# Choice of speakers, given auto-calibration



## ankursamtaney (Apr 26, 2010)

Generic questions / topics. Below is my opinion. I wish to hear as many opinions (contradictory or otherwise) on the subject as possible. I'm sure such threads may already exist, but I'm plain lazy to pull 'em out; sorry about that 

Many ask which speakers they should go for, for their HT setup:
For starters, I believe that most half-decent speaker set-ups (assuming power across the entire frequency-spectrum is similar) should be able to deliver nearly the same sound given some necessary processing and EQing. And given that most receivers now-a-days have an auto-calibration system which adjusts EQs, levels and delays for each speaker (i think many receivers even adjust delays for lows vs highs in each speaker?), don't you think the whole choice-of-speaker debate tends to be a little overrated?

This further brings me to a debatable topic on my mind: Studio monitors vs HT / Hi-Fi speakers
Does it matter? I understand many monitors are near-field, have narrow-ish "sweet-spots", etc. But shouldn't the calibration of the receivers then make up for these variables based on where you place your measurement mic?


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Strongly disagree. I have had a parade of speakers through my systems and I am an advocate of speaker/roomEQ but, nonetheless, the speakers remain distinctive. In fact, I have had speakers that react badly to speaker/roomEQ.

So, no, speaker/roomEQ is not panacea.


----------



## ankursamtaney (Apr 26, 2010)

Ermm.. Obviously, I don't mean that you'd be able to achieve the "same" performance out of "every" speaker. But what I mean is -- say if you're comparing 2 pairs of speakers of different brands, but similar configuration (maybe 2 way -- 8" drivers + ribbon tweeters), don't you reckon with some amount of EQing and processing you'd be able to get both to sound very similar to each other?

I agree the room plays a big role in how sound is heard, but in this sort of a scenario, the room is constant irrespective of the speakers, so it'll have the same impact on either set.

I have no basis or evidence to prove my point (not even sure whether it can be proven, and in all probability i may be completely wrong!), but like I said.. I'm curious to get people's opinions on this topic.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have to agree with Kal. "Auto-calibration" results can be highly variable. The room and the speakers can interact with the system used, along with other variables to yield a wide variety of results. I generally recommend conventional speakers as opposed to dipoles. Rooms that have rather normal geometries and layouts, as opposed to corner installations and speaker placement that do not conform to the norms for surround sound are going to give the most predictable results. Speakers with poor response and dispersion issues are not going to be "fixed" with these calibration systems. Assumptions about what constitutes a "half-decent" speaker system can be problematic.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I've run speakers from the same series and can tell a difference, even using auto call. Changing my center from a JBL S-Centerii to an S-38ii created an improvement that I hadn't been able to change with autocal.

Maybe someday, but auto-cal is not there yet.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

My mains and surrounds are the same brand and series and my 4 surrounds are all identical. Even with this I can still hear a difference between each speaker because of room acoustics and seating position. Nearfeild I would think that yes they would sound the same but not at a normal listening distance of 3' or more away. Auto room correction only works so well and is dependent on if the user actually followed the instructions and measured several different positions (at least 5 and the more the better).


----------



## dyohn (Apr 17, 2008)

Equalization is electronic manipulation of the signal in an attempt to overcome shortcomings in the loudspeakers and the room acoustics. Creating a system that requires less EQ to get closer to ideal reproduction will generally always result in a far more enjoyable, less distorted, more detailed and dynamic listening experience.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

In other words, the better your system to start with, the better it will be after EQ.


----------



## Matteo (Jul 12, 2006)

It isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it is kind of like asking if all V6 engine cars will perform the same on a given track. Same track, same V6 engine, totally different feel. But what if they all have the same tires and gas, are made of the same basic metal and plastic? Same thing. Individual components make a big difference is speakers. I know sound propogation isn't the same thing as the "feeling" of a good car, and that sound waves are sound waves, but the human ear can hear differences in even small areas of change. 
I think I understand what you are trying to get at, that EQ is levels the playing field in same "type" speakers, like an MTM design in which both speakers use dual 6" mids and a 1" tweeter, but there are a lot of things inside the speaker, including cabinet design, that make a huge difference. 

Matteo


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

The reality is you just don't understand how loudspeakers work. EQ can fix many things, but it can't fix everything. Overly resonate panels, internal ringing, cone defects, and many other issues can't be fixed by an EQ system. EQ isn't a silver bullet for Speaker problems. 

As far as Home theater versus pro speakers. The differences are merely aesthetic. A quality speaker is a quality speaker regardless of it's type. For example the Behringer 2030p and the Ascend Acoustics have equal quality, but the Ascend Acoustic speakers have a finish and that's living room friendly while the Behringer is utilitarian.

Ignore the near field ramblings and select the best speaker that fits your decor.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

ankursamtaney said:


> Ermm.. Obviously, I don't mean that you'd be able to achieve the "same" performance out of "every" speaker. But what I mean is -- say if you're comparing 2 pairs of speakers of different brands, but similar configuration (maybe 2 way -- 8" drivers + ribbon tweeters), don't you reckon with some amount of EQing and processing you'd be able to get both to sound very similar to each other?


How similar do they have to be to start? I could not get the Paradigm Studio/60 to sound like the PSB Imagine T, with or without Audyssey. However, using pink noise, I can distinguish among the three Studio/60s I have, with or without Audyssey. (Admittedly, it is much easier without.)


----------



## ankursamtaney (Apr 26, 2010)

eugovector said:


> Changing my center from a JBL S-Centerii to an S-38ii created an improvement that I hadn't been able to change with autocal.


I understand. Autocal may only be able to do so much, beyond which the speaker will continue to exhibit its own characteristics. Question, though: If you knew the sound you were after, don't you reckon you could manually EQ your way to that sound on the Center? I mean.. now that you know how the 2 sound, don't you think you can manually get the same (or very similar) sound out of both using an EQ?



dyohn said:


> Equalization is electronic manipulation of the signal in an attempt to overcome shortcomings in the loudspeakers and the room acoustics. Creating a system that requires less EQ to get closer to ideal reproduction will generally always result in a far more enjoyable, less distorted, more detailed and dynamic listening experience.


I completely understand what you mean. I don't know about home theatres (clearly!), and am more a budding musician / home-recordist (albeit on a modest, hobbyist scale!). And what you said is quite like what a recording engineer will say about mics and sound: i.e. make sure you have your mic selection and mic placement "right" ("right" is always a relative term), before you even touch the EQ or any other processor.



lsiberian said:


> As far as Home theater versus pro speakers. The differences are merely aesthetic. *A quality speaker is a quality speaker regardless of it's type. For example the Behringer 2030p and the Ascend Acoustics have equal quality, but the Ascend Acoustic speakers have a finish and that's living room friendly while the Behringer is utilitarian.*
> 
> Ignore the near field ramblings and select the best speaker that fits your decor.


I couldn't agree with this more! Always believed that a good speaker is a good speaker, irrespective of what it's meant for. (Just like a good mic, is a good mic -- irrespective of whether it's marketed as a drum mic, or a guitar mic, or anything else!). Glad to have heard this from an experienced person on this forum 

Please note: I'm not arguing with any of you here. I admit i don't know half as much as you guys do about this stuff. With these questions, am merely hoping to get to know as much more about the HT space as possible!

Thanks all, for your responses.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

The sound you're after, in both spaces, should be flat (in my opinion, though I lost this battle in another thread talking about juicing low-frequency levels for more bump). I used to think I'd like an EQ to give me several "color" options, especially in the low-end, but after a few years of listening to properly setup systems, flat seems to sound, consistently, the best to my ears.

As previously noted by lsiberian, frequency response is only a small part of speakers design so while EQ might fool someone without much listening experience, a set of trained ears can tell you when there's a difference, even if they can't name the source of the difference.


----------

