Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caleb Dueck" data-source="post: 42225" data-attributes="member: 60">Re: Another powered speaker comparisonThe goal was to have the comparison be closer to real world use.&nbsp; We wouldn&#039;t plug in speakers, set up routing in the DSP, and then leave off HPF, EQ, etc and run them &#039;raw&#039;.&nbsp; As a compromise between raw (non-real-world use) and fully tuned, like we do for our installed systems, we used FFT and phase trace (and coherence some) to set up to 5 EQ filters in the DSP, so that all the speakers were as close to accurate as possible from 100Hz on up.&nbsp; This doesn&#039;t mean that perfectly flat is how they would necessarily be used; rather, it was a way to level the playing field, to listen for things like time non-linearities as opposed to simple EQ needs.&nbsp; The simple part means that we didn&#039;t use, say, 30 bands of PEQ to get the response ruler flat - at one point.&nbsp; Flat - bad term, substitute &#039;accurate from 100Hz on up&#039;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caleb Dueck, post: 42225, member: 60"] Re: Another powered speaker comparison The goal was to have the comparison be closer to real world use. We wouldn't plug in speakers, set up routing in the DSP, and then leave off HPF, EQ, etc and run them 'raw'. As a compromise between raw (non-real-world use) and fully tuned, like we do for our installed systems, we used FFT and phase trace (and coherence some) to set up to 5 EQ filters in the DSP, so that all the speakers were as close to accurate as possible from 100Hz on up. This doesn't mean that perfectly flat is how they would necessarily be used; rather, it was a way to level the playing field, to listen for things like time non-linearities as opposed to simple EQ needs. The simple part means that we didn't use, say, 30 bands of PEQ to get the response ruler flat - at one point. Flat - bad term, substitute 'accurate from 100Hz on up'. [/QUOTE]

Verification