We compare the room response controls available in active loudspeakers to a third-octave graphical equaliser. The room response controls are set using an automated optimisation method presented in earlier AES publications. A third-octave ISO frequency constant-Q graphic equaliser is set to minimise the least squares deviation from linear within the passband in a smoothed acoustical response. The resulting equalisation performance of the two methods is compared using objective metrics, to show how these standard room response equalising methods perform. For all loudspeaker models pooled together, the room response controls improve the RMS deviation from a linear response from 6.1 dB to 4.7 dB (improvement 22%), whereas graphic equalisation improves the RMS deviation to 1.8 dB (improvement 70%). Both equalisation techniques achieve a similar improvement in the broadband balance, which has been shown to affect a subjective lack of colouration in sound systems. The optimisation time for a graphic equaliser is up to 48 times longer compared to that for active loudspeaker room response controls.
Authors:
Goldberg, Andrew; Makivirta, Aki
Affiliation:
Genelec Oy, Iisalmi, Finland
AES Convention:
116 (May 2004)
Paper Number:
6108
Publication Date:
May 1, 2004
Subject:
Loudspeakers
Click to purchase paper as a non-member or you can login as an AES member to see more options.
No AES members have commented on this paper yet.
To be notified of new comments on this paper you can subscribe to this RSS feed. Forum users should login to see additional options.
If you are not yet an AES member and have something important to say about this paper then we urge you to join the AES today and make your voice heard. You can join online today by clicking here.