Whole spectrum and nothing but the whole spectrum?

This is an area where you can share your most unusual or creative application(s) using Har-Bal. We receive emails from folks who are using Har-Bal in ways we never would of imagined!
Post Reply
Evhal
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:04 pm

Whole spectrum and nothing but the whole spectrum?

Post by Evhal »

I was thinking of finetuning the 'tune-your-room' method to get even better results. Namely first a pink-noise in the bass area 20-500, then midrange and then highs... You would get 3 different filters which I think is more accurate then one band, at least that is what i think..anyone has thoughts on this ?
HarBal
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Whole spectrum and nothing but the whole spectrum?

Post by HarBal »

Evhal wrote:I was thinking of finetuning the 'tune-your-room' method to get even better results. Namely first a pink-noise in the bass area 20-500, then midrange and then highs... You would get 3 different filters which I think is more accurate then one band, at least that is what i think..anyone has thoughts on this ?


Theoretically it shouldn't make any difference if your loudspeakers and microphone are behaving linearly. An alternative approach to avoid the non-linearity issue to some extent, would be to perform the test with a warble tone (ie. sinusoid swept across the band) and flatening out the peak spectrum line (the average won't accurately represent the frequency response). If you do it this way though, you'll need to be careful not to overdrive your tweeter. There may also be some issues with the 1/6 octave smoothing if the sweep rate is high enough to spread the energy of the tone more than 1/6 of an octave.

Regards,


Paavo.
mflorio
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Whole spectrum and nothing but the whole spectrum?

Post by mflorio »

Evhal wrote:I was thinking of finetuning the 'tune-your-room' method to get even better results. Namely first a pink-noise in the bass area 20-500, then midrange and then highs... You would get 3 different filters which I think is more accurate then one band, at least that is what i think..anyone has thoughts on this ?


Hmmm... I don't know about that... When you listen to music, do you listen in 3 passes, once for each part of the spectrum at a time with the other two parts filtered out ? You want a filter to compensate for what you actually hear (presumably to the whole spectrum at once !). :wink: I'm sure there's some sort of synergistic frequency interaction happening with the speakers and room, that you won't get when breaking it up like that.

It's been a year since I started that "tune your room" topic, and I must say that while I did get some great results, I have really tried to treat the room better in order to compensate. Loading some crazy calibration filter every time I wanted to HB something was just too much of a pain. Also, I've actually started relying on headphones now for mixing (most people will scoff at this - I used to be one of them). But, just as you can get used to working within a room, you can also learn how to work with the cans on !

Mike
HarBal
Site Admin
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:18 pm
Contact:

Post by HarBal »

Hi Mike,

I'd certainly not scoff at you useing headphones for mixing though I can hear the roar of those scoffing. Certainly, from my point of view, relying on headphones to get the tonal balance in a mix right for most is a good idea, because what you hear is only coloured by your headphones which are generally pretty damned accurate. I guess what you shouldn't rely on headphones for though, is stereo field placement, cos the imaging you get in headphones is just so completely different than what you'd get with speakers. So if I was doing this for a living I'd probably be using a combination of both and my guess is your doing that anyway.

Cheers,


Paavo.
Post Reply