Equalizer settings in 14 speaker systems.

[verlin]

Hello all. This is my first post; I've had my V6 with premium package about a week. I'm curious about what equalization settings others are deciding on for FM, XM, and CD's. It seems as though, individual taste aside, that each mode needs something a bit different. Thanks.

 

[Mark_888]

Hello all. This is my first post; I've had my V6 with premium package about a week. I'm curious about what equalization settings others are deciding on for FM, XM, and CD's. It seems as though, individual taste aside, that each mode needs something a bit different. Thanks.

Why do you think they need different settings based on the source? It is true, that the source systems sound a bit different, but I am not sure they can be "fixed" with an equalizer. For example, the XM stuff is so compressed that it will always sound very mediocre to me. FM radio quality varies greatly by station, but not because of frequency response (aside from very sharp rolloff of high frequencies that cannot be recovered by any equalizer).

So I doubt of any of the sources has a frequency response problem that can fixed by equalization. Equalization is primarily to correct speaker deficiencies as they occur in interaction with listening room boundaries. The Lexicon people would probably say they have already adjusted for the speakers and the car interior when they designed the system, but they put the equalizer in there because "they have to meet customer expectations" not because they really think it is needed.

 

[verlin]

Thank you, Mark. My point of view originates from a vast ocean of ignorance. I appreciate your help.

 

[DanTheMan]

Why do you think they need different settings based on the source? It is true, that the source systems sound a bit different, but I am not sure they can be "fixed" with an equalizer.

So I doubt of any of the sources has a frequency response problem that can fixed by equalization. Equalization is primarily to correct speaker deficiencies as they occur in interaction with listening room boundaries.

Interesting thoughts. I'm sure you would agree source material can very widely--as much as listener perception of what they hear--and what they want to hear from that source material. EQs serve a great purpose to help each listener audiologically speaking "paint" the picture that they prefer to enjoy. I don't know that "fixing" an audio problem is possible using EQ--it merely "smooths it out", making it somewhat more palatable. A good example would be listening to a 60's tune on today's audio gear--a good EQ would be employed to keep your ears and mine from burning while listening to the heavy mid-range energy, and limited everything else. We could never "fix" the source, unless it was re-mastered in a studio with tracks separated, similar to a tyipcal recording environment. The problem with older material is that so much was recorded on a 4-track recorder and merged together to get the final output. Tough to work with!

Equalization is primarily to correct speaker deficiencies as they occur in interaction with listening room boundaries.

While I understand your point, I would add that an EQ is more designed to correct (not a great word, but it's after midnight already and I can't think of a better one) audio problems related to room shape (modal) anomalies more than speaker deficiencies. Higher quality speakers reproduce relatively accurately the source material that's fed to them. There is the concept of signal loss (minimal as it may be) via unshielded speaker wire, or some other lengthy cable, etc., but that's not the fault of the speaker, but of the means used to carry the signal from point to point. The output of the speaker will diminish by the inverse square law, which will also affect how we hear, which some would attempt to adjust by using equalization.

The same audio source will sound much differently in different size/shape rooms, even if the EQ settings are the same. When I engineered for live bands a number of years back, I always ran pink noise and an audio analyzer to take out the 'rough spots' in those rooms/auditoriums. The purpose was to give me as close to a 'flat' (no gain or cut in any frequency range) signal to start out with. Back in the day, I eventually found a unit that had the noise generator and the analyzer built into a single rack space unit, and along w/a high end condenser mic and about six samples (the device would average as many as 128 samples), I could solve a world of problems before getting started! EQs in that environment were 31-band, 1/3 octave products w/15dB cut/gain on each fader. It would be SO COOL if our cars had anything close to that!

I would have loved to have been in the room when the Lexicon boys and girls were engineering the system in our beloved Gennys. Other than the problem noted above (minor, in my book), mine sounds incredible...especially when it's really cranked up!

Dan :>)

 

[Mark_888]

Interesting thoughts. I'm sure you would agree source material can very widely--as much as listener perception of what they hear--and what they want to hear from that source material. EQs serve a great purpose to help each listener audiologically speaking "paint" the picture that they prefer to enjoy. I don't know that "fixing" an audio problem is possible using EQ--it merely "smooths it out", making it somewhat more palatable. A good example would be listening to a 60's tune on today's audio gear--a good EQ would be employed to keep your ears and mine from burning while listening to the heavy mid-range energy, and limited everything else. We could never "fix" the source, unless it was re-mastered in a studio with tracks separated, similar to a tyipcal recording environment. The problem with older material is that so much was recorded on a 4-track recorder and merged together to get the final output. Tough to work with!

The Lexicon allows you to vary the equalization by source system (FM. XM. CD, etc), which was the original question I responded to. I agree that you may want to use equalization to correct deficiencies in a particular recording or even type of music, but that is separate question from what source the music comes from. However, on second thought, I might want to lower the mid-bass on AM radio, which I find to be a little "booming" when listening to ESPN-talk radio.

Equalization is primarily to correct speaker deficiencies as they occur in interaction with listening room boundaries.

While I understand your point, I would add that an EQ is more designed to correct (not a great word, but it's after midnight already and I can't think of a better one) audio problems related to room shape (modal) anomalies more than speaker deficiencies. Higher quality speakers reproduce relatively accurately the source material that's fed to them. There is the concept of signal loss (minimal as it may be) via unshielded speaker wire, or some other lengthy cable, etc., but that's not the fault of the speaker, but of the means used to carry the signal from point to point. The output of the speaker will diminish by the inverse square law, which will also affect how we hear, which some would attempt to adjust by using equalization.

I don't think there is any disagreement. One cannot really distinguish between a speaker deficiency and how it interacts with room boundaries. Maybe the word deficiency is too pejorative, maybe I should have said speaker "characteristics." But there is no such thing as a perfect speaker, and to get the best possible sound it should if possible be matched (and equalized, and manipulated via other signal processing) for the very demanding listening space that is the interior of a car. Of course one advantage that Lexicon had is that every Genesis is the same size, and except for some minor leather seat materail differences, has the pretty much the same acoustical properties, unlike a home theater or home audio installation.

The same audio source will sound much differently in different size/shape rooms, even if the EQ settings are the same. When I engineered for live bands a number of years back, I always ran pink noise and an audio analyzer to take out the 'rough spots' in those rooms/auditoriums. The purpose was to give me as close to a 'flat' (no gain or cut in any frequency range) signal to start out with. Back in the day, I eventually found a unit that had the noise generator and the analyzer built into a single rack space unit, and along w/a high end condenser mic and about six samples (the device would average as many as 128 samples), I could solve a world of problems before getting started! EQs in that environment were 31-band, 1/3 octave products w/15dB cut/gain on each fader. It would be SO COOL if our cars had anything close to that!

I would have loved to have been in the room when the Lexicon boys and girls were engineering the system in our beloved Gennys. Other than the problem noted above (minor, in my book), mine sounds incredible...especially when it's really cranked up!

Dan :>)

I am quite sure that Lexicon used extensive equipment to customize the sound and to optimize the speaker placement and signal processing for the best possible sound specifically for the Genesis. Lexicon is a expert in home theater systems and they understand signal processing in general, and surround sound in particular.

Someone else was disappointed by the sound when the windows were opened. When that happens, all bets are off unless the system has a setting for "windows open" and then it would have to know which windows were open to make the necessary adjustments, especially with regard to apparent bass volumes.

 

[DanTheMan]

Someone else was disappointed by the sound when the windows were opened. When that happens, all bets are off unless the system has a setting for "windows open" and then it would have to know which windows were open to make the necessary adjustments, especially with regard to apparent bass volumes.

I think we are on point with the subject matter. The interesting question here about the 'windows open' format is a further discussion. Essentially, when the windows are open, it's the same as taking a speaker from one room to a different-shaped room. The open window creates additional space (and therefore a change in room modes, natural resonance, etc.) and as a result it's not surprising that the stereo system would sound different. Since the outside area has no specific definition as to shape (reasonable shape, for the sake of this discussion), it will be much harder to reproduce audio in great format regardless of the source material! I've engineered all kinds of stuff outside, and it's really tough! There are innumerable factors such as temperature, wind, crowd noise (as it's affected by wind--which by it's very nature isn't a constant velocity, but variable, and very erratic), the contour of the ground (flat vs. hills, dirt/grass vs. pavement, etc.) and nearby reflective surfaces (buildings, for example). All these things and more really affect what an outdoor audio performance would sound like. The engineer eventually has to reach a "happy medium" about what sounds best for the majority of the people that are listening to the performance. It isn't perfect, by any means, but it's the best one can do under the difficult circumstances.

Dan :>)

 

[BacktoHyundaibychoice]

The unfortunate thing, in my humble opinion, is that some Genny buyers may think "14 is fine, why do I need 17 speakers"? If I'm not mistaken, the 14 speaker version doesn't play any "surround souces" such as DVD-A or DVD-V. I don't think SACD is playable on the 14 speaker system, and obviously it doesn't play DVD at all.
After experiencing 5.1 sources, thanks to posters here, I realize how lucky I am to have gone with the Tech package (sound unheard).
Once again, ymmv.