Why Generic Target Curves Don't Work (Part 1 of 2)
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Get your True Target with Magic Beans Audio: magicbeansaudio.com
Dr. Floyd Toole's Book on Psychoacoustics: bit.ly/SoundReproductionBook
Dr. Floyd Toole's AES Paper "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound
Reproducing Systems"
www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/202...
My Speaker Leaderboard: speakerleaderboard.com
My Subwoofer Leaderboard: bit.ly/subwooferleaderboard
My Headphone Leaderboard: bit.ly/headphoneleaderboard
3 Ways to Support This Channel:
1) Buy Magic Beans: magicbeansaudio.com
2) Buy the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit: spatialcd.com
3) Become a Patron: / joentell
Channel Sponsors:
Monoprice/Monolith: bit.ly/MonopriceJNT
AFFILIATE LINKS:
Crutchfield: howl.me/ckjnBvmnd5M
Best Buy: howl.me/ckjoam20vaE
Target: howl.me/ckjoaHc0z1l
My Recommended Products: kit.co/joentell
Gear I Use: www.amazon.com/shop/joentell
Follow me on:
📸Instagram: / joentell
👥Facebook: / realjoentell
Disclosure: The Affiliate links above earn me a commission if you purchase using those links. This is at no additional cost to you.
Please share this video in other forums and FB groups. More people need to know about this. Too many people don't know and are using suboptimal target curves and are not getting the best out of their systems.
I know it has been tricky to convay and explain why the same target curve does not work in all situations. I think you did a good job here. It is clear and concise. Im making a note here, huge success!
Good Stuff Joe. Keep it up!
Good video Joe, and I agree with you. It's an interesting subject for sure.
thank you so much!
Can you also show the difference of a good and bad speaker index on rew and which can benefit from eq
From my understanding a target curve is not the eq directly you have to work off a mesurement. Then you take the difference to the target curve and the difference is your eq.
As long as you are exzacily where the mesurement is taken you should have a sound profile very similar to your target curve. So the answer to question 1 should be yes.
Now you are right in the fact that rooms do change this as compared to per say a headphone where you are in the near feild 100% of the time. (Spatial audio and hrtf's aside)
What you described is how nearly all auto-room correction works. They take a measurement at your MLP and they use that response and apply filters to conform it to a preset target curve.
What I'm saying is that it's still not correct and the answer to Poll #1 is still no. Just because a microphone measures the Post-EQ response the same at the MLP for two different systems (different speakers, different rooms, different listening distances) does not mean it will sound the same to a human. That's the reason we talk about psychoacoustics, not just acoustics. How we interpret sounds is equally as important as having good acoustic measurements.
I recently been running audyssey eq with a license for my MARANTZ 7706 . I USE THE ORIGINAL MIC FROM THE PROCESSOR SENDS SIGNAL TO MY COMPUTER WIFI , SO THEN HOW DO I RUN MAGIC BEANS?
Does this approach apply to both Home Theatre/Listening Rooms, as well as something like near-field speakers (say at a computer or for mixing/studio purposes?) My question is, what is the correct way to apply correction in a Studio/PC listening near-field situation using something like REW.
You're likely within the critical distance in which case you're likely to see less high frequency roll-off due to distance. Any roll-off required will likely be due to being off-axis to the tweeter. The Magic Beans app will correctly determine the target curve for that situation as well.
@@joentell I'm doing the correction with REW and a Dayton imm6, as I'm on a really tight budget. Id love to use magic beans, but unfortunately it's too expensive for me right now. A free trial/version with less features or limited channels maybe would be really cool.
But would you say that the method you mentioned elsewhere (trace arithmetic) would apply to near field too? Or should I be doing it the normal way of following a curve (if so which one?). I also read somewhere about only correcting the mids and below (around 800hz and down) and leaving everything higher uncorrected. Thoughts on this approach?
Well said. I would add dynamic compression and dsp as well. Speaker might present certain response but under stress at high SPL heat increases and will change its response. Difference between good speakers and not so good. With DSP in active speakers (including subwoofers) it will limit its output at certain SPL thus change its frequency response.
Also in MTM designs woofers usually cancel each other to some degree, depending on off axis angle.
That's the topic for a different video
I'm a noob at this and have put together a budget 7.1.4. I've done nothing but run the room correction on denon 3800. I know i need to learn alot more. Someone got me a mimiDSP for Christmas. Will that be useful with Magic Beans. I have a small 12x14 ft room. Thanks for any input.
Honestly, I would look at getting the Multeq-X Software for the Denon and of course REW and a Umik-1.
The Multeq-X measurements provide better results than the regular Audyssey with a few tweaks. REW helps you figure out whether there are any serious issues with your corrected Frequency Response. It's a steep learning curve and it can turn into a full-time hobby if you aren't careful, but it's worth it...😉
Thanks
@@marcuslove5774 yes to MultEQ-X or Dirac. The MiniDSP will be useful in calibrating multiple subs
At higher SPL, distortion becomes an issue, but so does certain frequencies that the human ear is most sensitive to. Even if you have the perfect perceived FR for a given SPL for your system and even if there is no perceptible distortion, the perceived FR can sound a bit "harsh" due to different Equal Loudness Contour.
I doubt that true since vast majority of movies and music is mixed at louder levels than most people listen at, could be the speaker compressing causing that or you listening louder than what the people in mixing studio did.
But you are always measuring the system in the room with Audissey, Dirac, or dedicated measuring software on a laptop with calibrated microphone. So what do you mean by target curve? Do you mean the curve on the equalizer/processor or the curve measured with the software and calibrated microphone?
If you mean the last then I always end up with very similar curves that I like, at my home and at customers homes as well. But as I said it might not be to the customers taste and then I have to alter the curve, so the target curve is my baseline and then I tweak it to the situation.
After your run a calibration with Audyssey with the MultEQ-X app or Dirac, it takes its own measurements and at the end, it asks you what target response you want. That's what I'm referring to.
Drop the second video now do leave us hanging
Patreon exclusive
I have to record it. I wanted to get this one out quickly.
Great video! nicely done! @joentell
For the rest of the audience .. Magic Beans (MB ) has a distinct measuring technique, Near field speaker measurements and Main listner position measurement , this allows MB to identify/isolate the room from the original signal and how source (speaker) is interacting with room. This method allows to tailor your PEQ setting way better than out of the box approach!
All this stuff is well known but I do agree taking into account speaker characteristics and eqing appropriately is probably a better idea. But if you ignore it and eq the speaker and the speaker ends up sounding wonky...this will be reflected in the listening position FR as well ! ..and im guessing it will end up not following the curve as expected...and you'll either try eqing it more or give up realizing it's the speaker design error...if your calibration system saves you the time and hassle ..great.
It's often the room, specifically nearby walls or surfaces like TV's or bare floors that cause the most issues.
@joentell oh absolutely. I speak from first-hand experience.
I still don't understand why you should apply correction above the transition frequency at all.
Just get good speakers with a flat on axis and smooth directivity in the first place
That's assuming everyone can afford to buy good speakers in the first place. They may want to get the most out of the ones they already have. I agree that is the best answer.
Also, if you have good speakers, if you have nearby surfaces that affect the response above the transition region, you will want to correct for that as well.
Good speakers with flat on axis and smooth directivity will sound like that on an anechoic chamber, not in your home theater. Your room and everything that’s in it will affect your speakers’ sound. For example in a concert hall you’d be surprised at how much the presence of the audience affects and dampen the sound.
Correct you shouldn’t. Two ears and a brain don’t hear like a mic and analyzer above the transition frequency, any EQing there should be confirmed by a listening test (divorced from the below transition frequency EQ) preferably blind to lessen ones bias
Appreciate your work Joe. Wish you got more subs and views.
Thank you!
I wouldn't mind more subs and views also, but I also don't upload a lot, so the YT algorithm doesn't love that. I'm trying to provide good information, and I think people like to be sold on products that they might be interested in. Either that, or get confirmation that what they've already purchased was the right choice. All good though. YT isn't my main thing.
I choose speakers that perform well near field, and listen that way for anything critical, for 2-channel at least. I've always listened that way for 50 years or more. I'm the only one in this house that cares enough about high performance music. Chasing acoustic gremlins in problematic rooms is a huge waste of time and resources when 3 out of 4 people in the house are otherwise ok with just a TV speaker or ear buds. I like the headphonic stereo effect that near field provides, minus the cranial null of headphones. Best of both worlds, provided the speakers aren't so room and/or boundary dependent.
In the event there are other people listening in the room, it still sounds better than what most people will hear at random or what they are used to. The real music heads that do happen by, will eventually end up drawn to the near field if it's set up as such, and won't feel out of place.
What’s worked great for me is, limit correction to 300hz, drop a point at 250hz at 0db and drop a point at 20hz at +5db. But that last point of +5, that value should be set based on how the speakers naturally rise in bass in your room. The ideal value shouldn’t sound more bassy or less bassy. But just smoother bass.
It’s not obvious but what we measure isn’t what we hear. If there’s a disconnect in dispersion or there is too aggressive a rolloff at the woofer to tweeter crossover point, both will show up as a dip but only one of them will have a dip that is audible.
I agree that the bass should not add or detract unnecessarily. I'm curious as to how you arrived at the 300Hz figure. The MB app determines the transition region based on the measurements. I think some people are surprised as to how high the transition region actually is in their room. I was.
So I use Audyssey xt32 using the app. I see that below 100hz, I have room induced large peaks. Between 100-200hz I have some sbir, and between 300-500, it smoothes out and follows the speaker response. I could honestly use any value between 300-500 but I prefer 300 because the unevenness between 3-500 isn’t very much. I also take 8 measurements and space them out by at least 2 feet, max 3 feet. So the issues I’m really fixing are dips and peaks that persist over a wide area.
I’ve tried a tight mic pattern and it measures better at mlp but it sounds a little bit unnatural to me. It tends to get too focused on positional peaks/dips and overcorrects them.
To digress a bit more about my setup, after I run Audyssey I typically find that Audyssey sets my sub trim 2db too hot. Bear with me, I know the consensus is Audyssey is bass light.
It seems that Audyssey sets the sub trim so 30-80hz random pink noise measured using c weighted spl meter lines up with speaker levels. But c weighted rolls off around 40hz. When using z weighted or comparing sweeps between my sub and speakers, the sub is always 2db too hot.
Once the trim is addressed I use rew to line up the impulse peaks between my subs and mains. I find I have to flip polarity on my subs after lining up the impulse (by adding 2m to sub distance), then the blending is just seamless.
After the above is done, then I do what I mentioned earlier about a simple 5db house curve with correction limited to 300hz. There is one last caveat though - Audyssey auto leveling. I know you covered it so you’re aware of it.
The trick to getting around auto leveling in Audyssey using the app is:
1. Mimic the exact same house curve on the subwoofer channel that you did to your other channels
2. Hop on over to the corrected response and see at what frequency your sub response crosses the 0db line
3. Go back to curve editor and place a temp point on that frequency and see where it has to be to line up with your house curve. Note that boost and remove that point.
4. Boost sub trim by the value you got from step 3.
That’s basically how I do audyssy multi eq-x on a budget 😄
@@navidmahmood876 I think you would love what Magic Beans True Target would do for your system.
I don’t use much of a curve at all. In fact, I’ve dsp’d my rinky dink speakers to the exact FR of the Genelec 8361a.
My speakers have never sounded better.
Which speakers?
@@joentell Rinky dink may not be the right word. They're well designed but ugly and not at all meant for the home environment. But they were free. It's a pair of EV TX2152's.
When measured on a Klippel, the Genelec 8361a's do come with a house curve built into the DSP but it's veryyyy shallow.
Also, I hope my OG comment didn't come across as combative or pretentious. I just really love the sound of the Genelec's and my wallet is empty. haha! Doing what I can to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of em.
Clearly you have never mixed or mastered. Or you would know that name, and know it well.
@@chippsterstephens6800 because I’m good as DSP means that I don’t know what Genelec 8361a’s are? That’s the dumbest comment I’ve read in a while.
Also, I’m a FOH engineer by trade. Would I rather have the 8361a’s? Of course. Do I have $15k to drop on three of them? Absolutely not. So, I make do with what I have and squeeze the best performance I can out of them.
@@chippsterstephens6800 are you referring to me or the OP? I know Genelec and I've interviewed someone from there at NAMM. I was asking about the OP's speakers.
I’ve had good results with the curve I’ve been using, basically it’s similar to a JL Audio curve. What I do in Dirac is add about 5db at 20hz and tapper that down to -6db at about 500hz and that’s flat until 2k and then ramps up just 2 db’s at 20k….. this has allowed me to listen to movies at -10 with plenty of bass and non of high frequency harshness
I think with enough time, it's possible to arrive at a proper target curve by ear. It takes many hours.
From a flat curve I added 2.5dB below 35Hz and 0.5dB above 10KHz (the tweeters on my speakers are quite « soft » and i like the sound a bit brighter). Thats on my front and surround speakers (floorstanding speakers with dual 21cm bass speakers on the front and dual 19cm on the surrounds). The center speaker has it’s own curve, as it doesn’t manage as much bass. I kept the 0.5dB on the highs but starting at 5KHz, and added 1.5dB below 200Hz. All is managed with Dirac Live Bass control, it does marvels at keeping it clean, tbh i’m impressed at how efficient it was. Also i don’t need to push up the sound to be able to hear the dialogs, and when watching a movie at night I also can watch the movie at lower volume without loosing sound quality.
Thanks good instructive video but I'm keeping my generic Target Curve is Free and sound fantastic in my system and room setting , A One make wonders for free 😍
It seems like you're happy with your system and if that's enough for you, then I am happy for you. I'm a bit crazy when it comes to this stuff. I put some speakers in the kitchen (placed above the refrigerator) and when I told my wife I was calibrating them, she laughed. 🤣
Don't know if its just me but I rarely see someone addressing the fact that we have anechoic data (klippel) for a lot of speakers.
So let me ask you this, suppose I have anechoic data for my speakers and I can EQ them (good directivity) so that they are flat anechoicly....then apply a bass boost based on the harman curve upto the transition frequency (which is very similar in most rooms) because as Dr. Toole said unless you are listening to reference a bass boost sounds better to most people.
Is even the best correction application / software /algorithm going to make things better or worse?
I will address this in my next video. Correcting based on anechoic measurements is better above the transition region compared to what popular room correction currently does. That's assuming that nearby surfaces aren't affecting the response of that speaker within the critical distance. Let's say that speaker is placed less than 6" next to a wall or TV. The nearby surface now becomes part of the waveguide for that speaker which is not in the anechoic data, but can and should be accounted for.
You can guess where the bass rise should start, the slope, and how high it should be, but determining that via measurements will give more satisfying results.
@@joentell never thought about the critical distance but it makes sense thanks for that insight. when we talk about distance between the speaker and a surface, we mean near the actual drivers or any part of the speaker cabinet?
I would like to see independent/3rd party reviews/use cases of True Target...showing the process and the post eq measurements. So far every video ive been able to find involves the makers of True Target....essentially selling the product. (not saying there is anything wrong with that) just that it would be good to see some objective unbiased data.
So would I.
There is one very important factor that people miss in all of this. Depending on the SPL at listening position, the perceived FR will differ due to Equal Loudness Contour.
Everything needs to be taken into account. From the size and dimensions of the room, to the reflectivity in the room, to the directivity of the speakers, to the distance and positioning of speakers relative to each other and main listening position, to the distortion levels, listening preferences, as well as SPL.
I'm not a big believer in utilizing the equal loudness contour curves. I understand the concept behind this, but I don't think it's necessary when you have a proper target curve set.
It's similar to when people want to use a flat target at the MLP. They aren't accounting for the fact that our brain does processing of its own and trying to make it flat interferes with the brain's compensation methods. Same with equal loudness contour. Our brain understands that lower volume will reduce the perceived bass since that's what happens in reality.
@@joentell Regardless of what you believe, Equal Loudness will have an effect on perceived FR. If you use a target curve that is good for a certain SPL, it won't be as good or might even sound bad at a different SPL.
@@joentell SPL affects perceived FR. Our ears don't compensate for this.
@@thatchinaboi1Imagine if you could have someone play a kick drum at low volume and a snare at the same intensity in your room. If it were possible for them to keep the relative intensity the same and increase the overall SPL, you would find that the perceived bass is lower relative to the higher frequencies related to the findings of the equal loudness contour curves. But you wouldn't apply EQ to that live drummer. You would accept the fact that's how our ears work and it wouldn't sound unnatural since that phenomenon happens with everything in the real world. So yes, our brain does compensate for that.
@@joentell Sure, but that is a terrible analogy.
I have heard JBL play the M2 several times and it is nothing an audiophile would want.
The Harman curve is waaaaay better than the majoirity of "HiFi" speakers can manage. Don't complain about the Harman target. It might not be ideal for everyone but it's a great place to start. EQ is such a tricky thing to do well anyway and is both loudness and recording dependent.
What do you make of this quote directly from Dr. Floyd Toole:
"Let me state now: there isn’t, nor can there be, an ideal steady-state “target” room
curve. The room curve is a “result” of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex
semi-reflective listening environment, it is not a “target”.
If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests - if you see such a curve there is a good chance you have well-designed loudspeakers.That is all the so-called Harman curve is about. But misinterpretations and folklore have taken over."
audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-is-your-favorite-house-curve.2382/post-1970907
PDF
www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/room-eq-epistle-pdf.368171/
Others are calling it the Harman Target, but the man himself said he didn't intend it to be used that way.
@@joentell Ok. But I think we're all on the same page here. As stated, for a loudspeaker in a room the "target" is just a gentle downward slope with good linearity and no big deviations - so typically quite flat on axis response. Most rooms however, do have some bass issues which is why I prefer to use standmounts with a sub which gives me more control over the bass than with floor standers. I tend to listen near to mid fied because (a) I have a relatively small room and (b) because I want to experience mainly direct sound and avoid a lot of room interaction.I think that the idea of a "target curve" might be better suited to describing headphones. I like my headphones to sound not too different to my speakers and vice-versa, but that's just me.
@@davidcarr2216 I don't disagree that it's a good guess
I disagree and I think people here are mixing things:
If the SAME EQ is applied for different speakers it will surely result in a different frequency response at the listening position.
But room-correction is working by applying a CUSTOM-MADE EQ based on prior measurement specifically to reach the same frequency response at the listening position.
Just imagine you have two different light bulbs and you set the potentiometer switch (=EQ) to 60% then both of the light bulbs will have a different brightness.
But if you measure the light intensity at a certain position and set the potentiometer switch accordingly, then one bulb may run at 60% while the other at 45%, but the result (=the light intensity at the measured position) is the same for both.
This is called calibration and is common for many product types.
The room-correction (say Dirac) does just that: it measures the response at the listening position (Curve A).
Dirac applies the EQ filter to reach the target curve (Curve X).
Then you change your speakers and repeat the process.
Now, Dirac will measure a different response at the listening position (Curve B).
Dirac now applies a different EQ filter than before to reach the target Curve X.
In the end, the frequency curve reaching the listening position is Curve X for both speakers. And since Curve X = Curve X it sounds the same.
Limitations are:
Moving away from the measured position, the frequency response curves can be different due to off-axis and reflections.
If the speakers are physically not able to reach the target Curve X (e.g. low-bass extension) then they will sound different.
I am starting to gather that there is a major breakdown in terminology. I've watched dozens of Joe's videos and I'm still baffled at what his app is supposed to be fixing.
@christianlogler6547 - Your breakdown here is "how it works". While sure, (using your analogy), the light from the different bulbs might have slightly different color temps - they are going to be the same intensity. That's what room correction does - same frequency response, but perhaps there will still be some coloration from the speaker's timbre, etc.
@@fattmann the breakdown is not in my terminology, it's in some preconceived notions about what the microphone measures vs what we humans hear. After EQ, two totally different speakers can measure similarly at your listening position and still sound very different. The reason is because the mic is only measuring the combined response of the direct sound mixed in with the reflected sound aka steady state response. That is not how our ears hear. We have two which means we can hear timing differences and it allows us to determine which of the sounds is direct and which are caused by reflections. Therefore, things like the directivity index need to be taken into account.
When people begin to understand the difference, they'll understand why simply correcting speakers to have the same target WILL NOT give them the same sound at the listening position.
I mentioned in the video the difference between correction curves (or correction filters applied to a speaker) vs target curves. There's no confusion on my end.
@joentell, what @christiankogler6547 explained above is also the way I understand/ understood it, and your video did not clear it up for me. Your reply to his comment here does a much better job explaining it for me than the video. I would love to see a video where you go into more depth on this aspect.
After reading your response to the above comment, I am now becoming very interested in Magic Beans. Before, I was mainly finding that you went from explaining basic concepts to jumping to your principal conclusion without really explaining it. Intuitively, and based on your reputation, I think you may have a very promising and innovative product here that I would be willing to pay for. But I don't think you're hitting the mark yet in terms of explaining it to someone like me who knows a little about this topic but is far from being an expert. I think that might describe a large portion of your target market.
@@R00m1o1 I explained a lot of my response in Part 1 of my target curves videos. The fact that some of these counter to how most people think things work is why I'm trying so hard to explain these concepts and not just have a "trust me bro" approach. I'm explaining the psychoacoustic principles and showing the real-world measurements.
There can be no target curve for any speaker in any room until every song is EQ'd to sound the same with that curve
Your target only works with the music used to get your perfect sound and changes completely with the next song mixed by monkeys
(or the Rolling Stones)
If you Auto EQ a perfectly recorded Fleetwood Mac tune to match a flat pink noise profile, it can sound the same with or without that auto EQ applied as it was recorded perfectly to begin with
If you try that with a Rolling Stones tune, it can sound HORRIBLE as each track has an EQ curve that has no relation to the other tracks and should be left in its mangled missmatched state to sound its best
Other tunes may sound best when auto EQ'd 70 -80% of a flat response but no more (some Bob Marley tracks come to mind)
Leaving your music collection in it's original EQ'd state makes your speakers "Target Curve" worthless
Correcting the EQ of each song separately from your speakers "Target" curve is the only way to get to a true reference Target for any speakers in any room , otherwise it changes with the music you play
EQ'ing your playback system is your responsibility. EQ'ing the music is the mixing and mastering engineer's responsibility. A reference system will expose the issues in the mix. I agree that the mixing engineers should have their systems calibrated using the methods I'm recommending. We've started talking with some and they agree.
For old recordings, my recommendation is to have your target response set to an accurate reference based on pink noise. You can adjust on a per-track basis using a more global EQ method such as bass and treble tone controls. No need to remix every song.
@@joentell There is no "Global" EQ method for old recordings
Every song I have has been remastered for a flat "reference" response so that no further tweaking is required to sound its best with each individual speakers target curve
My other pet peave is headphone reviewers complaining about the stereo width when in actual fact, the problem lies with the reviewers themselves
The stereo soundstage width of all my reference stereo tracks are the same width on one specific reference pair of headphones
Reviewers often use a different amp then complain of the width
or they use a different song that is lacking in width and blame it on the headphones
or they use dynamic headphones that have phase problems or mismatched drivers, then praise them for their amazing width
Width and EQ should be the same for all reference tracks whether you are selecting a target for headphones "or" speakers
Usually a flat curve gives a flat (boring) sound
Because they're incorrect as target curves unless you're extremely close to the speaker. For most home theaters with listening distances 9ft+ away, it's a bad idea.
@@joentell yes, i’ve been a sound technician for years i was just commenting on the false idea that a flat curve gives the best accuracy. I recall in my years that every recording studio in France had a pair of Yamaha NS-10M speakers, not because they sounded good (they didn’t, but as monitors they were quite analytic and very detailled, but also very tiresome to listen on the long run), but every sound engineer knew how they sounded and they were used as a reference, you knew if your mix sounded that way on the NS-10, then it would sound that way in the end user home.
Too many words. Boring.
Ha! I'm sure it is for many people. The username checks out. 😁
Bro, we're not buying your garage band equivalent of a product. Stop selling 😂
I beta tested and love the results on both my systems. Will probably apply to my third system too.
What do you use? As long as you like it, I'm happy for you.
Who's we? Surely not the people who purchased the license for MB. So speak for yourself. Why insult my work though? This app has been 2 years in the making and I've dedicated a ton of time to it. Damn right, I'm gonna sell it! If you have an issue with the software then let's debate what you disagree with. Your comment isn't helping anyone. Just an attempt to insult me on my video on my channel.
@sammy1001 As a home theater enthusiast that has spent over 14k on my system and treating my room acoustics. I tried magic beans and it accomplished what I was looking for. My system sounds 10x better than before. It’s not some placebo effect, trust me I critically listen for every detail in my system. Not sure why you need to try and degrade someone else’s work. Joe created a great product and has every right to promote that product on his channel.
I tried MB True Target and and my system has never sound this good. I'm pretty happy with the results.