Do YOU have a flat frequency response in your room?

two better questions are;

is a flat frequency response in your room desired? if not, what type of FR curve is preferred?

and if you are going down this road, what is the frequency response at your listening position? are there any big humps or dips....at that seating position?

i’m not one who really cares that much about the measurement. i want subjectively a smooth extended high end, transparent mids, and lively bass. with an ultimate cohesive and balanced sound.

but i did have my speaker designer set up my twin tower speakers in my room at one point, it was fairly flat except for a 30hz suckout due to a whole ceiling bass trap. later i sealed the bass trap and had to redo my bass tower adjustments to remove his previous compensation for that suckout.

my speakers on paper have a -3db extension to 7hz and a -6db extension to 3hz. so some serious bass capability.

subjectively i’m very happy with my bass performance. visitors to my room seem to like my bass and it is very cohesive and lively. with plenty of extension. but the bass does not call attention to itself or distract from the music.

Except this just isn't true.  Flat = super bright sounding.

kota1

The most basic truth of audio for the last 30 years is listeners prefer a flat frequency response.

Opinion stated as fact.

It isn't just an opinion, it's provably false.  The OP has done very little research.

Fletcher Munson Curve with emphasis on, sometimes less is more.

@mikelavigne , I agree that is a better question, asking if you have the frequency response that you want. To get that answer though you would have to measure it and compare it to a flat response to determine which is preferred. Some speakers are designed to take out the harshness around 2 to 4hz and build in a "gundry dip".

Marantz has a target curve within Audyssey, there is a "Harman" curve as well, good point. Let me rephrase and say that until you know what your desired FR curve is and have achieved it, spending money on new gear is rather frivolous. You still need to measure the FR and dial it in before new purchases to avoid the dangers of an audio money pit. However, you can’t really be too far off base with simply a flat curve to get started.

@erik_squires , I have done some research, here is a good foundation. Even if you don’t agree that flat is your preference, you need to get your preferred response before buying new components. Imagine not liking your speakers, buying new ones, and then finding out the real issue wasn’t the speakers but the FR of getting the speakers dialed into the room.

From "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems-1. Introduction"

Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems. Those that deviate significantly earn lower ratings in double-blind subjective evaluations. Although there is more to be considered, a flat direct sound delivered to listeners is the basis for most reproduced sound.

@erik_squires , I checked out your virtual system and we both use Mogami cables, Isoacoustic stands, and maple platforms. We also took care to treat the room and the ceiling, nice. If you are using ARC can you post the before and after of your FR in your system profile? If not, NP. It would simply be interesting to discuss.How were you able to dial in the placement of your speakers, are they higher than ear level on those stands?

@mikelavigne , you obviously have dialed in your room meticulously, did you use any dsp? I noted in another thread that we are both using Auralex diffusors. You are using the T-fusors on I think the first reflection point? I’m using the Gefusors backfilled with polyfil for some absorption on the ceiling above the MLP and on the ceiling in the rear corners of the room.

Not posting curves, but I designed my speakers to follow the Bruel & Kjaer recommended room curves.  Yes, as Troels Graveson has written, sometimes when you make a speaker you end up finding the ideal listening position is not the ideal measurement position.  In the case of the SNR-1 they just  sound much better on the m id-woofer axis.

@erik_squires , great example of how you dialed in the FR you wanted before chasing gear to get better SQ. Did you use the mic that came with your receiver for your measurements or something else?

@kota1  I used OmniMic for the speaker analysis, and XSim for crossover simulation.

@erik_squires , nice job on the attention to detail :)

I was using audyssey and it was better than nothing. Then I used the room treatment method that Anthony Grimani discusses in that video I posted earlier and it was infinitely better. Got my MLP setup to the specs laid out by dolby required moving the MLP from the back of the room to the middle of the room. Finally I made the leap to the pro version of Audyssey, got the kit with the calibrated mic and the license upgrades and finally achieved what I wanted. All in it was much less expensive than buying a new processor.

no

I am overall pro-DSP, but my experience with Anthem’s Room Correction is that it’s OK. I felt I did better when I EQ’d the room myself. One mistake I made, and for me it was a big one, I assumed Anthem’s ARC would let me use 100% custom EQ curves and that’s absolutely not the case.

On the other hand, for a system where you barely have to touch anything I can definitely see the appeal of ARC. I wish I had infinite funds and time to try Dirac as an alternative for instance.

The pro version of Audyssey let’s you use 100% custom curves, the upgrade license is $200 and a calibrated mic about $50. Anyone with a D&M product that is able to use the $20 app can get a trial version of it at the Microsoft store.

I had forgotten I wrote a piece about in room responses here:

@erik_squires , wow +10, nice article. I hope the other people reading this thread benefit from your wisdom here. 

This proves a point I keep repeating: You have no idea what the lower cutoff of a speaker in a room actually is until you measure it. Because most audiophiles don’t do this critical step they usually get misled about what their next steps should be. The average audiophile needs to reset what they think they know about speaker specifications and what it means.

There are a few articles explaining "house curves" that are readily accessible the OP may wish to investigate.

Flat frequency response is desirable but I don't believe it's the most important factor in sounding live. Dynamic linearity(linear changes in loudnes from micro to macro) is absolutely necessary. Change a seat in a live concert and frequency response changes but both seats sound alive. Or stand by a door outside a room and it's far from flat response but if it's live in the room you know it and it it's reproduced sound you know it too. Flat response is wonderful but secondary.

Nope..!

what is flat ? 

Does ANYONE truly have flat frequency response in their room?

@jeffrey75 , please post any links you would like to house curves. I think @mikelavigne rephrased the question properly, it is to get the FQ that is desired, but that doesn't mean it has to be flat.

I am saying that listeners are better off getting the FQ in the room they want (flat, or otherwise) by measuring and dialing it in before making new investments in gear.

@wturkey and , you can check the measurements of my room in my profile.

@tomic601 , to answer your question see the white paper I posted earlier in this thread.

From "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems-1. Introduction"

Let’s talk about below 120 hz at the listening position and at 20 hz , I am down a db….

You heard the man. Let’s have a lookie-loo at his measurements…..

@wturkey , I am not a quant, we had quants in another thread, that take it to the ridiculous,

I don’t think I would know the difference. I set my system up in a way that sounds good to me and let it ride. 

above that i am much more concerned about RT60…… but overly treated rooms ….are sterile and lifeless….

The most basic truth of audio for the last 30 years is listeners prefer a flat frequency response.

Says who? No concert I've ever attended had a flat frequency response and even if there was one of those out there, we ALL hear differently and some people (I'd guess most) prefer to hear some parts of the music boosted just a smidge, or maybe a lot. 

• I don't think I do
• I don't care that I don't
• As of now, I revel in the sound that I get
• Having said that, I don't think I ever want to know

All the best,
Nonoise

@mrskeptic , that statement is based on the research paper I posted on page 1:

Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems. Those that deviate significantly earn lower ratings in double-blind subjective evaluations.

And in section 3.6

Double-blind subjective evaluations of loudspeakers conducted by the author and his colleagues for 35 years have shown consistent preference for those having flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, accompanied by wellbehaved off-axis response—i.e., a smoothly changing or constant directivity index ([1] chapter 18)

@nonoise +1, hey, there is "wrong" way to do this hobby as long as you get what you want.

My post was directed at the members posting that they don't have what they want, and asking what to buy/try next. I think that this is what people who are not feeling satisfied should try first. 

kota, I do hope there was a 'no' well-placed in that first sentence to nonoise.... ;)  Otherwise, it reads more like we've been wasting our time chasing a chimera instead of sirens....😏  And totally clueless as to the proper means....

I've pursued flat, gotten close to something that resembles that in some way.  "Bright' yes, but my personal perception of the world about us it that mostly.  The pursuit of 'proper' bass is imho up to ones' preference of the experience and the 'feel' of it within that being reproduced.

I know that there are the various 'curves' one can follow, but that tweaking speakers of various sorts to properly track them within rooms of dubious qualities can make you crazy.  Auto-eq takes the bulk of that pursuit out of your hands, but generally one will make adjustments to taste anyway....

I have or get what I want for the most part, having pursued 'flat' since the '80s'.  You can split hairs only so much for so long that eventually all you've got to show for it is dust.... ;)

Anyway...cheers.

I do believe that there are other more important elements to your sound than a flat frequency response.  Yes, boomy bass or harsh top-end is intolerable, but I would put soundstage, timing, coherence, dynamics, and musicality way above a flat frequency response in terms of desirability.  
 

The attraction of aiming for a flat (or bespoke) frequency response is that it is entirely measurable and achievable for anyone via DSP, and largely component-independent if done electronically or through room correction. Fine-tuning it to perfection appeals particularly to those who like to measure stuff.   The other audio nirvanas (soundstage, timing etc.) listed in my paragraph above are more component-dependent and not measurable and explain precisely why upgrading or changing equipment is the route most travelled.  

 

@duckworp, yup and the pursuit of one's personal nirvana is pretty much the other name of the game. *G*

And, of course, enthusiasm and budget to float ones' boat. ;)  I've just grown relaxed about it....

My hifi room is uncorrected by any digital nannies (I use a Loki EQ for my headphones only) and my system sounds astoundingly good in its room with a what I suppose is called a "room sound." Music generally takes place in rooms if it's played by actual non digital instruments (as opposed to a synth played through headphones), and that sounds like real life in my earballs. I have some vibration pods here (they keep things from slipping around) and there but I really don't think vibration is such an enemy (my powered subs have the amps in the box with the speakers...horrifying!). If you live in a metal water tower or a shipping container with no furniture,  you could have room issues...otherwise, room treatment obsession seems unnecessary...get some furniture maybe...a rug...sheep...

First off many of the Canadian  speakers are designed  in the national reaseach councils anicocic chamber.  Every one of them sounds terrible because  people don't listen to them in the same anicocic  chamber  in there home. But if someone aspires to build there room into that no problem you might want to try out a cheap Canadian  speaker  in your room when you get done. Perhaps  they will sound ok in your room. 

That being  said I do know one fellow who has an anicocic chamber  in his house but that is not his listening  room  that is for measurements of speakers. He is a writer for an offshore hifi magazine.  

Flat+ faithful reproduction of what the Sound Eng. and studio meant you to hear. I want to hear a trumpet or a pianie sound like they are live. Anything else is a muddied up mess that we have become used to over the years. I get up around live music and also participated multiple times and aspects of semi-pro music and trying to say that something less that a faithful sound form your speaker is desired is silly.

Now I like using my DiracLive Mic plugged into my Celliophone and then using the Decibel-X App to see both the instantaneous and average response of my system. I was initially amazed at how true my speakers did the job I built them to do. If yo hear something you consider TOO BRIGHT, yo need to get your ears cleaned out or just learn what LIVE music actually sounds like. I don’t know why ANYONE would desire their system to produce something adulterated and not realistic.
 

This takes me back to the days when everyone was getting a Graphic equalizer plugged into their system. I even did it for a short time, till I realized that it was the studio Eng and producers that made all of the music NOT realistic. We were trying to make up for what they had produced, forgetting that in most cases the SOUND that they created was in most cases what made or Broke an artist. SO in a sense we were all trying to find that flat response or what we saw as too much or Missing, but forgetting that the studio had some ulterior motive. Now a days we see a greater effort to make a realistic sounding musical presentation and now that we had gotten used to some distorted sound, we want to make what we hear now actually distorted. I do have an appreciation for both. The old sound was intentionally meant to sound a certain way and now I want to hear the TRUTH. It is as bad as corrupted politics.

I agree with the OP’s premise.  Plus or minus a couple of decibels.

@asvjerry @nonoise Thanks for catching my typo, that should read.

There is no "wrong" way to do this hobby

@asvjerry You obviously get the point, congrats on the speaker build, must be nice to have the satisfaction of being able to literally build the speaker to fit your room. Most of us have to change the room to fit the speaker, nice job!

@duckworp , I agree that that once you have a flat frequency response component upgrades can provide many benefits you simply can't measure with one microphone and a computer. We listen with two ears so things like soundstage can't be measured. My premise is to dial in whatever your preferred FR is before trying to change other parameters.

DSP is very limited in what it can correct. According to the paper I posted in section 2.4 Room Equalization is a Misnomer:

Equalization is very limited in what it can “correct,” yet the notion that changing the signal supplied to a sound system consisting of an unknown loudspeaker in an unknown room can “equalize” or “calibrate” a system is widespread. In the context of a practical application where there is an audience of several listeners conventional equalization cannot: • Add or remove reflections • Change reverberation time • Reduce seat-to-seat variations in bass • Correct frequency dependent directivity in loudspeakers • Compensate for frequency dependent absorption in acoustical materials and furnishings. The exception is in the highly reflective sound field at very low frequencies.

@esarhaddon 

Your premise is potentially fallable. You assume engineering and production for best sound quality may have been the goal…which isn’t always the case. More than a few productions may have been mixed to optimize sound from a boombox …or an automobile system…or earbuds.

Ideally I would love to hear what the original intent was provided they each shared sound quality as a goal. But alas, no two do to the same level or degree of honesty.

Flat frequency response at the listening position is not desirable.  What most people want is a smooth frequency response curve with varying degrees of downward sloping as frequencies increase.  Room decay times are actually just as important as frequency response.

@retiredfarmer , that is a little harsh to dis the whole country because of one anechoic chamber

@esarhaddon , you make a great point. Are you hearing what the engineer heard when they mixed it. That is called the "circle of confusion" and is one of the topics that paper attempts to address. Check out the diagram (Fig. 1) on the second page and then the author states:

Significant uniformity throughout the process is needed if customers are to hear what the artists created. This is the “circle of confusion” shown in Fig. 1. For the system to function sensibly, mixing and mastering engineers need to experience sound that resembles what their customers will hear. Acknowledging that audio systems in widespread use are not necessarily very good, audio professionals in the music side of the business have often used “bad” loudspeakers to check their mixes. The problem is that loudspeakers can be “bad” in countless ways. The dominant characteristics of small low cost audio devices are a lack of bass and reduced sound output capability—a high-pass filter in the playback signal path is a practical way to simulate that. The author’s book [1] (chapters 2 and 18) illustrates the past and present situation in consumer and professional-monitor loudspeakers. Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems

@esarhaddon , let me say I don’t know how to get the sound of live musicians in my room, I likely need to start all over with a purpose built studio and a generous budget to achieve that.

However, I can share the most enjoyable way I have found to listen to live recordings. If you see my system you’ll notice a BIG screen in front. Plex now has about 10 live TV stations that play various types of concerts 24/7. I fire up one of those channels with content I enjoy and listen with an upmixer called Audyssey DSX. The emphasis today in multichannel listening seems to be height channels. For reproducing music wide channels are more important than height channels according to studies by Tomlinson Holman (THX). The wide channels seem to be an afterthought with Atmos and DTS-X. Read more about it here:

I think OP is on the mission to sell something 😂😁🤣