small room, and that's without any bass boost.

And by extending the LF of the closed-box ATCs, you're massively increasing cone excursion. Harmonic distortion is proportional to excursion - asking a mid-woofer to flap about will cause midrange distortion.

EQ types:

If you can find one, a parametric EQ will be much better at this sort of thing - you can sweep the frequency to find the problem areas. Even a 3rd-octave graphic EQ is a bit of a blunt tool. I'm spoilt - my digital sound desk has 4 band PEQ on every input and output, and 3rd-octave GEQ on every output (fairly standard these days). In conjunction with my measurement mic, I can get just about any speaker sounding good in just about any space - though the measurements are just a start and the ear has to be the final arbiter, for all the reasons outlined above. It's a shame PEQ never really caught on in the hi-fi world, but they are a bit complex to design and use. Should be easy to find pro models s/h though, and converting from balanced to domestic connections is easy.

I hope the above is useful, and gives some pointers for further investigation - I'm aiming to encourage continued experimentation and learning, so please don't think I'm criticising

Mark
mhennessy is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 10:36 am   #25
dave cox
Nonode
 
dave cox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 2,059
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Excellent posts Mark

As stevehertz has mentioned, current fashion dictates my amplifier has no tone controls whatsoever and I am a bit undecided on the merits of that. I do recall in the past the temptation to 'fiddle' with tone controls while listening and it being as much of a distraction as improvident. On the other hand I like choice and a defeat switch isn't so hard!

As I only have 'digital' sources now, my option for correction is limited only by the amount of computing power / ingenuity I can throw at it I will try pre-processing first, rather than stream processing, just to make life a bit easier

As an aside, I also have a Behringer ECM8000 and find it rather noisy. I guess this just down to the very small capsule ?

dc
dave cox is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 4:14 pm   #26
Craig Sawyers
Dekatron
 
Craig Sawyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 4,941
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

This is worth looking at https://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm
Craig Sawyers is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 5:30 pm   #27
stevehertz
Dekatron
 
stevehertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK.
Posts: 8,809
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers View Post
Very interesting and very academic. And he's quite right, few people actually hear what stereo is truly capable of. Why? because for whatever reason, they aren't in a dedicated, damped 'listening' room, they're in the their living room, and if they're like me they're probably doing all manner of other stuff and/or walking around. Yes, walking around, in and out of the room even. And if they are sitting down, they're probably not in the perfect stereo position and neither are the speakers placed 'perfectly', or at least, in as good a position as they may be for domestic reasons. Is that 'wrong'? no it isn't, I'm fully (largely, more like) aware of the technicalities involved with listening to true stereo. But I 'choose' not to be a slave to perfect stereo. My aim - apart from the fun derived from using high end vintage hifi components (my hobby) - is to create a 'high quality sound' in the living room. I have a very good ear although I say it myself (and explained in the first post) and I can identify an improvement when I achieve it.

My living room is my living room, for better or for worse I would never attempt to improve its acoustics. Like most living rooms its a complex mixture of soft furnishing and hard surfaces, that's how it is. My use of a graphic equaliser analyser was to improve the response that I hear both in the ahem, 'perfect' listening position and in other places; a compromise.

Listening to CDs of high quality artists that I know go to great lengths to obtain detailed, accurate sounding vocals and instruments, I know that I have achieved a definite improvement. And above all, I'm very happy with the results. What I've done may well be 'wrong' technically - even impossible as some say - but I have my improvement and I'm very happy with the results.
__________________
A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..
stevehertz is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 9:34 am   #28
Audiophile_AU
Triode
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 17
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Hi all,
long time lurker on this site, and I have learnt a lot over the years.
I agree with #22 to 25 mhennessy, and would add that the HF boost is NOT a good idea. HF drivers aka tweeties are fairly easy to burn out with programme material that may have ultrasonic content - hi res downloads?
And the ATCs are small bookshelf speakers, claimed LF response -6dB at 56Hz. If they are vented (can't tell from quick scan of literature) then bass boost below 56Hz (the bass resonance?) is likely to produce excessive cone movement, distortion, and eventually mechanical damage.
And about the Behringer mic - I have one which I have compared against my B&K microphones (1/2 inch and 1/8 inch) and my sample seems reasonably flat to 20kHz when pointed at the sound source, ie, free field measurement technique. It has a small inlet hole to make it more omni directional and the customary useage for pink noise in commercial cinemas is to have the microphone upright, ie, pointing at the ceiling. That method is using it as a random incidence microphone but there is a (predictable) droop at high audio frequencies.
Physics being what it is, the HF loudspeaker also gets quite directional and beamy at high frequencies, so unless you are EXACTLY on the HF axis you will see a drop off at HF in a free field measurement. So for a random incidence measurement you would expect a drop off at high frequencies, not a flat response (especially in larger spaces)
Please undo the HF boost of your equaliser.
I note that you (stevehertz) have done a bit of spatial averaging to arrive at your final EQ, and that also is good practice. As you have discovered, in small rooms, standing waves occur at bass and upper bass frequencies, so spatial averaging 'should' be of a dimension comparable with those wavelengths, not possible in domestic circumstances. A modest amount of bass boost is called for, although in some circumstances a notch to minimise a standing wave peak might be a better solution.

BTW my day job is designing loudspeaker systems for commercial cinema, and I have done quite a few equalising and commissioning jobs for cinemas in Australia, South Korea, and China. The company I work for exports a high proportion of its cinema products, and also designs and manufactures home Hi Fi and home cinema loudspeakers
Best regards from Down Under
David
Audiophile_AU is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 10:23 am   #29
stevehertz
Dekatron
 
stevehertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK.
Posts: 8,809
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Thanks David, appreciated. TBH, my hearing is little or nothing above 10k, so I will remove that 16k boost. Little point in potentially frazzling my tweeters for no other reason than a pattern on a GE. Regarding bass boost, I don't play at high listening levels so I'm confident that some boost at 40z is appropriate. So I will reduce the 40Hz boost levels as a compromise between bass extension and cone travel. I'm not hearing any extra distortion with the EQ in and out, but nonetheless, to be aware of. Nothing is indestructible, but they are ATC speakers, not cheap ones from an 80s stacking system so they really ought to be able to handle some bass boost.
__________________
A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..
stevehertz is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2021, 6:22 pm   #30
mhennessy
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 4,241
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Thank you Dave and David for your positive feedback, and I apologise for not replying sooner - I've been away from the forum as I've been really busy with work lately. As well as the day job, I have been working a small festival local to me with several acts - some of them surprisingly big names - including classical guitar, jazz, musicals and blues. All went well, and everyone was happy with the sound. Fitting it all in around the day job was fraught and exhausting, but it's good to be back after the last 15 months. For some reason, all of my gear seems to be about 50% heavier than I remember it

For one of the bigger shows, I dug out my HK-Audio speakers, which aren't as good as my normal choice, but the rider had a clause excluding certain manufacturers (including Behringer!). That's quite common. Anyway, I had to EQ them, as they're a bit "strident" through the mid and top, but that was really easy with a PEQ. Checking with my measurement mic at 2m, I'd done a pretty good job by ear, but was able to refine it a bit further - the screenshot shows I ended up with, and I can refer to this next time I use those speakers. Though if I was really keen, I'd rework the crossover before I use them again...

Out of interest - with this thread in mind - I tried the same thing using a GEQ, and despite it being a third-octave EQ, it didn't give anything like as good results. That wasn't a surprise to me, but it did confirm what I said towards the end of post #24. So if you have a chance to acquire a PEQ, it's definitely worth grabbing it. Much more flexible than a GEQ

David, the ATCs are sealed. They can certainly absorb a lot of power - I've got a pair of SCM7s (and we have several at work), and a pair of classic SCM20SLs. The power amp will clip long before the woofers complain. In a studio at work we have Carver ZR1000 (225W per channel) driving SCM7s, and even that hasn't yet managed to bottom out the woofers. Without re-reading the whole thread, I don't know if the power amp has been mentioned here, but that would be my main concern. At least the clipping should be readily audible and hence easily avoided. And hopefully the amp has DC protection at the output...

Dave, regarding your point about noise, I did plan to compare the ECM8000 to some other mics, but I forgot before packing up the desk and putting something else on the bench. I'll will try to take a look at that though, as it's an interesting question. My workshop is in a cellar, and is fairly quiet despite this house being on a main road, but if necessary I can try a radio studio at work. It's hard to predict if the capsule is to blame - without seeing the schematics, I can't rule out the electronics between the capsule and the XLR pins. Behringer have form here - see the DI20 DI box, which is basically a white noise generator!

This mention of ATC rang a bell, and I found this recent thread where Steve asked about speakers and several, including me, mentioned ATC. Perhaps these SCM11s were bought as a result of that thread - don't know as there wasn't a conclusion (or it was another thread that I missed?). Either way, I hope our advice helped the OP, just as I hope my contributions here will.

All the best,

Mark
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HP Audio EQ.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	46.8 KB
ID:	236069  
mhennessy is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2021, 8:33 am   #31
Diabolical Artificer
Dekatron
 
Diabolical Artificer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sleaford, Lincs. UK.
Posts: 7,636
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Interesting thread. One thing I've found that improves sound at least in my room is lifting the speakers up or tilting them back by a few degrees. My main speakers are vintage Mission 720 floor standers, even on a small stand (4 8" nails in a plank) the tweeter is lower than my ears. I find it odd that hifi speakers are mostly placed low down, whereas recording monitors are often shoulder height. I know a lot of studio monitors nowadays are near field, but still.

One comment on mics for testing,recently there was a thread on CEL sound level meters - https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/...d.php?t=181062 these can often be picked up very cheap and have an excellent mic; my CEL meter has a DIN AUX out, so measurement's using just the mic can be made.

Andy.
__________________
Curiosity hasn't killed this cat...so far.
Diabolical Artificer is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2021, 4:21 pm   #32
stevehertz
Dekatron
 
stevehertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK.
Posts: 8,809
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhennessy View Post
.....The power amp will clip long before the woofers complain. In a studio at work we have Carver ZR1000 (225W per channel) driving SCM7s, and even that hasn't yet managed to bottom out the woofers. Without re-reading the whole thread, I don't know if the power amp has been mentioned here, but that would be my main concern. At least the clipping should be readily audible and hence easily avoided. And hopefully the amp has DC protection at the output...
My amp is a Pioneer A-91D. It was produced at a point in time when the Japanese threw everything that they had, technically and physically to make an amp as good as they possibly could. It's rated at 120W/ch at 0.003% distortion into 8 ohms, and 170W/ch at 0.005% distortion into 4 ohms. And it weighs a ton, well, 64lb to be precise. It's not clipping.
__________________
A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..
stevehertz is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 2:22 am   #33
AmadeusMozart
Triode
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Masterton New Zealand
Posts: 17
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

I bought from www.minidsp.com an UMIK-1 microphone. I loaded up on the PC foobar 2000 and then added the free add-in MathAudio Room EQ.

Then measure at different locations the room response and apply it to foobar.

You can also use the shown graphs in MathAudio EQ to manually set an external EQ (e.g. on an iPod).

Works like a charm.

PS don't forget to download the calibration file for the microphone.

AM
AmadeusMozart is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 8:40 am   #34
stevehertz
Dekatron
 
stevehertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK.
Posts: 8,809
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Thanks for that. My problem is I'm computer phobic and barely computer literate, I can just about switch it on. My attempts to 'do' things with computers in the past, download apps etc, have always led to tears and tantrums as nothing ever goes smoothly. The 'Little Britain' phrase "computer says 'no' " comes to mind. I'm stuck in the real (non- computer) world of hardware I'm afraid. If someone was to come to me, my house, and perform computer based room correction I'd be very happy, but me? I haven't a clue and I haven't the nerve for another computer battle. I envy people who stride through the most complicated of procedures with their computers. Like I say, I can't even install an app without the computer driving me crazy with its inate awkwardness and insubordinance. Each to their own in terms of their areas of ability, and what makes them happy. I grew up soldering transistors and resistors onto home made PCBs, and then progressed on to valves. Oh how I wish computers did what they were told and didn't throw brickbats back at you with every press of a keyboard button.
__________________
A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..
stevehertz is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 8:50 am   #35
Simondm
Pentode
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 148
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

I rather dislike graphic equalizers, as they are so awkward to use.

Professionally I used the Klark Technik DN360 a lot (and the 361 - I think - the two channel version, anyway).

31-band (or "3rd Octave" centre frequency spacing) is used as it is "fully combining" over normal audio bandwidth, meaning adjacent filters blend with each other without introducing nasty phase shifts in the equalizer, so whatever shape you think you need (and "draw out" on the front panel), is pretty much what you get.

But in the analogue domain there are many gotchas:

- there are a lot of electronics in the signal path, so they tend to be noisy (pro ones are better, sometimes).

- There are a lot of sliders (OK, sometimes rotaries) to go crackly, especially if they are used as a permanent solution, and not regularly adjusted. For cost reasons they are almost always carbon track, and they DO fail mechanically, causing all kinds of issues. It's one reason why they are better for location use (gigging), as the sliders get worked for each setup.

- A 31-band filter will let you can make curves with adjustable Q (the "steepness" of the curve at any point), but you can't go sharper than a single slider moved away from a smooth line. If the spot frequency you want to control lies between the centre points of two filters, you can affect it, but only with lower Q. This is usually insufficiently helpful when trying to EQ a problem acoustic.

Example: every studio I worked in had a CO2 fire extinguisher hanging up by the door to the control room, so as to be easily grabbed when in need. Flick one with a fingernail and it would ring like a bell. But it would also ring if you whistled near it at the same pitch!

Obviously, you can either match that frequency, or you can't, and no amount of being close will do it. Of course nobody actually wasted time trying to eq-out the fire extinguishers, but eigentones (big room resonances at spot frequencies you can't choose) are common, and do need to be considered.

MHennessy is spot-on: parametrics are by far the better option, or at least a parametric combined with some normal 3-band EQ or similar. If you can get some sort of spectral display (Something using FFT analysis on a PC, for example) even with a relatively poor microphone, a room and PA system's eigentones will show up and become amenable to correction. It's a system and does have to be treated as such, although acoustic control with treatment on the walls and ceiling will give a head start.

Others have said also that the locations of both the speakers and the listening point becomes critical too. There is a conundrum here: Stereo demands symmetry, but that in turn encourages resonances.

I wish my hearing was better these days! Last week-end we visited friends with a smallholding on the edge of Dartmoor. I don't think I have recenty been in a quieter place out of doors - no traffic, nor planes, nor really even wind in trees. Nothing except birdsong. A Blumlein stereo speaker setup in that location would give superb results - that you simply can't easily get indoors with walls, ceilings, furniture, and equipment!

Final quick thought, a tip given to me by a BAFTA-winning dubbing mixer I worked for: When setting up stereo, arrange the speaker axes to cross, not at the ears, but around a foot in front of your head. The further away the speakers are, the further the axes should cross in front of you.

This stabilizes the stereo image significantly. It works well with all the speaker pairs that I have.

The reason is that, as you move your head side-to-side, you go off-axis from the nearer speaker, and on-axis to the one that's furthest away. It's a sort of automatic HF adjustment. The effect with the LS3/5A is dramatic - the sound stage between the speakers suddenly "snaps into focus" and Blumlein recordings have much sharper detail (positionally).

Bear in mind though that proper stereo requires proper mic technique to start with (another big topic). Most recordings we listen to nowadays are mostly panned mono, where the soundstage positioning is entirely artificial. These are never as good as a proper stereo pair (or pairs) used correctly. You also need excellent channel separation and phase coherence...

I hope none of the above is 'telling granny', apologies if it is.

Last edited by Simondm; 8th Jul 2021 at 8:57 am.
Simondm is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 11:32 am   #36
TIMTAPE
Octode
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,965
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehertz View Post
Thanks for that. My problem is I'm computer phobic and barely computer literate, I can just about switch it on. My attempts to 'do' things with computers in the past, download apps etc, have always led to tears and tantrums as nothing ever goes smoothly. The 'Little Britain' phrase "computer says 'no' " comes to mind. I'm stuck in the real (non- computer) world of hardware I'm afraid. If someone was to come to me, my house, and perform computer based room correction I'd be very happy, but me? I haven't a clue and I haven't the nerve for another computer battle. I envy people who stride through the most complicated of procedures with their computers. Like I say, I can't even install an app without the computer driving me crazy with its inate awkwardness and insubordinance. Each to their own in terms of their areas of ability, and what makes them happy. I grew up soldering transistors and resistors onto home made PCBs, and then progressed on to valves. Oh how I wish computers did what they were told and didn't throw brickbats back at you with every press of a keyboard button.
Computers are rather dumb and literal. Type in a serial number to activate a programme, get just one digit or character wrong and the computer "will not compute". It's just doing what it does. Understanding that the computer has its strict limitations, and allowing for that can make, I think, a world of difference. Like communicating with a person from a foreign country we have to speak their language, rather than expect them to understand ours.
TIMTAPE is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 2:57 pm   #37
stevehertz
Dekatron
 
stevehertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rugeley, Staffordshire, UK.
Posts: 8,809
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by TIMTAPE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehertz View Post
Thanks for that. My problem is I'm computer phobic and barely computer literate, I can just about switch it on. My attempts to 'do' things with computers in the past, download apps etc, have always led to tears and tantrums as nothing ever goes smoothly. The 'Little Britain' phrase "computer says 'no' " comes to mind. I'm stuck in the real (non- computer) world of hardware I'm afraid. If someone was to come to me, my house, and perform computer based room correction I'd be very happy, but me? I haven't a clue and I haven't the nerve for another computer battle. I envy people who stride through the most complicated of procedures with their computers. Like I say, I can't even install an app without the computer driving me crazy with its inate awkwardness and insubordinance. Each to their own in terms of their areas of ability, and what makes them happy. I grew up soldering transistors and resistors onto home made PCBs, and then progressed on to valves. Oh how I wish computers did what they were told and didn't throw brickbats back at you with every press of a keyboard button.
Computers are rather dumb and literal. Type in a serial number to activate a programme, get just one digit or character wrong and the computer "will not compute". It's just doing what it does. Understanding that the computer has its strict limitations, and allowing for that can make, I think, a world of difference. Like communicating with a person from a foreign country we have to speak their language, rather than expect them to understand ours.
No. My problems of the past have not resulted from 'operator error'. It's the constant 'computer says no' type messages that pop up every time you try to do something. Or your present software or apps are not compatible with whatever you're trying to do, and so on. There's the conundrum; you need to be computer literate before you can gain experience. It's a bit like needing to be able to drive before you are allowed to drive a car. That's how I see it anyway.
__________________
A digital radio is the latest thing, but a vintage wireless is forever..
stevehertz is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 3:46 pm   #38
Julesomega
Nonode
 
Julesomega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK.
Posts: 2,086
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Just seen this thread: I have for sale a large professional Behringer model FBQ3102 which I was about to put on eBay. £100 + postage
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Behringer FBQ3102.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	142.7 KB
ID:	237312  
__________________
- Julian

It's good here
Julesomega is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2021, 9:09 am   #39
AmadeusMozart
Triode
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Masterton New Zealand
Posts: 17
Default Re: Using a graphic equaliser analyser to improve room and speaker anomalies

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehertz View Post
Thanks for that. My problem is I'm computer phobic and barely computer literate, I can just about switch it on.
I commiserate. You are not alone.

25 years ago I was designing large complex computer systems and knew my way around computers, since then it has almost all faded away. I can manage plain windows, don't like Windows 10 with the apps and am using Windows Server instead without all the apps cra p.

I've got a smartphone but hate adding apps or dping anything to it. I am only using it for communication and the only app I added is WhatsApp for talking / video conferencing with the children, grandkids. The rest of the apps have largely been turned off, don't need weather updates, location and what have you.

But Foobar 2000 and Mathaudio are stable pieces of software and have never given me any problems. Very large user base and if you can follow instructions then there should (famous word: should) no problem.

One piece of software saved my butt untold times: Total Uninstall. You start it up , then point to the software you want to install and then save afterwards the information. If you want to uninstall it cleanly restores everything. That together with Acronis Backup is all I needed to survive scre w ups.

Unfortunately both pieces of software cost momeny.

AM
AmadeusMozart is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 1:04 pm.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.