1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Smyth Research Realiser A16

Discussion in 'High-end Audio Forum' started by jgazal, May 7, 2016.
473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482
484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493
  1. audiohobbit
    If you do NOT have personalised measurements of speakers with your own ears (aka PRIRs) then you better don't do an auto HPEQ as a basis for manLOUD, when you use manLOUD to "personalise" a PRIR of another person or a factory PRIR. just make a flat HPEQ curve as a basis for the manLOUD process then.
  2. Richter Di
    I thought so too from what you explained, but when I tried it asked for an HPEQ to be loaded before I could start the manEQ process. can you do without? I’m happy to do a video showing what I mean.
  3. Richter Di
    It also says so in the video.
    “Next, select the HPEQ file from which the starting autoEQ filter will be taken.”
    Or do you mean not to use autoEQvin “Man EQ Start”?
  4. audiohobbit
    Yes. Instead auf autoEQ use flatEQ. A Flat EQ is always part of an auto EQ also, but can be separately generated by "one-click".
    You can of course use autoEQ as a basis. I say that because it's not necessary to do an auto EQ for this type of manLOUD and doesn't make that much sense either.
  5. valleynomad
    I am still waiting. There are less than 80 units between yours and mine. I never received any message about my order. I haven't closely followed this thread for some time. What is the rate of they sending out A16 these days? 25/month? Considering the upcoming holiday season, I guess I would be lucky if getting mine in 1Q/2020.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  6. Richter Di

    Thanks. I guess 10 per week. So 40 per month.
  7. ajax1
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  8. Om ma Ni
    For everyone who are testing the HPEQ..specially the ManLoudEQ, should the profile (values of different bands once EQ) of the equalization looks ideally the same for the 3 types (L+R, C and L+C+R) for one type of room?
    If Yes, it will be then interesting to calculate and render the average EQ"curve" for the 3 types to have the ideal final manLoudEQ for the particular room?
  9. sander99
    In theory [Edit: this answer only applies when doing the MANloud for a PRIR that is not your own, for other use cases the answer is different!]: no. The MANloud is a trick that actually tries to compensate somewhat for the fact that you use a PRIR that is not your own. In theory the perfect compensation could and generally would be different for each speaker, even for each lookangle for each speaker.
    But maybe in practice it is something you could try and compare with the other options (L+R, C, L+C+R). That is actually the whole thing with the MANloud: in theory it can't and won't perfectly compensate for using someone else's PRIR, but in practise it can give a big improvement (due to the fact that the in-front localization is the most difficult and critical part of the virtualization in practise it helps to compensate for the "error" in some of the front speakers, even if the same changes that improve the front speakers are applied to all other speakers for which the changes are in fact random so to speak). But I could imagine a very good result is not guaranteed for everyone with the MANloud, that there could be people who's HRTF is just too different from the HRTF that the PRIR was bases on, especially with regards to the differences between L, C and R directions.

    [Edit: if you do the MANloud to use it with a personal made PRIR and IEMs for example then the function/purpose of the MANloud is the same as a normal HPEQ and then there is indeed one curve that is optimal for all the speakers, and then I could imagine that averaging the results of seperate L+R, C, and L+R+C MANlouds could help find the optimal curve.]
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
    VandyMan and audiohobbit like this.
  10. audiohobbit
    Thanks sander, I see you understood it.

    It's a field of experimentation.

    As I wrote before, for my in ears I started with the L+R option and was not satisfied. mids were still harsh and center localisation too high.
    So I did both of the other options, C and L+C+R. They are much better and the result of both is quite similar. Those two I could try to average but I don't know if that makes much sense.
    But averaging with the first one (L+R) wouldn't make any sense at all.
  11. Om ma Ni
    Yes..it is a real field of experimentation for me atm...
    Any links of video sequence or files to use as reference testing to compare and to know if we done the HPEQ correctly or accurately?
  12. audiohobbit
    You have to trust your ears.
  13. Om ma Ni
    ..I need to find the "eye" of the cyclone and keep calm ...
  14. audiohobbit
    I think everyone got some music or movie soundtracks he knows well and use to evaluate the sound of a specific system?

    You can use the APM89 bass and treble shelving filter to experiment a little to see which frequencies should be elevated or attenuated and then try to "hard code" this into the manLOUD EQ.
    An (external) EQ with some more bands would be more helpful I think.
    Only very experience persons can tell by listening to music which frequencies should be changed so that the sound changes into a specific direction.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  15. Om ma Ni
    what do you mean by "hard coding" to the manloudEQ?
473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482
484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493

Share This Page