# Post your target RTA/EQ curves



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Post your target curve when RTA'ing your sound system, it can be a brief description or a picture file. I know that a perfectly flat response probably won't sound the greatest, I'm new to RTA's and wanted to get different people's idea's. My idea, I think, is flat across the board and tappering off on the high end, say 6K and up. I don't like a bright sounding system, but more "realistic". I try to replicate what things sound like in real life. Any suggestions are welcomed as well.

Thanks for your input!

EDIT: Someone in another thread said that my mic's FR curve is close to the "human ear flat" curve and that if I tuned to flat not using a mic calibration file, I would be dead on. Tell me what you think, here it is. How much truth does this hold?


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

GregU said:


> I don't like a bright sounding system, but more "realistic". I try to replicate what things sound like in real life.


The you don't like realistic. Real music is bright. It's not harsh, but it most definitely bright. 



> Any suggestions are welcomed as well.


Go listen to some live acoustic music.


----------



## PaulD (Nov 16, 2006)

quality_sound said:


> The you don't like realistic. Real music is bright. It's not harsh, but it most definitely bright.
> 
> Go listen to some live acoustic music.


Really ? They play live music at the outdoor mall, sometimes with NO amplification whatsoever. My impressions have always been that there is very little upper end (say 12K +) compared to RTA'ing flat.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

I prefer 20-200 to have a gradual downward slope then basically flat from 200-10k and then usually a slight roll off at the end. but it depends on what I am working with.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

PaulD said:


> Really ? They play live music at the outdoor mall, sometimes with NO amplification whatsoever. My impressions have always been that there is very little upper end (say 12K +) compared to RTA'ing flat.


I didn't say extended, I said bright. Yes, not much will go over 12KHz but what IS there is bright, it's nto "polite" sounding.


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

Fletcher-Munson anyone?


----------



## PaulD (Nov 16, 2006)

hmmm .... perhaps I can bring my rta out there someday, might get a better idea of spectral balance.


----------



## Nitin (May 28, 2008)

jpswanberg said:


> Fletcher-Munson anyone?


first thought that crossed my mind ie Equal Contour Curve for the SPL/volume level i like to listen to


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Mic10is said:


> I prefer 20-200 to have a gradual downward slope then basically flat from 200-10k and then usually a slight roll off at the end. but it depends on what I am working with.


You've never steared me wrong in your suggestions so I will definatly give this a try.

Thanks Mic!


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

GregU said:


> You've never steared me wrong in your suggestions so I will definatly give this a try.
> 
> Thanks Mic!


This is how Eric Stevens suggested I tune, and it was good enough for 2nd at my 1st MECA finals w/ 6th Highest SQ score overall.


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Mic10is said:


> This is how Eric Stevens suggested I tune, and it was good enough for 2nd at my 1st MECA finals w/ 6th Highest SQ score overall.


Sweet. I have another question for you, maybe you can help me with it. I'm expecting to cure some phase issues by EQ. I think half my problem is due to reflections and the other half by improper EQ'ing. Right now my stage walks depending on the frequency. Believe it or not, I ussually get the best staging/imaging while listening to the radio but not the best sound of course. Using Focal #1 I can get decent staging results but the stage will still walks at times. I want to be able to EQ this problem out and at the same time have a curve similar to the one you suggested. I know that it's not going to be a "magic" curve and fix all my problems, so how do I go about fixing phase issues AND getting a nice curve at the same time? Should I run some pink noise, get the "desired" curve and then work on my staging/phase issues? Or is my phase problem caused from my current uneven and nasty EQ curve? I have noticed that the flatter my response appears to be, the better the staging.

I'm still waiting on my 360.2 from Rockford, but it's a dealer accomidation and they are on backorder, I'm last in line  I'm seriously about to snag one off of ebay and then whenever mine comes from Rockford put the one I got from ebay back on ebay.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

freq dependent imaging is _usually_ caused by 1 of 2 or both things--equalization or time.
the ability to EQ left and right independently is critical for this.Often neither side are close to one another. One of the "cues" to which side may be more imbalanced is in the direction the image steers. If you get a good center image but at different frequencies it starts to steer or smeer in your direction, pay more attention to driver side obviously. 
also pay attention to where in the music or voice does the wandering occur. Is it at the base of a male vocal or in the upper harmonics?

Next, look at the TA settings. if you can get a good center image but it wanders slightly at different frequencies, then adjust the TA a lil more in either direction. the ability to adjust TA in finer increments is beneficial.

also look at treating some surfaces with some softer materials. Dash pad to start should help out picking up some greater detail. Underdash and center console treatments as well.

For a long time I have always set XOs 1st, then EQ and then TA last But recently, I had some help with tuning from a guy who does PA set-ups for bands. He put settings at flat. XO's 1st. and then TA'd next. and lastly did EQ.
using spoken tracks works best for finding best TA adjustments. so IASCA's LEFT,CENTER, RIGHT Imaging track or Chesky Ultimate Demo Disc, use the spoken portion where he talks about how gay the next rebecca pigeon song will sound after u hear it more than 10 times.

20-40hz will be vehicle dependent. depends on transfer function, subs, location, power etc...20hz could be as much as 8db up etc...
try doing the extreme and boost the crap out of 20 and 25hz. if your ass shakes too much, bring it down till its just enough noticeable tactile sensation.
above 200hz donot boost anything with the exception of maybe 10-20khz. upper freqs can add a lil more sparkle and "air" or breath to tracks.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diyma-tutorials/33740-simple-way-tune-courtesy-cmusic.html



> 14. When you are satisfied with the tonality of the system, it is time to start adjusting the left and right channels separately. These adjustments should not affect the tonality, but improve on the imaging and soundstaging. Using the Autosound 2000 Test CD 102 or 103 “My Disk” listen to the individual frequency pink noise tracks. (Test CD103 has the tracks arranged in an easier configuration.) Each frequency band should sound like it is coming from the center of the soundstage. If one band is off to one side, then use each band’s left and right eq controls as a balance control. This is very similar to the head unit’s balance control, only now you are balancing each frequency band by itself.* For example if 200 Hz seems to be shifted to the left of center, lower the left 200 Hz band and raise the right 200 Hz band one dB at a time until the band is centered. If a frequency is shifted to the right, lower the band’s right channel and raise the left channel in small amounts.*


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Mic10is said:


> freq dependent imaging is _usually_ caused by 1 of 2 or both things--equalization or time.
> the ability to EQ left and right independently is critical for this.Often neither side are close to one another. One of the "cues" to which side may be more imbalanced is in the direction the image steers. If you get a good center image but at different frequencies it starts to steer or smeer in your direction, pay more attention to driver side obviously.
> also pay attention to where in the music or voice does the wandering occur. Is it at the base of a male vocal or in the upper harmonics?
> 
> ...


That is such kick ass advice! Just to make one thing clear, I'm using TrueRTA, does it matter where my...... I guess you'd say reference line is at? Like can it be at -25dBu, or does it have to be at 0dBu? I know that might not make sense but I'm not sure how else to explain it. Ok, look at my attachment in my first post of this thread, lets say that was my actual FR of my audio system. Would I flatten it out to the -5dbu or does it matter since that's just the amplitude?


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

GregU said:


> Post your target curve when RTA'ing your sound system, it can be a brief description or a picture file. I know that a perfectly flat response probably won't sound the greatest, I'm new to RTA's and wanted to get different people's idea's. My idea, I think, is flat across the board and tappering off on the high end, say 6K and up. I don't like a bright sounding system, but more "realistic". I try to replicate what things sound like in real life. Any suggestions are welcomed as well.
> 
> Thanks for your input!
> 
> EDIT: Someone in another thread said that my mic's FR curve is close to the "human ear flat" curve and that if I tuned to flat not using a mic calibration file, I would be dead on. Tell me what you think, here it is. How much truth does this hold?


Just looking at that hurts my ears. All sizzle and NO boom. Try it, then try this:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...680-case-study-system-frequency-response.html

Ge0


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diyma-tutorials/33740-simple-way-tune-courtesy-cmusic.html


Cool, thanks a$$hole! You posted that while I was typing my response to mic.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

GregU said:


> That is such kick ass advice! Just to make one thing clear, I'm using TrueRTA, does it matter where my...... I guess you'd say reference line is at? Like can it be at -25dBu, or does it have to be at 0dBu? I know that might not make sense but I'm not sure how else to explain it. Ok, look at my attachment in my first post of this thread, lets say that was my actual FR of my audio system. Would I flatten it out to the -5dbu or does it matter since that's just the amplitude? And finally, when EQ'ing each channel, I assume I would keep the mic in the same place and then start with one channel then EQ, then move to the next channel and EQ, etc?


put the SPL setting on.
reset EQ settings to flat
tune around 80-90db w/ pink noise.
EQ stays in same place for both right and left.

when you get through with all that. You can sit and recheck some things. go back to Right channel only. move the mic around in a figure 8 pattern slowly about head level. see what freqs if any changes. You can start figuring out if some of the peaks and nulls are caused by reflections this way.

also, read Chucks tutorial. Its spot on as well.


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Ge0 said:


> Just looking at that hurts my ears. All sizzle and NO boom. Try it, then try this:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...680-case-study-system-frequency-response.html
> 
> Ge0


And yet another great bit of advice, thanks to you too Ge0!


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Mic10is said:


> put the SPL setting on.
> reset EQ settings to flat
> tune around 80-90db w/ pink noise.
> EQ stays in same place for both right and left.
> ...


Alright, got it. 

Thank you again, Mic.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

jpswanberg said:


> Fletcher-Munson anyone?


Fletcher-munson only applies to our hearing sensitivity at different volume levels.... not to the accurate reproduction of sound. I promise you that if you were to tune your vehicle such that every frequency was of equal loudness.... it would sound pretty damn awful.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

GregU said:


> Post your target curve when RTA'ing your sound system, it can be a brief description or a picture file. I know that a perfectly flat response probably won't sound the greatest, I'm new to RTA's and wanted to get different people's idea's. My idea, I think, is flat across the board and tappering off on the high end, say 6K and up. I don't like a bright sounding system, but more "realistic". I try to replicate what things sound like in real life. Any suggestions are welcomed as well.
> 
> Thanks for your input!
> 
> EDIT: Someone in another thread said that my mic's FR curve is close to the "human ear flat" curve and that if I tuned to flat not using a mic calibration file, I would be dead on. Tell me what you think, here it is. How much truth does this hold?


My best advice would be ... don't tune with an rta.

I don't remember exactly, but if you do insist on using an RTA you would want to apply some weighting... I believe B or C as being most pleasing to the ear... and your mic's sensitivity is almost the opposite of such a weighting curve in the top octave.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

GregU said:


> And yet another great bit of advice, thanks to you too Ge0!


I just realized the image you originally posted was a mic correction curve, not your target response curve. Correct? If so, that makes sense. So, what is your prefered response curve then?

Ge0


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

npdang said:


> My best advice would be ... don't tune with an rta.
> 
> I don't remember exactly, but if you do insist on using an RTA you would want to apply some weighting... I believe B or C as being most pleasing to the ear... and your mic's sensitivity is almost the opposite of such a weighting curve in the top octave.


Wise but can't get you there 100%

I propose and practice this:

1.) Tune to the best of your ability by ear.

2.) Drag out the RTA and capture the response curve based on your tuning.

3.) Make all RTA adjustments L vs. R, peak / dip compensation, etc... weighted against your original response curve.

Ge0


----------



## methodsound (Oct 1, 2009)

I used to put way too much emphasis on the RTA, now I mainly use it to get an initial smooth response curve before I EQ for tonality. This curve here is generally regarded as an ideal response curve. This graph is of the front right speaker system with no subwoofer. For my taste the sub would blend in without going above 6db from the main body of the curve.


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Ge0 said:


> I just realized the image you originally posted was a mic correction curve, not your target response curve. Correct? If so, that makes sense. So, what is your prefered response curve then?
> 
> Ge0


I'm going to start off with the curve that Mic suggested and go from there. For some reason, dont know why, I was always under the impression "The flatter the better" and I would always think to myself, that doesn't make sense for everyone to tune to the same curve. I was playing around with my RTA and a Boston Pro display at work one day and I tried to tune to flat across the board.... well it sounded like **** so I knew something had to be wrong or I was mis-informed. So, I sent my mic in for calibration and posted on here, thankfully there are some people on this forum that are willing to lend a helping hand.


----------



## GregU (Dec 24, 2008)

Ge0 said:


> Wise but can't get you there 100%
> 
> I propose and practice this:
> 
> ...


Question, using TrueRTA, I think I read somewhere that it uses "C" weighting by dedault. Is this true?

And in case anyone is saying "What the hell is this guy doing with an RTA when he's asking such stupid questions", well, this is how I learn new things. I jump into them head first, gather all the data I can, connect the dots, and 99% of the time I'll get a pretty good grasp on it very quickly.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

npdang said:


> My best advice would be ... don't tune with an rta.
> 
> I don't remember exactly, but if you do insist on using an RTA you would want to apply some weighting... I believe B or C as being most pleasing to the ear... and your mic's sensitivity is almost the opposite of such a weighting curve in the top octave.


After doing about a thousand measurements in the past year, I'm leaning towards tuning via the power response in the car. I used to focus on the polar response, but the power response is easier to interpret.

RTAs are semi-useless because they measure frequency response at one point, and the response in a car varies by five or ten dB as you move about the cabin.

On Friday I stumbled across a very interesting tweeter whose response doesn't do this. The polar response is the best I've ever seen in a car. And that's saying a lot - I've measured a LOT of speakers in the car.

Here's some info -

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ect-gnib-grand-national-box-2.html#post887276

The cost is about $100 a set.


----------



## kartunesauto (Jan 1, 2012)

Porsche 911 Cab https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/sT30DRRhVjcI6N9UHvERg2vsq_XCdXgSSwx_B8tdbew?feat=directlink


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

This was my 2006 Mehstang GT's RTA:









Note, that was the car running tune. With the car shut off, I could cut the volume on the subwoofer drastically. In other words, it took that much volume on the sub to overcome the Borla Stingers.


----------



## kartunesauto (Jan 1, 2012)

I like this curve, sounds great top down, I see your very similar curve.


----------

