Clean Audio for TV broadcast: An Object-Based Approach for Hearing-Impaired Viewers - April 2015
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback - September 2007
Sound Board: Food for Thought, Aesthetics in Orchestra Recording - April 2015
Performance Comparison of Graphic Equalisation and Active Loudspeaker Room Response Controls
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.
Click to purchase paper or login as an AES member. If your company or school subscribes to the E-Library then switch to the institutional version. If you are not an AES member and would like to subscribe to the E-Library then Join the AES!
This paper costs $20 for non-members, $5 for AES members and is free for E-Library subscribers.