Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'equalization'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Klipsch Announcements
    • Klipsch News
    • Klipsch Pilgrimage 2020
    • Klipsch Website & Forum Info
  • Klipsch Museum of Audio History
    • Klipsch Museum: News & Announcements
    • Ask the Historian
    • Klipsch Museum: General Discussion
  • Klipsch Audio
    • General Klipsch Info
    • 2-Channel Home Audio
    • Home Theater
    • Subwoofers
    • Architectural
    • Klipsch Pro Audio
    • Technical/Restorations
    • Headphones
    • Personal Music Systems
    • Talkin' Tubes
    • Solid State
  • The Klipsch Joint
    • Garage Sale
    • Lounge


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My System

See My System

Website URL








Found 7 results

  1. Assuming that you have taken a measurement using REW (Room EQ Wizard freeware), you probably have a plot that looks something like this: What you have is a frequency response that's not quite as flat as you'd like. So for that particular plot, you'd like to find the digital crossover equalization filters to make it flat--but without a lot of cut-and-try and doing a bunch of measurements (upsweeps) along the way. So you look at the REW window and you see the function bar across the top of the window: The next-to-last button is "EQ", which you push, and the following window pops up: The window has two plots: the plot that the started with (frequency response) and a second plot area (blank) which can provide a waterfall, impulse, or Pole-zero plot. There are two arrows next to the left border of this window. If you punch the arrow pointed down, the bottom plot is replaced by the upper plot whose size now occupies the space that both windows did. (Do it now.) On the right top side of the window, there are 5 bars with text embedded in them, namely: Equalizer, Target Settings, Filter Tasks, Modal Analysis, and Resonances. If you click on the first bar, it opens a menu downward and shows you a list of equalizers that are supported directly by REW. If you don't see your equalizer model in that list, fear not. You can pick one that's close in terms of your options. For example, using the EV Dx38 or Yamaha SP2060, I used "miniDSP", and it works. If using Xilica, then select "XP2040", etc. If you sequentially choose each equalizer, and look at the PEQ filters (which we'll generate in a moment), you'll find one that give you the best fit to the features of your crossover. Once you select a crossover type, minimize the Equalizer sub-window by clicking on its top bar again. Now click on the next menu bar - Target Settings: The important settings here are "Full Range" if using you're equalizing a full range loudspeaker. REW can also help you with subwoofers and "bass limited", i.e., HT surround loudspeakers that are intended to cross above a certain subwoofer crossover frequency. LF slope indicates intended the slope of the roll-off of the low frequency end (12 or 24 dB/octave) corresponding to the crossover filter slope used between the loudspeaker and the subwoofer. If you look at the measurement plot that you are using to equalize, it will show you the lowest crossover frequency that you should use. For my Jubilees and K-402-MEH, that frequency is about 30 Hz. If you're using HT loudspeakers, it may be as high as 100 Hz. Set that LF roll off point to match your loudspeaker. The same settings are used for the high end. All of these settings are settable to new default values within the "Preferences" menu on the top bar of the REW main window. This is the place to put in your "house curve" if you choose to have non-flat loudspeaker response. You can boost or cut highs or lows using the above controls, and the resultant curve is visible, so you can see what your "goal curve" is. I use flat response everywhere since I unmaster my recordings, but you may choose to use a "one size fits all" house curve to compensate for non-flat EQ used on your recordings. In the context of home theaters, that's what a "house curve" is doing. The last item on this menu is extremely important. It tells REW what SPL (loudness) to aim for overall when it optimizes the equalization PEQs. You want to get this right, or, not only does REW yell at you, it also will produce too many PEQs to try to flatten the response. For the measurement above, 70 dB is the right answer. If you use a higher value, REW will try to boost all frequencies below your target level. If you use a setting that's too low, REW will attenuate everything to make that lower SPL. It's better to set this value 1 dB too low than 1 dB too high. It's better to attenuate using PEQs than to boost. Use the overall channel gain setting on your digital crossover to generally boost or attenuate one driver channel of your loudspeaker. It will be apparent when you need to change the gain of a channel. Next up: Creating your optimized PEQs using REW
  2. For some time this year, I've been collecting CDs of so-called "classic albums", some of which are found in the book "1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die", the list of Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums, and other less-rock-oriented lists. One of the less known observations about these albums is that the most popular of these from the 1950s-1980s seem to correlate with better fidelity (or hidden fidelity yet to be unlocked) than the other albums in these "best of" lists. One question that has always been in my mind during all of my unmastering, is the thought that more hi-fi albums do better over time (from the standpoint of mastering, and especially minimization of EQ used in the original releases). The answer that I've found is "yes"--fairly strongly: the less EQ that's required for unmastering an album, the more popular that that album's sales seem to be over time--especially in the hi-fi enthusiast community. Here is a list of albums from one or more of the above lists that require reasonably light unmastering EQ: Sinatra, Frank – Songs for Swingin’ Lovers! Monk, Thelonious – Brilliant Corners Thelonius Monk - Monk's Dream Davis, Miles – Kind of Blue Brubeck, Dave – Time Out Getz, Stan & João Gilberto – Getz/Gilberto Simon & Garfunkel – Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme Sinatra, Frank - Frank Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim Simon & Garfunkel – Bookends Morrison, Van – Astral Weeks Crosby, Stills & Nash – Crosby, Stills & Nash Blood, Sweat & Tears - Blood, Sweat & Tears (2nd Album) Beatles – Abbey Road Led Zeppelin – Led Zeppelin (1st Album) Led Zeppelin – II Chicago Transit Authority [Chicago] - Chicago Transit Authority (1969) Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young – Déjà vu Led Zeppelin – III Morrison, Van – Moondance Harrison, George – All Things Must Pass Simon & Garfunkel – Bridge Over Troubled Water Yes – Fragile Emerson, Lake & Palmer – Tarkus Led Zeppelin – IV [aka Untitled / aka Four Symbols] Mitchell, Joni – Blue Joplin, Janis – Pearl Nilsson, Harry – Nilsson Schmilsson Steely Dan – Can’t Buy a Thrill Young, Neil – Harvest Nitty Gritty Dirt Band – Will the Circle Be Unbroken? Wonder, Stevie – Talking Book Eagles – Eagles (1st Album) Simon, Paul – Paul Simon (1972) Hancock, Herbie – Head Hunters Oldfield, Mike – Tubular Bells John, Elton – Goodbye Yellow Brick Road Steely Dan – Countdown to Ecstasy Pink Floyd – Dark Side of the Moon Wonder, Stevie – Innervisions ZZ Top – Tres Hombres Wonder, Stevie – Fullfillingness’ First Finale Mitchell, Joni – Court & Spark Supertramp – Crime of the Century Steely Dan – Pretzel Logic Marley, Bob & the Wailers – Natty Dread Led Zeppelin – Physical Graffiti Jarrett, Keith – Köln Concert Springsteen, Bruce – Born to Run Mitchell, Joni – Hissing of Summer Lawns Pink Floyd – Wish You Were Here Queen – A Night at the Opera Nelson, Willie – Red Headed Stranger Earth, Wind & Fire – That’s the Way of the World Mitchell, Joni – Hejira Boston – Boston (1st Album) Eagles – Hotel California Rush – 2112 Wonder, Stevie – Songs in the Key of Life Joel, Billy – Stranger, the Weather Report – Heavy Weather Steely Dan – Aja Fleetwood Mac – Rumours Gabriel, Peter – Peter Gabriel (I) Cars – Cars (1st Album) Eno, Brian – Ambient 1: Music for Airports Crusaders – Street Life Pink Floyd – Wall, the Gabriel, Peter – Peter Gabriel (III) Winwood, Steve – Arc of a Diver Rush – Moving Pictures Fagen, Donald – Nightfly Simon, Paul – Hearts & Bones Police – Synchronicity Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms Simon, Paul – Graceland Gabriel, Peter – So Chapman, Tracy – Tracy Chapman (1st Album) The Alan Parsons Project - all studio albums after Tales of Mystery and Imagination James Taylor studio albums after Sweet Baby James and up through 1991's Never Die Young Chris
  3. I thought it would be nice to have a place to capture only the results of the best unmastered albums that I've run across. These unmastering curves--in Audacity XML equalization import format--are used to correct the as-bought condition of each album, as well as any noise-reduction notch filters, and "Clip Fix" to restore any clipped peaks, together used to improve the hi-fi sound of each album. The objective is to approximate as close as possible the mixdown sound of these albums. The purpose is to provide anyone using the freeware tool Audacity the ability to unmaster their own albums without the issues or legal encumbrances of sharing the actual music tracks. A description of the process that I use to build these equalization files: This is a spin-off of a subject in an older more comprehensive thread on the subject. The album that launched this idea was Joni Mitchell's album "Blue". The XML file containing the importable Audacity equalization files for each track on the CD (Reprise 2038-2): Joni Mitchell-Blue-Unmastering EQ curves.XML Chris
  4. One of the conversations in another thread discussing AA networks, I commented on the observation that if you carefully re-equalize your loudspeakers (and perhaps phase/time alignment) after changing passive crossovers--or just change out electrical parts like capacitors--that you can't tell the difference in sound from before the parts change. This phenomenon is apparently not widely known based on discussions in that thread. Many people apparently believe that certain components have a characteristic sound to them...sort of like an organismic view applied to audio components. In another thread from over 5 years ago this topic was discussed at length. The following three posts illustrate that discussion of the difference in sound from horn-loaded loudspeakers (a Belle Klipsch in this particular case) that are re-EQed and time aligned: So this thread will illustrate the phenomenon of re-EQing to achieve certain loudspeaker sound signatures and give tips for those that are willing to move beyond typical "audiophile" organismic thinking related to passive crossovers and the exact materials used therein. Chris
  5. http://www.techhive.com/article/3055014/home-audio/the-aftermaster-pro-promises-to-improve-any-type-of-audio.html Ordinary audio goes into this black box; extraordinary audio comes out. What's the secret? Chris
  6. As I looked this AM at today's menu of news and online forum delights before continuing my intrepid journey remastering my two-channel music collection, something struck me: "Why do I derive such pleasure fixing these recordings over the available news-of-the-day and online dialogue with others having shared interests in music reproduction?" As I first think on the news agencies and specialist news bloggers, it isn't difficult to immediately think on changes in overall world gestalt. That picture--the way that the world looks at itself--isn't really inviting or encouraging. The various audio forums--including this one--really don't make it much of a habit to address a music lover's needs to better enjoy his recorded music over his sound reproduction system. Instead, forums mostly present a close but indirect subject: talking about hardware and individual problems using it in their collections of hardware--"which DAC did you buy today? Oh, that's got worse reviews than the brand that I own...", etc. As I look elsewhere perhaps to critics' articles on music, I don't see that which motivates me to read on. Why this is so is a subject related to my remastering knowledge. It's difficult to keep reading on now that the "cat's out of the bag", so to speak. Besides, music reviews are apparently more rarely read by most "audiophiles" that I know personally, than they might care to admit. The subject of real interest this morning is one of the most famous of W.A. Mozart's piano concertos (...you know...the 3-movement piano pieces with orchestra...). Piano concerto #20, in D minor (K. 466) is said to have been the favorite composition of Joseph Stalin (a dubious distinction at best) and certainly a composition that has drawn in many future music lovers in the past to the other compositions of this--perhaps the most famous music prodigy and composer. Why? I suppose the answer lies in its astonishing beauty and musical invention, its overall and lasting effects on the listener's emotions and subconscious state. But the real reason is that it shows me how great the accomplishments of human effort were 230 years ago. It puts into perspective that the problems we have today are nothing: how insignificant the petty present arguments and "axes to grind" are compared to the real issues of the day back then and in the years following up to the end of world wars, great famine, genocide, pandemics, poverty and malnutrition, and ignorance of effective governance systems and individual freedoms. In this spirit, I decided to stop and share a moment of what I consider to be real inspiration: hearing my recording of this Mozart piano composition essentially for the first time - without it sounding like a "table radio". The spectrum of the third movement before remastering: And the "after" spectrum: The picture of the EQ correction curve for the entire concerto: The recording comes from Decca's Mozart Piano Concertos, Alfred Brendel and the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, Sir Neville Marriner (Decca 478 2695, disc #9). The XML file for Audacity to correct this recording (all three movements) is enclosed below. I now look at the world with a refreshed set of eyes and ears with anticipation for better things ahead. Try it yourself, for the music that inspires you. Chris Mozart Piano Concerto K466 - Brendel.XML
  7. [Edit 10 June 2017: Tutorials for demastering your music tracks using the method described in this thread follow: Demastering Part 1 (What and Why).pdf Demastering Part 2 (How To).pdf Part 3 (Advanced Topics) will follow shortly.] Recently I bought a new/old stock (NOS) CD from Amazon, originally recorded on analog tape in 1976, released on vinyl then much later re-released on CD. My particular CD dates from 1990, just before the wide distribution and use in 1991 of multi-band music compressors, and with it the Loudness War on popular music. When this particular CD arrived it was basically unlistenable, i.e., it sounded exceptionally strident and devoid of bass, but retained its music dynamics. At this point, I decided to investigate the reasons why it sounded so bad. My tool of choice: the freeware tool Audacity. What is the Issue? When looking at the frequency spectrum averaged across most of this music track, it's easy to see a few characteristics: The decreasing slope with frequency across its full spectrum (more on the reason for this later) Frequency spikes of narrow width across certain areas of the spectrum A slight "hump" or rounded spectrum from 1000 Hz to about 13 kHz A steep roll-off of low frequencies below about 80 Hz Some immediate questions arise: Is the roll-off toward higher frequencies normal (i.e., is it there in the original master recording before any changes are made to it)? Are the frequency spikes normal? Is the frequency hump from 1-10kHz normal? Is the much steeper roll-off of low frequencies below 80 Hz normal? I found answers to these questions: Roll-off of frequencies from low to high is normal, since the frequencies themselves double in their inherent energy for each increase of an octave - i.e., a -5.5 dB/octave is present in all typical recordings (note: don't confuse this effect with the Fletcher-Munson curves of equal perceived loudness). In fact, any departures in the averaged frequency spectrum from this linearly decreasing amplitude behavior with logarithmic frequency should signal the need for further investigation. The frequency spikes typically correspond to certain types of musical instruments that do not change frequency each time they are played (i.e., piano, percussion, and especially electronic instruments, etc.). These spikes are almost always generated by the musicians themselves, not the recording/mixing/mastering processes. The frequency hump from 1-10 kHz isn't really typical of most live music. There is typically a straight line of deceasing slope tendency for averaged unamplified/unmixed music if the musicians onstage playing together get to adjust their loudness of the various music parts (assuming a multiplicity of instruments including percussion/drums, double bass, and treble instrumentation, like wind and string instruments of the band or orchestra, and voices. (This is probably the most useful observation that I found.) The roll-off in bass below 80 Hz isn't normal or desirable, unless perhaps you don't actually have to listen to the reproduced music, but only to get the music impressed onto phonograph records or CDs without having to decrease its overall loudness/gain to accommodate the very large bass/kick drum transients that are actually there in real, live music. To check the last statement to assure myself that what my ears were telling me was correct, I looked up the frequency range of electric bass guitars. Here is what I found: Note that the "B string" is for 5-string electric basses, and the "C String" for 6-string electric basses. The double bass ("string bass") nowadays has an 31 Hz open "C" string" with fingerboard extension for the lowest frequency string. Most jazz bass players nowadays have begun using 5- and 6-string basses, and therefore will have fundamental frequencies in the 30-40 Hz range. I find that most SACD recordings of jazz bass players, recorded on or after the year 2000 using DSD-only recording will have these frequencies intact on the recording, which is a significant addition to the listening experience. I also checked on the frequency spectrum of kick drums. Here is what I found for the time/frequency graph of a typical kick drum: As you can clearly see, just based on investigation of these two instrument types, the fundamental frequencies of the recorded music to accurately reproduce instrumental performance is more than a octave lower than the 80 Hz roll-off found in the example recording. On What Recordings Is This an Issue? Good questions immediately arise from the information above: why would a mixing or mastering engineer attenuate and thereby remove these frequencies from our recordings, especially in light of the information that 25% of the importance of loudspeaker performance in subjective ratings is due to its bass performance (notably bass performance well below 80 Hz)? (See Floyd Toole's book, pgs. 197 and pgs. 463-464) Is this why many CD releases made before 1991 (and I suspect many phonograph records) sound strident and bass shy when played back on high fidelity sound reproduction systems--like the ones that many forum members own? How many recordings, and of what date released and type are affected by this "mastering feature"? I've found many, many more examples of this type of mastering frequency response profile, especially from pre-1991 recordings. Most of these recordings cut the bass below 100 Hz, not 80 Hz. This is the "missing octave". For pipe organ performance, fundamental frequencies as low as 17 Hz are typical for many large instruments with 32' fundamental stops. Why Are These Recordings Missing The Bottom Octave? Isn't The Bass Originally There During Recordings? Why Would Mastering Engineers Remove Bass Below 100 Hz? This is where the story gets interesting. I've found through my now-many remasterings of different FLAC and WAV files with this characteristic is that the bass frequencies are inherently high in amplitude relative to all other frequencies (remember the decreasing slope of a typical music track, above). This means that any mixing or mastering engineer worried about compressing tracks for the sake of maintaining a "loud" sounding mix, will HAVE TO roll off the amplitude of bass track, either by using equalization filters to cut the output extremely steeply below 100 Hz, or use equalization roll-off and a multi-band compressor that further compresses the bass track disproportionately to the higher frequencies on the compressed recordings... Beginning to get the picture? If you're feeling as though you can't trust a mastering engineer as far as you can throw him/her, you've got the message. Loudness War techniques have been in existence for many years now. Why would someone buy loudspeakers that can reproduce sub-80 Hz music content with great fidelity, but then turn around and find that their music has been intentionally blanked out for 3 of the 5 strings of an electric bass or the most energetic octaves of a kick drum (in fact rendering the drums on the music track for tom-toms and kick drums indistinguishable)? If you hear bass on these recordings, what you are hearing is actually the second harmonic of the bass player or the upper harmonics of the kick drum - not the fundamental frequencies. It seems insane, doesn't it? Like a huge betrayal of trust. Trust me, you can hear that loss of an octave (or more) and it's not very nice to listen to, IMHE. Can Anything be Done to Recover the Missing Octave(s)? Fortunately, the answer to this question is "yes", if the recording that you have hasn't been compressed using a multi-band compressor, like the Loudness War tracks made from 1991 to the present typically have. So here's the situation: if you have a CD made before 1991 (or certain other CDs made after 1991 but not using compression techniques--which I'm finding are increasingly rare, but they do exist)--excellent results can be had by re-equalizing your CD tracks. How much re-equalization? See the below Audacity filter that I use as the initial starting curve for these bass-deficient tracks (followed immediately with the "Normalize" filter in the Effects menu to re-level the output before saving the new equalized track). Note decreasing gain above 100 Hz, which I find is needed for most (but not all) tracks. I also find that there are favorite EQ curves used by the various artists that seem to run from album to album: And the "after equalization" curve: The "after EQ" track sounds a LOT better now. Highly recommended. Chris
  • Create New...