# Munson curve .txt file



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Does anyone have the Munson curve .txt file for REW? 

I've searched everywhere and can't seem to find it. Any help or link would be appreciated. 

Thanks.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

does this help?

https://plot.ly/~mrlyule/16/equal-loudness-contours-iso-226-2003/#code


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Cool thx miniSQ!

few days ago I found this one: https://www.merlijnvanveen.nl/en/calculators/59-equal-loudness
Nice little tool that can normalize them


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

It might not be obvious to most people, so just in case .... the contours are heavily dependent on the overall volume you want to listen at. Those are the "phon" numbers, and they are neat to read about.

But thanks for the links everyone, good stuff.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

miniSQ said:


> does this help?
> 
> https://plot.ly/~mrlyule/16/equal-loudness-contours-iso-226-2003/#code


Thanks! Do you know how I would put that into REW? I think I would be doing the 60 phon level.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> Cool thx miniSQ!
> 
> few days ago I found this one: https://www.merlijnvanveen.nl/en/calculators/59-equal-loudness
> Nice little tool that can normalize them


Thanks! Unfortunately I don't have excel right now. I have a little netbook I use and don't have the space for it.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

just curious.. why would you want to tune to a flecher munson curve? if anything id reverse it (to counter it) and add my own flavor to it


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

AyOne said:


> Thanks! Unfortunately I don't have excel right now. I have a little netbook I use and don't have the space for it.


I just saved it as txt file from xls..let me know it it works.


----------



## Triticum Agricolam (Nov 3, 2015)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

SkizeR said:


> just curious.. why would you want to tune to a flecher munson curve? if anything id reverse it (to counter it) and add my own flavor to it


I want to see if that dip in the 2000hz range help with the harshness at high volume in my system. It tends to be on songs with very strong female(high alto/soprano) vocals and some 'electronic' songs.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

miniSQ said:


> I just saved it as txt file from xls..let me know it it works.


That works! Thanks again, I really appreciate the help.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> I want to see if that dip in the 2000hz range help with the harshness at high volume in my system. It tends to be on songs with very strong female(high alto/soprano) vocals and some 'electronic' songs.


In this case, maybe you could try this:
View attachment mp1 2.txt

It looks like: 

But it all depends of the volume you play, you might need more bass boost.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> In this case, maybe you could try this:
> View attachment 179554
> 
> It looks like:
> ...


Thanks! That looks really good too. I listen at about 100db-110db with the sub going. I think its around 82db without the sub.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> Thanks! That looks really good too. I listen at about 100db-110db with the sub going. I think its around 82db without the sub.


In that case I would suggest a bit flatter on the low end.
I used this one for a while and it's really good at reasonable to a bit funky levels.
But at higher levels it’s too much bass for my taste (reason why I started to check on the Fletcher-Mundson curve).
But oh wait, A or C weighted? I always mix them :/


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> In that case I would suggest a bit flatter on the low end.
> I used this one for a while and it's really good at reasonable to a bit funky levels.
> But at higher levels it’s too much bass for my taste (reason why I started to check on the Fletcher-Mundson curve).
> But oh wait, A or C weighted? I always mix them :/


I see that on the menu but I don't what the difference is. I just leave it on "Mic or Z weighted".


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> I see that on the menu but I don't what the difference is. I just leave it on "Mic or Z weighted".


Z? I think this one is super flat no?
I don't use the REW meter, have only a cheap meter in hand that I use for comparison, and not quite sure of its weight type.
Anyway try it and we shall see


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> Z? I think this one is super flat no?
> I don't use the REW meter, have only a cheap meter in hand that I use for comparison, and not quite sure of its weight type.
> Anyway try it and we shall see


I guess I never really thought about it, but since I'm using a mic not a meter; I get it now.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Great article about this: B&O Tech: What is “Loudness”? – earfluff and eyecandy


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Great article! Thanks for that.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> In this case, maybe you could try this:
> View attachment 179554
> 
> It looks like:
> ...


So I just tuned to this curve using REW auto eq to get my peaks within 1db. And WOW! It has cleaned up the midrange so much. The vocals and instruments seem so much more layered rather then just crammed in there. Thanks again!


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> So I just tuned to this curve using REW auto eq to get my peaks within 1db. And WOW! It has cleaned up the midrange so much. The vocals and instruments seem so much more layered rather then just crammed in there. Thanks again!


Nice, 
This target was defined by Raimonds Skuruls, from APL Audio (Acoustic Power Lab :: Home).
You can probably find part of the story in this long thread: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...l1-advanced-dsp-eq-phase-correction-unit.html

I suspect it works well in some cars that have very high level of reflection of the windshield (most?). 
But maybe it’s also related to the equal-loudness contours in some way, and for a specific listening level.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

I'm still trying to flatten out my curve but using REW auto eq. I run out of bands on my Mosconi 4to6. The tweeters are fine. They are pretty flat from the jump, it's the mids that need a lot of eq. I only have 25 bands so I can only really do one "auto eq" per side which doesn't get it as flat as I'd like. What do you guys do in this situation? When I run the auto eq again nothing is ever the same or seem close enough to share between the sides so I'm kind of stuck.

They only thing I could think is going 3-way, but I'm not ready to do that since I'd have to buy a new processor. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

The auto eq in rew tries to predict the outcome. This will never be as accurate as manually eqing yourself. It's a lot faster but if you really want a smooth response you'll need to do it manually. I've run the auto eq in REW with 90 bands of full parametric eq and it still wasn't within 5 db of being flat.
If you are taking averages , and you should be, you need to take care to keep the mic movement pattern as repeatable as possible. The mic movement needs to be almost mechanical to get the best results from rews auto eq.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

drop1 said:


> The auto eq in rew tries to predict the outcome. This will never be as accurate as manually eqing yourself. It's a lot faster but if you really want a smooth response you'll need to do it manually. I've run the auto eq in REW with 90 bands of full parametric eq and it still wasn't within 5 db of being flat.
> If you are taking averages , and you should be, you need to take care to keep the mic movement pattern as repeatable as possible. The mic movement needs to be almost mechanical to get the best results from rews auto eq.


I'll have to redo it. I have caught myself moving the mic higher/lower than the time before and/or moving faster/slower than before.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

You mean you can't eq per driver first?
25 seems a lot, if the system is already flat.

But when I'm stuck I try different xo points and slopes, auto eq could react better for the same acoustic target.
Different smoothing / FR bandwith / levels should help too.

Also, depending of the way you measure/average, you might find naturally this "mp1" reponse from your 2 way.
Where do you cross mids/tweeters?


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> You mean you can't eq per driver first?
> 25 seems a lot, if the system is already flat.
> 
> But when I'm stuck I try different xo points and slopes, auto eq could react better for the same acoustic target.
> ...


For the mids L/R have 25 bands. When I use auto eq I get roughly 10-15 adjustments per side. So when I customize the parametric eq that 25 get used up quick. 

My crosses are: 
T:2500/24LR
M:60-2200/24LR(both sides)
Sub:60/24LR


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> For the mids L/R have 25 bands. When I use auto eq I get roughly 10-15 adjustments per side. So when I customize the parametric eq that 25 get used up quick.
> 
> My crosses are:
> T:2500/24LR
> ...


Do you have a picture to illustrate your auto-EQ? 
Because even 10/15 should be plenty (at least for me).


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

AyOne said:


> For the mids L/R have 25 bands. When I use auto eq I get roughly 10-15 adjustments per side. So when I customize the parametric eq that 25 get used up quick.
> 
> My crosses are:
> T:2500/24LR
> ...


I found that auto EQ gets you in the ball park and then you have to do manual adjustments. I have 10 PEQ bands on my DSP per channel and that is tight but manageable. I found that many adjustments can be combined to achieve very similar overall response. That is the trick to cutting down the number of bands. If you have 2 bands near eachother, sometimes the answer is to reduce to 1, reduce the Q and try to match the level. This has to be done case by case basis. The issue is that REW assumes that electronic adjustment will correspond to the same accoustic response in your car. I found that low frequencies tend to follow the predicted path but as they go up, they become less predictable. Also, REW assumes that 1 tick on the PEQ is 1 dB change in level on the DSP and I don't know if that is the case. Long story short, you will have to get in there and make manual changes.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

I'll post some measurements this weekend


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Here's the measurement I just took. The reddish one is the passenger side and the bluish one is driver's side.(I have a color deficiency, so I don't know if its actually blue or red). 

This is by far the best tune I've had, I'm hoping that with keeping the same curve and just getting the peaks and valleys closer it will make it even better.
I


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

AyOne said:


> Here's the measurement I just took. The reddish one is the passenger side and the bluish one is driver's side.(I have a color deficiency, so I don't know if its actually blue or red).
> 
> This is by far the best tune I've had, I'm hoping that with keeping the same curve and just getting the peaks and valleys closer it will make it even better.
> I



Looks good, mostly +/-5db. How is it in Var smoothing?
To further optimize and if you miss some PEQS, maybe you can use asymmetric XO, especially on the left side that goes lower and higher here.


----------



## 156546 (Feb 10, 2017)

drop1 said:


> The auto eq in rew tries to predict the outcome. This will never be as accurate as manually eqing yourself. It's a lot faster but if you really want a smooth response you'll need to do it manually. I've run the auto eq in REW with 90 bands of full parametric eq and it still wasn't within 5 db of being flat.
> If you are taking averages , and you should be, you need to take care to keep the mic movement pattern as repeatable as possible. The mic movement needs to be almost mechanical to get the best results from rews auto eq.


Most Auto EQs need a phase curve to accurately design and model filters. There's no phase curve for a spatial average, so this is going to degrade the performance of the model. You can improve this by finding a single mic measurement that's similar to the average and past the phase plot for that into the measurement file of the average. Not perfect, but an improvement.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Elgrosso said:


> Looks good, mostly +/-5db. How is it in Var smoothing?
> To further optimize and if you miss some PEQS, maybe you can use asymmetric XO, especially on the left side that goes lower and higher here.


So maybe raise the HP 10hz on the left and so forth?


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

AyOne said:


> So maybe raise the HP 10hz on the left and so forth?


Your electric filters will be different than your acoustic. As long as your slopes are the same. You can have completely different electrical filters. Generally. You have to lower right drivers hpf to match the off axis early roll off of driver side drivers 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Elgrosso said:


> Cool thx miniSQ!
> 
> few days ago I found this one: https://www.merlijnvanveen.nl/en/calculators/59-equal-loudness
> Nice little tool that can normalize them


Quoting myself 
About this, I continued a bit. If you’re interested, here’s a post form mindsp:
[quote="grosso" post=32601]Yes it's a nice tool, there is probably better out there, that can export the values in txt file, that would be nice (for REW auto EQ).
But I just used it visually, to create my presets.
I started with these, 80/90/100 phons, normalized onto 90, for 3 input presets (everything overlaid here):










So it gave around 6db variations down low and just a little on highs.
No idea what it should do over 13KHz though, I assumed flat.
But 6db was too much, now I'm around +/-3db only.
And it works fine, especially for the lowest target, it's a little more than subtle.
At low volume it feels richer, and more comfortable, so I see myself staying longer than before at this reasonable volume (good for my ears).

After few days I'm not sure it's the right path either.
I realized that in car it's not only loudness dependent, but also noise dependent.
The road noise, mostly based on speed, will almost cancel the need for equal loudness.
So at low speed/low noise, equal loudness compensation is nice.
But at high speed it becomes counter-productive.
TBC[/quote]


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

GotFrogs said:


> Most Auto EQs need a phase curve to accurately design and model filters. There's no phase curve for a spatial average, so this is going to degrade the performance of the model.* You can improve this by finding a single mic measurement that's similar to the average and past the phase plot for that into the measurement file of the average. Not perfect, but an improvement.*


That is really interesting! Does Rew actually take into account Phase though when doing auto eq?


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Jscoyne2 said:


> That is really interesting! Does Rew actually take into account Phase though when doing auto eq?


Yes it does, with one point measurement the filter will correct everything it can as soon as it’s minimum phase and leave the rest untouched.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Gotta say i tuned to the mp1 curve and i am very impressed. Not quite enough bass and about 1-2db too high on 1-4khz but god damn. Otherwise. I am blown away

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Gotta say i tuned to the mp1 curve and i am very impressed. Not quite enough bass and about 1-2db too high on 1-4khz but god damn. Otherwise. I am blown away
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Can you post REW house curve file for it? I would like to try it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Ziggyrama said:


> Can you post REW house curve file for it? I would like to try it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


20 6.63
25 6.6
31 6.45
40 6.21
50 6
63 5.58
80 5.2
100 4.7
125 4.2
160 3.66
200 3.2
250 2.78
315 2.3
400 1.76
500 1.21
630 0.58
800 -0.14
1000 -0.81
1200 -1.42
1600 -2.7
2000 -4
2500 -5.66
3100 -6.68
4000 -6.14
5000 -5.19
6300 -4.61
8000 -4.34
10000 -4.24
12000 -4.27
16000 -4.31
20000 -4.34


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

@Jscoyne2, you da man , thanks!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Gotta say i tuned to the mp1 curve and i am very impressed. Not quite enough bass and about 1-2db too high on 1-4khz but god damn. Otherwise. I am blown away
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


Yes! This is the one I've been messing with since it was posted here and I love it!


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Yes it's a very good target, every time I'm lost I go back to it.
But it's a little flat, so very good for mid to high listening levels but not to my taste for low levels.


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

So if I'm getting some harshness for female vocals such as Eva Cassidy, where would I cut? And what would "warm" it up? Sorry I don't have a graph to show my mic is being wonky.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

AyOne said:


> So if I'm getting some harshness for female vocals such as Eva Cassidy, where would I cut? And what would "warm" it up? Sorry I don't have a graph to show my mic is being wonky.


Warming would prob be 200-500. Female vocals are 1-5. Harsh Sss and "Ch" are 5-8k. 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Harshness is 2-4k . Bright is 10-12k. Sibilance is 6.3 and 8k. Warmth is in the 200-400 area which is also an area where majority of cars have issues. 630-800 is where a nasally sound resides and also masks midbass response. It's very common to need large cuts in this area without boosting anything below 160.
Majority of systems where people complain not enough midbass is bc is masked by too much 300-800.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Subbed


----------



## Locomotive Tech (May 23, 2016)

Subbed


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

Mic10is said:


> Harshness is 2-4k . Bright is 10-12k. Sibilance is 6.3 and 8k. Warmth is in the 200-400 area which is also an area where majority of cars have issues. 630-800 is where a nasally sound resides and also masks midbass response. It's very common to need large cuts in this area without boosting anything below 160.
> Majority of systems where people complain not enough midbass is bc is masked by too much 300-800.


Great summary. Thanks!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

Fun fact, I was curious so I measured the factory Harman Kardon system in my wife's SUV that actually sounds half way decent. It has issues with distortion at higher levels but it has decent tonality. It looks very close to this curve. I doubt that is a coincidence.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

I tune based on the 100 DB FM curve, because that's my listening level, but I roll off the top end. It's my favorite way to tune.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I tune based on the 100 DB FM curve, because that's my listening level, but I roll off the top end. It's my favorite way to tune.


I played with that today. Closest ive been to happy so far.


----------



## sq2k1 (Oct 31, 2015)

High Resolution Audio said:


> I tune based on the 100 DB FM curve, because that's my listening level, but I roll off the top end. It's my favorite way to tune.


What exactly is this curve you mentioned? I am not familiar with it.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

sq2k1 said:


> What exactly is this curve you mentioned? I am not familiar with it.


The Equal Loudness Contour otherwise known as the Fletcher Munson curve. It is a representation of how humans hear different frequencies at different levels all dependent on volume.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

If you're tuning to the FM curves, keep in mind the difference between perceived response and measured response. In a reverberant environment, the two are very different [edit] ~500hz and up[edit].


----------



## Ziggyrama (Jan 17, 2016)

sqnut said:


> If you're tuning to the FM curves, keep in mind the difference between perceived response and measured response. In a reverberant environment, the two are very different [edit] ~500hz and up[edit].


Can you elaborate more on this? Are higher frequencies perceived as having higher level because of the reverb in the car?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## 156546 (Feb 10, 2017)

sqnut said:


> If you're tuning to the FM curves, keep in mind the difference between perceived response and measured response. In a reverberant environment, the two are very different [edit] ~500hz and up[edit].


A car is not reverberant.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

GotFrogs said:


> A car is not reverberant.


Sorry, reflective is what I meant. There are no reflections late enough in a car to make it reverberant. Tks.

The reason why perceived loudness is greater than measured loudness above ~500 is because, that's where reflections start kicking in and the effect of early reflections is to make the incident sound seem louder. Use the 1/3 oct PN tracks and set 200hz and 600 hz to the same measured loudness. Now toggle between the two, do they sound the same? Which one sounds louder?


----------



## 156546 (Feb 10, 2017)

sqnut said:


> Sorry, reflective is what I meant. There are no reflections late enough in a car to make it reverberant. Tks.
> 
> The reason why perceived loudness is greater than measured loudness above ~500 is because, that's where reflections start kicking in and the effect of early reflections is to make the incident sound seem louder. Use the 1/3 oct PN tracks and set 200hz and 600 hz to the same measured loudness. Now toggle between the two, do they sound the same? Which one sounds louder?


How did you come up with this notion that reflections only affect the sound above 500Hz?


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

GotFrogs said:


> How did you come up with this notion that reflections only affect the sound above 500Hz?


I thought I did in my post.

[edit] A better response would be that measured combing typically starts ~ 1khz, BUT one can start to hear its effects beyond ~500. In almost all cars I've tuned 600-800 is cut a lot, in addition to the midrange cuts.[edit]


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

sqnut said:


> If you're tuning to the FM curves, keep in mind the difference between perceived response and measured response. In a reverberant environment, the two are very different [edit] ~500hz and up[edit].







Isnt the whole point of the fm curves to adapt what we are hearing to what we are measuring? Of course 600hz will sound louder than 200hz at the same db. We perceive high frequencies as being louder.
Thats the whole point in tuning to an fm curve. It attenuates most of the midrange content amd boost bass freqs.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

drop1 said:


> Isnt the whole point of the fm curves to adapt what we are hearing to what we are measuring? Of course 600hz will sound louder than 200hz at the same db. We perceive high frequencies as being louder.
> Thats the whole point in tuning to an fm curve. It attenuates most of the midrange content amd boost bass freqs.


Pitch and loudness are two different things.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

sqnut said:


> drop1 said:
> 
> 
> > Isnt the whole point of the fm curves to adapt what we are hearing to what we are measuring? Of course 600hz will sound louder than 200hz at the same db. We perceive high frequencies as being louder.
> ...


How is that relevant to anything we are talking about?
Of course the 2 are different.
Fm curves reduce loudness relitave to pitch at specific volume levels according to what our ears are more sensitive to do to ear canal resonace. 
The midrange gets cut in loudness to compensate for the way we hear. 
Im not even sure where that response came from. Seems out of nowhere to me.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Ya'll should continue this.


----------

