| ▲ | EasyEffects can improve laptop speaker sound quality(osnews.com) |
| 137 points by birdculture 16 hours ago | 52 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | toaste_ 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| EasyEffects can apply a generic improvement for most small speakers. Kittenlabs has a writeup of using Room EQ Wizard to measure impulse response of your specific speakers to create a proper correction. The results are pretty dramatic on a GPD palmtop. https://kittenlabs.de/blog/2025/04/06/gpd-pocket-4-speaker-d... HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43635295 |
| |
| ▲ | user_7832 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the links! I'd been searching (futilely!) for that HN post, I knew I'd seen it and wanted to use it for my framework too. If you haven't watched the video btw, I highly recommend it. It's quite amazing how much difference a bit of software can have. |
|
|
| ▲ | cassianoleal 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Last night I went through their guide on how to improve the sound of laptop speakers on my Framework. It's night and day, highly recommended. https://wwmm.github.io/easyeffects/guides/guide_1.html |
| |
| ▲ | maztaim 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've used https://github.com/cab404/framework-dsp for the preset on mine. There is also a guide from the author of the preset linked in their on how they came up with the presets. | |
| ▲ | brewtide 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just seconding this so other framework owners may give it a try. The speakers on my 13" are pretty bad, but using easy effects made them plenty "fine". Without, it sounded like absolute trash. | | |
| ▲ | mrdziuban 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would you be able to export and share your settings as a preset? | | | |
| ▲ | cassianoleal 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah exactly. They're still a far cry from a MacBook but at least it doesn't sound like it's inside a tin can. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | randomfinn 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > In fact, I’d take it a step further and urge desktop environments like KDE and GNOME to properly integrate EasyEffects into their sound settings. Another important integration point would be the system volume control. If you could EQ your speakers to near flat response, and then apply loudness based on the volume control, you would get great sound at lower volumes without compromising the quality at higher volumes. I do this currently with EasyEffects equalizer and loudness filters, but for best quality I need to keep the speakers and system volume at preset reference level and control the volume from the loudness filter volume setting. |
| |
| ▲ | mananaysiempre 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some time ago, I’ve come across an Asahi patch to I think Pipewire that tied system volume to a Macbook-specific loudness compensation filter, but I couldn’t figure out how to actually make use of it outside of their environment. |
|
|
| ▲ | jurf 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Third, audio quality is deeply subjective, and what sounds good to my ears may sound like total garbage to yours. Interesting article (audio processing should be a standard OS feature), but I wish we'd stop doing this. Speakers were never subjective (unlike earphones), they’re supposed to be flat – “equalised”. At least if you want to hear the thing as it was mastered. I think it just hurts consumers in the end, as it validates snake oil in the form of various ”enhancements”, like image processing on TVs. It makes stuff really hard to compare and much easier to sell shitty hardware. Not that I’m opposed to improving shitty hardware with software, – quite the contrary – it’s just the murky subjectivity that irks me. |
| |
| ▲ | majormajor 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Speakers were never subjective (unlike earphones) I don't think this has been true in my lifetime, at least. Some brands being known for "warmth" vs "brightness" is ages old, before the idea of audiophile earbuds was even a thing. At the extreme end, you can go back at least 40 years to see people with dedicated sub outputs and massively-oversized non-flat subwoofer setups. | | |
| ▲ | jurf 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure but they’ve always been mastered with the same setup, so the bar has not changed. And anything flavoured will not work universally for all types of music or other kinds of audio (like voice calls are really hard to understand with bassy speakers). | | |
| ▲ | ProfessorLayton 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mastering is done with the target in mind. There's tons of great videos by Masahiro Sakurai (Creator of Smash Bros.), one of which covers how they use typical household TVs to tune the audio/video for the game because relying on top-end audio/video equipment will result in worse results for the player. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ssl-3 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No speakers have flat frequency response. If that's the target (it usually isn't[1] even with very elaborate systems that include a great deal of DSP grunt, in my experience), then they all miss -- every single one of them misses. All speakers have resonances that add to the sound in ways that frequency response, alone, does not measure. All speakers also have imperfect dynamic response. All speakers have imperfect impedances, which can matter quite a lot to the power amplifier that drives them. All speakers have non-linear phase response. All speakers have different dispersion characteristics. All speakers then operate within acoustic spaces (like a room in a house) that introduce even more variables. [1]: https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/Dolby-Atmos-... | |
| ▲ | tgv 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Speakers, at least the great majority of them, are not flat. Can you not hear differences between speakers? Studio monitors typically aim for a flat response, but most barely make an acceptable approximation. And then we're not even discussing phone and tv speakers or the fact that a flat response for pure tones doesn't necessarily translate to one for complex sounds. | | |
| ▲ | jurf 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe I should’ve said “never meant to be subjective” – I meant the target. |
| |
| ▲ | redhed 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have heard that audio engineer's don't necessarily master to a flat EQ because such a small section of listeners are listening with a flat EQ. Most are using car speakers, airpods, etc so they master it based on those expectations. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | In my understanding, this whole thing is basically 1:1 with color spaces in display tech, except with pictures/video you at least get to encode what you targeted, versus with audio, you don't. Is this incorrect? | | |
| ▲ | redhed 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah that's pretty good way to put it, except I'd say the average person is using way better screens with smartphones than the quality of speakers/headphones their using. |
|
| |
| ▲ | doubled112 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The definition of sound quality tends to change between people. My definition is pretty much the same as yours here, but I know quite a few people who hate listening to music on anything with a relatively flat frequency response. | | | |
| ▲ | SomeoneOnTheWeb 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would speakers be any different than earphones? Botu are subjective ; I personally hate flat eq. I've listened to numerous products, some worth thousands of dollars, and I'll always take some sort of slight bass and treble boost over flat eq. I'll even take a big bass boost over no bass boost at all. | | |
| ▲ | namibj 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Earphones are forgoing the outer parts of your ears and skull. Speakers don't; a "good" speaker setup with eyes closed and no wind/perceptible airflow and no smell and truthful thermal radiation surroundings is effectively indistinguishable from the real place. Like, literally. It's not _possible_ with earphones because you can't not feel their presence without being numb on a good bit of your head. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tangent, but I found that a bass shaker / transducer massively improved my speaker experience without requiring a subwoofer. I built the subwoofer first, but it would annoy everyone around me and it was really spotty depending on its location, the exact layout of the room, etc. Slapped a bass shaker underneath me and it really completes the experience without annoying everybody else. |
| |
| ▲ | Giefo6ah 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why would speakers be any different than earphones There are various "ideal" EQ targets for earphones depending on what your model of an ideal audio source is. They all start with a flat response speaker, from then you can model: - Two speakers right next to the listener's ears. (flat) - A single speaker 1 metre away in the x axis, in an infinitely-sized anechoic room. (free field) - Two speakers 30 cm away pointing to a plastic torso at a 90° angle, in a room with reverberations. (B&K/Harman) - A spherical room lined with speakers, point listener in the centre with no reverberation. (diffuse field) - An infinite wall of speakers 1 metre away in the x axis. (another method for free field) - etc |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Animats 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It should self-tune, using a microphone to listen to tests played through its speakers, until it gets the transfer function right. |
|
| ▲ | kazinator 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Audio quality is deeply objective, sorry. Audio embellishments and distortions are subjective. Analogy: air quality. What is clean air is objective. Perfumes and aromas are subjective (one man's rose is another's skunk), but they objectively worsen air quality. |
|
| ▲ | oofabz 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would be sweet if it could use the microphone to auto-tune the speakers by playing audio and listening to the result. Microphones are not perfect but a cheap microphone has much better frequency response than cheap speakers. If you assume the microphone is perfect you will get a pretty good result, probably better than a generic "laptop speaker" preset would be. |
| |
|
| ▲ | downloadram 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i use EE on my parents tv (minipc connected to offline 4koled) to address the "movie too quiet then way too loud" for them but there is a cost, latency fortunately its not large enough to notice unless you already know (i.e. problem for me but not for thee) AND fortunately MPV .conf can set audio offset globally to sync everything nicely, so its not bothering them; but i disable it if im going to play games where i need split second audio cue/reaction the lack of vst support though, seems like a terrible oversight. obs audio filters with stacked vsts and routing filters can unironically do this programs job better because of the vst support, and depending on the setup choices, with better latency too |
| |
| ▲ | ssl-3 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's possible to run all of the audio output on a Linux box through a VST, if you want that. For example: https://www.benashby.com/resources/pipewire-vst-carla/ Additional latency can also be dealt in ways that are probably good-enough for streaming/local media. Just make sure the audio output stack has a fixed latency and then adjust Kodi's audio offset to work with it. | | |
| ▲ | downloadram 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | carla!! of course how could i have forgotten, i tried to figure it out a few years ago when i was still new to linux but got completely lost on the basics thank you for the resource! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | delecti 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I had to go on a bit of a journey figuring out how to do anything useful with EasyEffects when I moved to Linux on my Microsoft brand laptop. I question the value of including it by default though. As the article notes, it's easy enough to install manually, and most people won't have any idea what to do to configure it usefully. Even after all my research and tweaking, my audio still has quirks that I don't even have the vocabulary for to be able to find fixes. |
|
| ▲ | fsuts 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Laptop Manufacturers fail to appreciate how much better their product would be with good speakers. Particularly in today’s age where everyone is streaming music or watching videos much more than before. MacBook Pro 16’s are great but most others suck. |
| |
|
| ▲ | tuvix 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I also often need EQ in the reverse situation, when I need less bass through my nice studio monitors when watching TV. Otherwise I’ll be watching Star Trek with dialogue at a normal volume and BOOM, the loudest photon torpedo you’ve ever heard. |
| |
| ▲ | bobson381 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're watching through VLC, you can set the mix to stereo in the audio settings - perhaps there's a similar setting you can find? Not sure if you've got the tv's optical going straight into an amp. Some stereo receivers also have a "night mode" that can do this, you might find an older cheaper one with pre-outs or similar. |
|
|
| ▲ | chrisco23 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not having an issue with laptop with subpar speakers, but I don't see any way of not using EasyEffects. I'm running Arch on a Beelink SER8 through a focusrite 2i2 and into my Sony stereo receiver, out to floorstanding speakers. At the moment I am just using a slightly modified variation of one of the common community plugins, LoudnessEqualizer. For better or for worse, my ears are so accustomed to this. Elsewhere I also use it for things like dialogue boost and it surely does feel like overkill then, but convenient. Now I am about to dig back into my Bitwig DAW, something I haven't done for many years, and dealing with all the issues around clean vs EasyEffects-modified sounds is daunting. |
|
| ▲ | coldblues 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Shout-out to the PEQdB Diamond Target and the IG955, iykyk. I use those EQ filters to make my music listening experience considerably better. Your audio equipment most definitely sounds bad by default and needs equalization. https://purl.stanford.edu/bp189zs9642 |
|
| ▲ | bch 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can't find any before/after audio samples - can anybody point any out? I'd have thought it's about the first thing you'd do to show off the differences (I get it - it might not (probably won't be (?)) be tuned for my particular speaker... Still wouldn't hurt to hear an example). |
| |
| ▲ | theokrueger 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | the DSP at play here is more than just an equalizer, and as such an audio file cannot be produced to illustrate the differences in a meaningful way to unknown target speakers | | |
| ▲ | bch 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I appreciate it’s more sophisticated than a simple 5-band e.q. - but it’d still be interesting to hear unprocessed/processed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pyrophane 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most windows laptops will do something like this by default to enhance the sound. Part of what ships as "Dolby Atmos" is some EQ-ing and normalization, with the default not being flat. It is just necessary to make those tiny laptop speakers sound half decent and not crap out all the time. |
| |
|
| ▲ | globular-toast an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does this make everything sound like those shitty gen Z speakers you hear everywhere these days? As someone into high end audio I really dislike that sound. |
|
| ▲ | ranger_danger 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Really wished it worked with pulse or alsa. My distro does not natively support pipewire out of the box and I'm not interested in changing my setup. |
| |
| ▲ | zorgmonkey 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I recommend trying out PulseEffects, my understanding is that EasyEffects is the same project they just did a rename of it. You might be stuck on an older version or something not exactly sure. | | |
| ▲ | ranger_danger 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks. It's working for me, although I have to leave the GUI window open all the time now. |
|
|