This is why every time we have setup different speakers in my room, the imaging improves with equalization. but it's hard to do in some of those small rooms. If they can get the speakers far enough out into the room where holes in the wall and reflections make less of a difference, it can sound pretty good in many cases. Even the shows we go to I am scratching my head on the setups of tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment that needs better imaging. I have yet to hear one that sounded good without EQ. Most "home" systems are mixed with a great room or rec room. nor can I perform the algorithms that it can perform. Manually I don't have anywhere close to the adjustments it has. they take phase/delay into account for each filter. There is no way I can manually do what Audyssey or Dirac Live can do. So unless your speakers are symmetrically placed in a completely symmetrical room and everything in the room is symmetrical (basically an an-echoic chamber, you will probably need EQ. and his speakers and/or headphones are frequency matched precisely.
When the recording engineer records the source, his studio is treated to extremes and/or his system is equalized to death.possibly a combination of both.
We've witnessed this on several occasions. Mismatched frequencies in the midrange will cause a voice that the recording engineer intended to be center to be skewed left or right of center. if your two front speakers are NOT frequency matched, the imaging will have less chance of being accurate. NOTE: I should also clarify that EQ on the subwoofer channel is a very good thing and should always be done.Ĭlick to expand.Think about this. I wonder what others thoughts are on this is and if I am correct thinking Onkyo may be on the right path by eliminating EQing the mains and only focusing on the sub and surrounds and also that room acoustics should be addressed and take a high priority over EQ. I know that with auto room correction it is quite common to have filters automatically added that are different on each channel as not many rooms are perfectly symmetrical and speaker placement is never ideal so using auto room EQ would be concerning to me as that is not the right method and should be avoided. I then did the same test but this time I locked the left and right channels so any adjustment would be done evenly on each channel, this did not effect the image at all other than boosting/cutting the frequency range of that part of the music. I then restored the flat setting and tried several different frequencies again different on the two channels cutting and or boosting and each time the difference was noticeable (last night I asked my wife to sit in the room while I did this and even she commented at the difference and how it pulled the sound into the center of the room). I played the track and then took a filter with average Q and added it only to the left channel at 4K (so it was a nice boost from about 2K up to 6K) and then another at 2K on the right channel and I was actually astonished how much just that caused the image to move into the center of the room or what seemed to pull it from where it should be. I played some well recorded music that I use for demos and that I know. To prove this I set up a preset with no filters applied. One of the things Ive learnt long ago is that applying EQ filters on frequencies above 400Hz that are not identical on both channels will cause your imaging to collapse across the front. Onkyo got me thinking as they are no longer applying EQ to the front channels with their proprietary room eq that is in their receivers now. Ive been wondering if in my case I could accomplish the same or even better results myself using outboard EQ on the front sound-stage. With all the automated room EQ flavors available now (Audyssey, MMAC, YAPO, Dirac) one begins to think how much is too much. Last year I tried playing with turning audyssey off and then manually adjusting the EQ on my two Yamaha YDP2006 EQs that I have on my front 3 channels and sub.
0 kommentar(er)
