# Flat Response?



## Phillips (Aug 12, 2011)

Hi if we EQ to flat response isn't that taking the character sound away from the speaker itself?

Thank you


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Phillips said:


> Hi if we EQ to flat response isn't that taking the character sound away from the speaker itself?


FR is only one parameter of speaker performance and, in my experience, EQ different for a flat (or other) response does not make them change character and sound the same.


----------



## Phillips (Aug 12, 2011)

Hi Kal thanks for that

So are we EQing the room instead of the speaker itself?

Thanks again


----------



## DqMcClain (Sep 16, 2015)

You can't really consider the room and the speaker separately. If you were to EQ your entire rig in a perfectly anechoic chamber and get it flat, when you transport it to your listening space that space will alter the response. It is unavoidable. It's also not necessarily bad. Think of the room as a component of the system... but you don't get to buy the room based on it's price or specs. You have what you have, unless you're willing/able to make modifications.

So, in terms of the question you asked, yes you're EQing the room. 

In theory, the flatter the response of your speaker for a sweep or white (or pink) noise the more accurately you are reproducing the sound that was initially recorded. The thing to remember is that you might not actually enjoy hearing it that way. Flat Response is more of a baseline than a goal for most people, and the end product should be the one you like the most. There aren't any EQ Police or Flat Response Adjudicators that will show up at your house and tell you to bump 9.6kHz up by 1.5dB, Or Else...

If you get it flat and find that something is missing, bend it however you like. It's your house. 

I said this in another thread, but it applies so here it is again:

$100 spent on acoustic treatments is worth about $1000 spend on speakers and electronics. Getting rid of reflections, and standing waves will improve the sound of your system, room included, faster than almost anything else you can buy. And generally, the less you have to EQ things to approach the sound you want the happier you'll be.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

DqMcClain said:


> $100 spent on acoustic treatments is worth about $1000 spend on speakers and electronics. Getting rid of reflections, and standing waves will improve the sound of your system, room included, faster than almost anything else you can buy. And generally, the less you have to EQ things to approach the sound you want the happier you'll be.


I don't buy it. First, $100 doesn't go very far these days. So, while it can have a significant impact on some reflections, particularly in the midrange and treble, it will not do for low frequencies. Second, DSP is probably a more practical and domestically-acceptable approach for bass treatment as the acoustic alternatives will be very bulky.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

DqMcClain said:


> If you get it flat and find that something is missing, bend it however you like. It's your house.


Hence then term "House Curve." Here's an article that explains what it is and why you need it!


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Phillips said:


> So are we EQing the room instead of the speaker itself?


A bit of both actually. Above the transition frequency (~500 Hz depending on the room) you’re mainly EQing the speaker. Below that point it’s primarily the room.

Frankly I’m not interested in the speaker’s “character” if it has say, an audible peak at 5 kHz. I’m more interested in linear response. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Phillips said:


> Hi if we EQ to flat response isn't that taking the character sound away from the speaker itself?
> 
> Thank you


Hi Phillips,

Though difficult for some to conceptualize, speakers radiate 3 dimensionally. When you say "EQ flat", you would also have to specify to _where_. Usually, that would be to an omni-directional microphone, somewhere.
The next question would be, for what purpose?

cheers,


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Btw, electronic EQ can only be applied to the loudspeaker (input signal), not "the room".
The net effect below say 500hz, will on the speaker/room interaction.


----------



## Phillips (Aug 12, 2011)

Hi everyone thank you

Basically I take nearfield response as best I can to find what the speakers are doing / sounding
Look at the room response and then if are similar (specially in the higher frequencies) I leave them alone. 
I don't EQ with boosts with sharp Q values
I tend to use the old style tone controls for higher frequencies
At some stage I will set my Minidsp Dirac 22A up, unfortunately computer issues currently. Currently have Antimode Dual Core 2.0, works well.

With acoustic treatments I have no room in my lounge, I think great for dedicated sound rooms.
I have a lot of soft furnishing's, a lot of window covering etc.

I notice when I turn up the volume when measuring the RT60 it drops


The mic is in the LP
Purpose would be as a guide.

If I am doing anything that is not advisable please reply

Appreciate these reply's

Thanks in advance


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Gotta chuckle. Seems like everyone has something to say in this thread. Might as well join the fun.

My perspective:

We tend to say Room EQ, but in reality, room and speaker are pretty much inseparable, you are EQing them both as a _system._
Without starting an argument about transition frequency and what is being accomplished above and below it, my experience has been that DSP can be effective, _within practical limits,_ in taming a room/speaker system at low and high frequencies. It can be argued that some such systems do not take to it well and just get worse the more you try to EQ, but I have not seen that to be the case unless it is a system that is so horrid (definition please?) that you want to run away from it anyway.
Most will agree that, given the option, room treatment is a good idea before EQ. Like Kal says, it can be expensive to do effectively, and bulky, and is not always practical. Plus the needs are different for every speaker/room/setup. Plus some acoustical expertise is required. No wonder DSP is often turned to first.
My experience with flat response has been that a perfectly flat response in a well-controlled room sounds a little, well, _flat._ In a mastering room, that is probably exactly what you want. In a listening room, it might not be. I like to let the character of my speakers shine through _a little_ in the mid frequencies. By _a little,_ I am referring to a 1 dB peak at around 2 kHz. That is still pretty flat by most standards, yet adds some life to the sound. I would not do this in a recording, mixing, or mastering room. But at home, for fun, I like it!


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Phillips said:


> Hi everyone thank you
> Basically I take nearfield response as best I can to find what the speakers are doing / sounding


With any well designed speaker, 1m-2m on axis should be smooth, i.e., relatively "flat" from around 500hz on up. Just as importantly, the off axis will be relatively smooth. Below 500hz there may be a slight rise in the response, but that is the area which is predominantly speaker/room and where EQ should be most applied if necessary. 



Phillips said:


> Look at the room response and then if are similar (specially in the higher frequencies) I leave them alone.
> 
> The mic is in the LP


That response, which is effectively a sum of all responses/room effects, should not be the same at the speakers native response, unless close to the speakers. At 3m or so, the HF should exhibit some tapering simply due to propagation and room absorption losses. A "flat" LP response in this case should sound rather bright.



Phillips said:


> I tend to use the old style tone controls for higher frequencies


Tone controls eh? You must not be an "audiophile".
It is more important to please your 2 ears here than a microphone, so that's good, especially since recordings vary all over tonally. 
Judicious use of EQ in the bass region to cut peaks as it seems you are doing is good practice also.

cheers


----------



## Phillips (Aug 12, 2011)

HI guys

Yep flat to me sounds exactly that, Flat.

Tone controls, think they are called this


----------

