How many use some sort of measurements to optimize their systems?

E-Stat

Lunatic Member
I am certainly not beholden to many of the basic specs you find with most audio gear, but do find value with some, especially for loudspeakers.

I experiment with speaker placement and use frequency measurements in the lower octaves to arrive at the most linear overall position. In the main system where I also employ bass traps, I arrived at their placement similarly. With the HT, that also involved trying different sets of low pass/high pass combinations with the mains and subs along with some judicious use of the parametric EQ for attenuating modes.

I also periodicallly check and fine tune the bias on the output tubes with my power amps. Over time, those values do tend to change.

I find using such quite helpful to provide the best listening experience. You?
 
I have used digital room correction systems for at least 10 years now. They provide useful measurements for speaker positioning, and help to correct what can't be fixed by positioning and room treatment.

Are these systems incorporated into HT receivers/processors, or are they software apps on a PC. Sounds like something I should learn more about.
 
I don't as of yet have any measurement equipment but plan to someday. I do have a friend who owns the exact same pair of JBL L200's I have and he did the nearfield PEQ measurements and shared his data with me so I now run mine with JRivers DSP studio PEQ with that data. The difference is subtle but better to my ears..
 
I've been using the phone for what's coming out of the speakers, and the net for what goes into the receivers. That's what I have handy to use. So far moving the speakers around so the numbers make since and the speakers sound better have gone hand in hand. Coincidence or consequence?
In any case I think it may be just as useful for novice with 1970s receivers and speakers as people farther along in the game. Maybe more so since the novice are most likely to be way off the mark.
 
miniDSP, UMIK-1, laptop, REW/MSO here.

Just no substitute for data. Although I have found it confirms my suspicions with ears so I can see the validity of using your ears too, however I’m not sure how you fix that without something like a DSP.
 
Are these systems incorporated into HT receivers/processors, or are they software apps on a PC. Sounds like something I should learn more about.

Neither, actually. I did long ago use parametric EQs based on separate measurements, but for a long time I've used stand-alone components from Behringer (DEQ2496), TacT (the sadly orphaned RC 2.0S), and DSpeaker.
 
I've been using measurements since 1977-78. IME very few have the aural acuity required for setting any type of equalizer for flat in room response. If you're not trying for flatter in room response your ears will do fine as you're not using anything as a reference. Just tweak until you're happy. The results will not be accurate and will almost always result in the good old smiley face.

A smiley faced equalizer is a good indicator that measurements were not used to adjust it.
 
I'll soon be ordering Roger's upgrade kit for my InnerSound Eros III.5s which includes a DSP electronic crossover.
 
I used the PlatterSpeed phone app with a test record to check my turntable's W&F. I could hear variation in the 3150 Hz tone during the test. It met its rather lax spec but did not beat it. Then I misplaced my test record. After re-capping my Teac, I wanted to test it, too, and finally found the test record. But the PlatterSpeed app no longer works because of Apple iOS changes, and they haven't bothered to update it. I can't say as I blame them - I'd be PO'ed too, but they charged real money for it.

I measure SPL on the phone with another app - SPLnFFT. Haven't tried the FFT part.
 
I've been using measurements since 1977-78. IME very few have the aural acuity required for setting any type of equalizer for flat in room response. If you're not trying for flatter in room response your ears will do fine as you're not using anything as a reference. Just tweak until you're happy. The results will not be accurate and will almost always result in the good old smiley face.

A smiley faced equalizer is a good indicator that measurements were not used to adjust it.
reverse smile can be interesting with eq .. i always end up with flat when happy .
 
I also think you can get caught in a tweak for every record situation which becomes exhausting.

I’ve found getting flat response, with a slightly boosted bass is best and then I dial in my subs with some known bass tracks.

The reality is that some records are just cut with less/more bass/treble, and these days I like to setup the stereo with minor adjustments available other than what’s on the amp (which I never use anyway).

That way I spend more time listening to tracks than thinking of what I can tweak.

However: that all falls apart when I get on a thought that I need to review the setup, then I go down a rabbit hole chasing setups again (like I’ll be doing today).
 
My system has no tone controls at all, and I'v set my room and system up by my ears and what sound good. I will go out of my way finding and buying the best mastered and sounding copies of a media. I don't think I'll ever use tone controls in my system as it's a never ending adjustment unless your just running test tones opposed to the variety of media thats available.

I also think you can get caught in a tweak for every record situation which becomes exhausting.

This^ is not for me at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom