"Tuning" a sub-woofer or monitors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwerty
  • Start date Start date
Qwerty

Qwerty

New member
Would this work to tune a sub-woofer or set up nearfields more correctly for flat response?

- Grab a recording of a sine wave at a known frequency.
- Grab your cleanest mic
- Play sine wave and record sound from speakers
- Play recorded sound back
- Using the mic's response pattern as a guide, A/B the two tracks
- When they sound the same, (given the mics response), I have balanced my sub with my nearfields.

I guess you could also use the same trick with an EQ governing the monitor output to try and produce a "flat" response for mixing.

Is that logical? If I do this, I should have achieved the most theoretically correct "flat" response of my speaker set up.

Or have I missed the picture entirely?

Thanks,

:) Q.
 
No....no I don't see how that would work at all :(

Slackmaster 2000
 
Why do you have a need to tune your speakers?

What part of the speaker are you suggesting can go out of tune?
 
CrystalStudios said:
Why do you have a need to tune your speakers?

What part of the speaker are you suggesting can go out of tune?
Click to expand...

None - but there is a sub into which I can plug my nearfields. The sub has a crossover frequency either at 40, 60 or 100Hz. Each nearfield and the sub have individual volume knobs.

It is the combination of these that I am talking about setting "optimally" for flat response.

alfalfa - thanks for the links

sm2k - my parade thanks you for the rain :)

Cya,

:)Q.
 
OK - what about this......

Apologies for being thick, please correct me and show me the error of my ways :)

Using the above described set-up, isn't the mic acting in the same way as my ears?

Then isn't comparing what I hear back to what I know to be flat and even across its EQ curve, I can adjust the crossover frequency and the volumes of the nearfields compared to the sub-woofer to ensure that what I hear, given the crappy acoustics of the room, is relatively "flat" in it's EQ response.

Granted that this is a bodgey technique, but I can't see a logic flaw when comparing this to using a spectrum analyser to determine the same results. In my example, aren't my ears replacing the spectrum analyser? Granted that this is the weakest link, but if I can really "hear" I should be able to get close, yeah?

Feel free to tell me I am a twit and should have posted this in the "Newbie" forum, but please explain where my logic is flawed.

Thanks eternally,

:) Q.
 
Did you download and read journal 1? It explains the difference between direct and reflected sound and how the human brain can differentiate between the two but a microphone sums them. Therefore a microphone is different to your hearing. For bass frequencies what you suggest can work, but not for midrange and above. Anyway have a read of the journals (the section is labelled equalisation cant fix your room acoustics).
 
Last edited:
alfalfa said:
Did you download and read journal 1? It explains the difference between direct and reflected sound and how the human brain can differentiate between the two but a microphone sums them. Therefore a microphone is different to your hearing. For bass frequencies what you suggest can work, but not for midrange and above. Anyway please read the journals first.
Click to expand...

I did! I did, sir!

(But I didn't get that nuance..........)

<Takes Hat Off and goes back to study>

:) Q.
 
alfalfa said:
Did you download and read journal 1? It explains the difference between direct and reflected sound and how the human brain can differentiate between the two but a microphone sums them. Therefore a microphone is different to your hearing. For bass frequencies what you suggest can work, but not for midrange and above. Anyway have a read of the journals (the section is labelled equalisation cant fix your room acoustics).
Click to expand...

OK - It's taken nearly three weeks, but I understand :)

Thankyou Alfalfa for your wise and sage advice, I truly appreciate it, (although my neighbour has asked me what that strange "warble" tone was that he could hear...).

I get it, and I am understanding a LOT better what I need to do.

Thank you so much and I apologise for my blind, blithe, newbie-esque ignorance.

:) Q.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top