Making speakers sound tonally similar with an equalizer

Only to an extent.
One cannot overcome the passive crossover, so one can only work around that.

If it s was bi-amped or tri-amped, then it is easier to get to where you describe.

Looks like out of 4 responses, I am in the minority again.

However Dirac Live, and other EQ systems, sort of make the opinions that it makes bad sound seem a bit more like opinions than anything based in fact.

For example, the Lyngdorf “Room Perfect” intentionally only does room correction as the impulse response correction (like Dirac Live) would make all speakers largely sound the same. And tehir customer wanted their speakers sound character to not be altered, irregardless of whether it was right or wrong.

But that can devolves into whether “it sounds better, but is worse at matching the signal” is wrong… it is certainly not right though. And a 100 people will tell you that they trust their ears more than a microphone. 

Ok, so I will also correct some speaker issues.

Maybe…

One usually needs to do any phase (and time) work in more of an echo free environment. Or close mic it.

It is not easy to do this stuff outside, and most people don’t.

^That stuff^ is what is used to make the speakers sound similar.

The stuff < 400 Hz is a somewhat different deal addressing the room.

@jaferd 

Isn't a flat response curve what a speaker designer is striving for for most accurate reproduction?  

Yeah generally they are concerned mostly with frequency response.

However there is the time domain performance. And how it performs in an impulse response.

So there are some speakers that are designed as to be time and phase correct.
There are also DSPs that make the Impulse response more correct.

@gosta

For good results of course you should use a good speaker.

Not much point in trying to make a bad speaker sound good.

Arguably ^that^ is not 100% true.

One can use cheaper drivers and use DSP to shape the bandpass to avoid resonances and breakup modes, and also to have an active-XO that is time and phase correct a lot easier and cheaper than with a passive-XO.

It may not sound as good as a better speaker and better drivers, but it is usually a lot closer than using the same drivers without using a DSP.

You can choose not to make any adjustments above a certain freq to preserve more of the speakers original response if you prefer that. 

And the time domain and impulse response (and phase EQ) are doing additional things that are not captured in the frequency response plot.
Arguably that may be more important than, or as important as, the FR alone.

@gosta 

@holmz 

haha. I'm with you. But why put money, time and efforts into a bad speaker?

If you're a diy'er it's another game

1. If one had an either/or choice between radiation pattern and FR, then one can fix FR with a DSP.
2. If the speaker (as a whole) sucks, but the drivers are good… Then one could redo the passive-XO as an active-XO
3. If one had a choice between a passive-XO and an active-XO on a speaker, then maybe they would choose something that could have a s/w patch applied to it?

There are probably some other corner cases.

I am using some last millennium speakers and will be trying the DSP on them.

Let’s take the same drivers, in the same box, and change only the passive XO.

Those two speakers will sound different. But the on axis FR can likely be made to be similar with a DSP.

However they cans still sound different due to the XO freqs and slopes affecting both the radiation pattern and the phase - particularly in XO band.