X-Curve History

Tips
X-Curve History by Tomlinson Holman
A History of the X Curve
The X curve celebrates nearly a quarter century of helping interchange in the industry.
In the history of multichannel sound, the standardization of the electroacoustic frequency response for monitoring
film stands as one of the most significant developments. It was standardizing the monitor frequency response at the
ear of listeners that provided for better interchangeability of program material, from studio-to-studio, studio-totheater, and film-to-film. Work started on formal standardization of the monitor frequency response for large rooms
for film in 1975 on both the national and international levels. The work resulted in the standards ANSI-SMPTE 202
in the U.S., the first edition of which was officially published in 1984, and ISO 2969 on the international level.
Actually, the standardized response was in use for some years before the formal standards were adopted.
The X Curve: The measured electro-acoustic frequency response presented to the ears of listeners in a dubbing stage
or motion picture theater. The curve is to be measured under specific conditions, and is to be adjusted for room
volume as specified in the standards referenced in the text.
The background behind this work began with Texas acousticians C. P. and C. R. Boner, who established in the 1960s
that a house curve was a needed concept. They showed that a flat electroacoustic frequency response in a large
room sounds too bright on well-balanced program material. This was subsequently found to be correct by other
researchers, such as Robert Schulein and Henrik Staffeldt, as well. While Boners practice was for speech
reinforcement systems that did not require theater-to-theater uniformity in the same way that film does, nonetheless
the concept of a house curve traces back to them. This development paralleled the introduction of 1/3 octave room
equalization, since there would be little point in establishing a house curve if sound systems could not be adjusted to
it.
Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories realized that the idea of a house curve was a valuable one after applying Dolby Atype noise reduction to optical soundtracks and extending the bandwidth of the track. While we think of Dolby A as
principally noise reduction of between 10 and 15 dB depending on frequency when used in a tape context, in the
case of the application to optical soundtracks, most of the advantage in dynamic range was taken to extend the
bandwidth. The ordinary mono Academy-type soundtrack had sufficiently low noise for its time only by imposition
of a strong high-frequency roll-off that made the effective bandwidth of soundtrack reproduced in theaters about 4
kHz. If such a track was reproduced with a wide-range monitor, the noise was excessive. By extending the highfrequency bandwidth of the monitor, and applying Dolby A NR to tame the noise, a very useful extension of
bandwidth from about 4 to 12 kHz was achieved, while lowering the noise a fairly small amount.
Then came the question of the best frequency response for the monitor. In an English dubbing stage, Allen did an
experiment with a nearfield, flat hi-fi loudspeaker vs. the farfield film monitor loudspeaker, a VitaVox. He adjusted
the frequency response by equalizing the film monitor until the balance was similar, although the monitor
loudspeakers of the day only extended to about 8 kHz before giving up the ghost. The electroacoustic response curve
Allen found measured with a microphone was flat to 2 kHz, then down 1 dB per one-third octave, to -6 dB at 8 kHz,
and falling beyond. This was named the X curve, for eXtended response, whereas the older Academy curve got
dubbed the N curve, for Normal response (although one wouldnt consider it normal today).
When extended-range compression drivers and constant directivity horns became available around 1980, the
question became, How should the X curve be applied to this new development? The new systems had a full octave
of high-frequency bandwidth over older systems, but delivered nearly the same output response across a range of
angles, rather than concentrating the response on axis as frequency went up as the older driver-horn combinations
did.

One theory floated in the middle 70s was that the need for a house curve was based on an artifact of the method of
measurement rather than a real need for sound to be rolled-off at high frequencies in large spaces. This was because
the quasi-steady-state pink noise stimulus measured by a real-time analyzer in a room is time blind, lumping the
direct sound, reflections, and reverberation together indistinguishably. If the different soundfields had different
responses, the pink noise stimulus plus RTA could not sort out the differences and would basically average all the
responses. Since the microphone is in the farfield of the loudspeaker where reverberation is dominant, then the
response with a collapsing directivity horn vs. frequency could be expected to be rolled-off at high frequencies,
since the contribution of all the off-axis angles would dominate over the direct sound. Nevertheless, in this
condition, the direct sound could be flat, and we might respond to the flat direct sound and ignore the later-arriving
response as listeners.
If we then were to change to a constant directivity horn, with its output more constant over all angles within its
coverage, and the system is tuned to a house curve, then it might be expected to sound duller than the older horns,
at least on axis at a distance. Thats because, under these conditions, both the direct sound and the reverberant sound
would be rolled-off and on the same curve. So one of the first experiments I did on this combination was to play
conventionally mixed program material over constant directivity horns equalized to the X curve to see if the sound
was too dull. It was not; in fact, with the bandwidth extension from 8 to 16 kHz, it actually sounded somewhat
brighter, but this was due to the extended compression driver response instead of having to do with the equalization
curve.
So whats going on here? This was later explained by Dr. Brian C. J. Moore, author of numerous refereed journal
articles on psychoacoustics and the book, An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. The rolled-off house curve
has a good basis in psychoacoustics, because a soundfield originating at a distance is expected to be more rolledoff than one originating nearby. It is a little like optical illusions in vision that show, despite occupying the same area
on the retina, pictures look bigger on a larger screen, even when a small screen is closer and takes up the same
horizontal and vertical angles. As it turns out, both spectrum and level are affected by the perception of the size of
space you are in, and getting it to match perfectly from large to small room in physical sound pressure level and
response does not result in sounding the same.
With the additional octave of high-frequency extended range of more modern drivers and horns came the need to
calibrate the X curve to the highest audible frequencies. Later editions of the SMPTE and ISO standards show the
roll-off to 8 kHz as originally standardized, but added rolloff from the extended curve in the bands above 8 kHz.
Some users dont employ this additional roll-off, staying on the original X curve to 16 kHz, but in an experiment I
did at USC, I found that following the letter of the standard was an improvement in high-frequency balance and
interchangeability of program material. This was done in a very sensitive experiment, reported earlier in Surround
Professional, that involved playing trailers in a large theater exactly as they sounded in the dubbing stage, with the
agreement from the people who had supervised their mixes that they sounded correct, and this involved eight trailers
mixed in a variety of studios. Both level and response standards had to be perfect to accomplish this, and just a 1 dB
error over several octaves that crept in during setup was heard, and had to be corrected.
Another development of the X curve is how it should vary with room volume. Although a variation in the response
with room volume was written into the original standard, further work shows that the response should be hinged at
2 kHz, and turned up at high frequencies in smaller rooms. Curves that extend the range out to higher frequencies
before breaking away from flat do not seem to interchange as well.
Today, the major factors affecting interchangeability no longer have to do with the target curve, since the X curve is
very well accepted, but rather have to do with how the curve is to be measured and adjusted electroacoustically. The
standard calls for such needed items to make good measurements of quasi steady-state noise as spatial averaging,
temporal averaging, and the proper use of measurement microphones. The largest variations among different
practitioners are in the use of microphones. The problem is that the soundfield seen by a microphone in a large room
is a mixture of direct sound, early reflections, and reverberation. Standard measurement 1/2-inch microphones
demonstrate very different high-frequency response when measured anechoically on axis and with a diffuse field.
Differences are on the order of 6 dB in the top octave between the two, and response in rooms is highly affected by
the differences between these two. Only by the use of small, low-diffraction microphones, such as 1/4-inch or
smaller diaphragm mics, are the differences kept small.

The best usage of measurement microphones today is to calibrate small ones for grazing incidence across the
diaphragm rather than perpendicular to the soundfield, because, this way, the microphone will demonstrate the most
similar response for the direct sound (across the diaphragm) and reverberation (a diffuse field). One of the primary
ways in which problems show up in this area is in the difference exhibited between sound originating from a moreor-less point sound screen channel vs. a surround array: 1/2-inch microphones make serious errors between these
two because the soundfields generated under the two conditions are so different.
The X curve now has nearly a quarter century of use and has absolutely acted to help interchange in the industry.
Combined with level standards, and de facto industry standards such as speaker directivities, the whole film industry
has benefited without a doubt. Problems linger in applying the standards uniformly due to different methods of
measurement. Also, when heard over a modern flat loudspeaker in a small room, program material balanced on an X
curve monitor sounds overly bright. Thats because the original experiment that set the curve was made many years
ago, without the frequency range available from todays components. This is not too important because, so long as
everyone agrees to use the same curve, then the response sounds the same to the mixer on the dubbing stage as to the
audience member in any auditorium. Interchangeability of X curve material with home video can be handled with a
simple re-equalization. The ATSC television standard recognizes the differences, sending a flag that tells receiving
equipment whether the program material was balanced on an X curve monitor, or on a flat monitor in a small room,
and home equipment can take appropriate action to re-equalize the program accordingly.
THE MYTHICAL X CURVE
The curve thats not a curve
By
John F. Allen
Of all the topics I have covered over the last 21 years, one of the most important
sometimes controversial is the subject of cinema sound system measurement and
equalization. Without a doubt, the misinterpretation of the present pink noise based
measurements along with the improper equalization that results, are two of the most
difficult and perplexing problems in world of motion picture sound.
Technicians are familiar with the drill. Microphones are placed in the theatre and
connected to a real-time analyzer. Steady state pink noise is played through each channel
of the sound system. Equalization adjustments are made to each channel until the
measurement of the pink noise, as seen on the analyzer, conforms to a specified curve
called the X curve. See Figure 1. Once this is completed, the sound system is deemed to
meet industry standards and everything will sound just perfect every time.
Right?
Well, not exactly. While these methods have been questioned by some and abandoned by
others, the majority of technicians have valiantly struggled to implement them. Though
sometimes successful with older theatre speakers, these methods have proven
unpredictable, particularly when used with modern loudspeakers. Technicians can
encounter channel to channel measurements that might differ as much as 8 dB in a given
1/3 rd octave band. Unfortunately, too few have recognized that it is simply impossible for
identical speakers in the same room to measure so wildly differently when they sound so
similar, unless the speakers are defective or the measurements are wrong.
As I have described in previous articles, the reason for these measurement difficulties
stems from the fact that real-time analyzers do not distinguish between the first arrival of
sound directly from the speaker, and the reverberation in the room. Our brains do make
such distinctions. Indeed we suppress some reverberations, focusing our hearing towards
the direct sound. By including the reverberation in the measurement, real-time analyzers
corrupt the relevant data we are really trying to obtain. The result is that the
equalizations done solely according to such methods are often nothing more than the
inverse of the reverberations accumulated frequency response being applied to the direct
sound. We typically wind up with a sound system in which none of the screen channels
sound the same, except that they often tend to sound shrill with poor bass. The stereo
image is reduced in both width and depth. Worst of all, the equalization can be so
radical, that some sounds, particularly dialog in loud scenes as well as a large percentage

of the background effects, are wiped out and never heard by the audience.
Despite its shortcomings, the pink noise based measurement method as well as the X
curve actually evolved from some excellent, though often misunderstood, work done by
Dolbys Ioan Allen in the 1970s. Theatre loudspeakers of that time suffered from both a
limited frequency range as well as a rather poor frequency response. Both of these
deficiencies can be helped, sometimes dramatically, with the careful use of 1/3 rd octave
equalization. In the 1970s, if one wished to take advantage of these benefits, a simple and
affordable method of measuring a loudspeaker in a theatre was needed. The relatively
inexpensive method using steady state pink noise was gaining popularity at the time.
Although it was later replaced with newer and far more costly methods such as the TimeEnergy-Frequency (TEF) system and other computer based systems, the cinema world has
stayed with it.
While pink noise can be very convenient when working with electronic circuits and
magnetic tape recorders, it has always been problematic when used with loudspeakers.
2
This is because by including the reverberation, loudspeaker measurements done with a
real-time analyzer do not always correlate well with the superior swept sine wave
measurements made in an anechoic chamber let alone what we hear. In addition, it was
quickly realized that when using pink noise, loudspeakers measured very differently in
rooms the size of living rooms and much larger rooms the size of theatres.
While a directional speaker that sounds right to the ear in a living room may indeed
exhibit a flat upper frequency response with a real-time analyzer and pink noise, such
will not be the case when a speaker is in a room the size of a theatre. When equalized with
pink noise to show a flat response in a theatre, speakers deliver sound with too much
treble. The resulting sound is unnatural, way too bright and impossible to listen to. This,
again, is due to the far greater reverberation of the larger room being included in the
measurement. Since there is more low frequency reverberation, the lower frequencies
appear to have a greater amplitude than the higher frequencies. Looking at such a
measurement on a real-time analyzer, the higher frequencies appear to be rolled off. See
Figure 1.
The X curve was an attempt to normalize the shape of such a measurement in a large
room. It resulted from measurements made of theatre speakers after they were equalized to
sound the same as a set of studio monitors placed at the console position. When the two
sets of speakers sounded as close as they could, the theatre speakers exhibited a frequency
response that was basically flat from 100 to 2000 Hz and rolled off at a rate of 3 dB per
octave above 2000 Hz, when playing pink noise and measured on a real-time analyzer.
Below 100 Hz, the X curve showed a roll off of these lower bass frequencies. But this
primarily due to the weakness of the older theatre speakers in the bottom octave. Rolling
off the bass a little would help prevent these systems from being overloaded and damaged.
It was also noted that larger theatres would exhibit a somewhat steeper high frequency
roll off, and that smaller theatres would exhibit a slightly reduced roll off of the high
frequencies. This finding was officially noted in 1990. Beyond that, there have been few
additional guidelines to aid technicians in the interpretation of these measurements and
the equalization of cinema systems.
Several years ago, the measurement system evolved with the use of four microphones
placed around the auditorium to pickup the sound. While some have steadfastly defended
this approach, in the final analysis it is no better than a single microphone pickup.
Different, yes. But whether one uses a single microphone or four, by including all the
reverberation, the resulting measurements are equally unreliable. While some have been
critical of the way cinema sound systems are measured and equalized, I think the real
3
disappointment is that as the loudspeakers have evolved, the methods employed to
measure their behavior in theatres have not evolved far enough or quickly enough.
Ioan Allens work of a quarter century ago was important and should not be understated.
It represented a valuable component in Dolbys efforts to introduce Dolby Stereo as well
as improve cinema sound. It later became the basis for the SMPTE 202-M as well as the

ISO-2969 motion picture audio standards. It also opened the door for many other
improvements in all aspects of movie sound and paved the way for the introduction of
wideband three-way loudspeakers as well as sound systems with a nine octave response,
first introduced to movie theatres by my company in 1979.
In fairness, since the original work on the X curve was done with older theatre speakers
having significant frequency response and frequency range limitations, it was impossible
to glean further insights into what the shape of the curve might be with full-range highoutput
loudspeakers in theatres of different sizes. Such speakers were unavailable at the
time. That has now changed and a lot has been learned. Indeed, both Ioan and I have
separately presented papers with similar findings on the varying shapes of the X curve.
That our findings are so similar is striking because they were arrived at with completely
different contemporary speaker systems.
4
In 1995, after 15 years of experience with three-way as well as four-way full range speaker
systems in movie theatres, I presented a chart that I called the Real X Curve, in
presentations to the International Theatre Equipment Association and the SMPTE. I later
published this advanced curve for the first time in BOXOFFICE in 1997. See Figure 2.
Among other things, this chart confirmed Dolbys early finding that the rate of the high
frequency roll off changes with the volume of the theatre and its reverberation time. In
addition, for the first time it also showed that the knee of the curve also changes
depending on the size of the room, and can be as high as 8 kHz before the roll off begins.
The Real X Curve also shows that real-time measurements of the frequencies below 100
Hz, are also room dependent. While some theatres will exhibit a slightly rolled off bass
region, many will show quite an elevated measurement in these frequencies. From this we
see that the practice of automatically and artificially rolling off these lower frequencies,
contributes to the lack of bass in many motion picture sound systems.
5
During the International Theatre Equipment Association technical seminars in 1999, Ioan
Allen presented his own findings on the characteristics of real-time analyzer
measurements of pink noise in theatres of different sizes. His findings were virtually
identical to those in Figure 2. His presentation also included so-called waterfall charts
showing how the shape of the pink noise measurement actually evolves as reverberation
accumulates over time and results in response curves of varying shapes. See Figure 3. The
bass build up below 100 Hz is also seen in this graph that he has kindly provided for this
article. He pointed out that the X curve itself is a myth. That is to say the high
frequency roll off seen when measuring pink noise with real-time analyzers does not
indicate a roll off in the frequency response of the sound system. He reminded us that the
roll off seen in such measurements is a result of the accumulated reverberation being
included in the measurement.
Now that the varying shapes of the X curve are more clearly understood, are we now fully
prepared to equalize cinema sound systems to perfection? Well, not quite. We have a
problem. Before we can properly equalize a sound system with pink noise, we need to
know what the shape of the curve should be for the particular theatre we are in, when the
response we actually hear with program material is flat. Determining that requires the
6
use of screen speakers with a flat on-axis frequency response. Since most high frequency
horns used in cinemas are the constant directivity type, with their own characteristic
rolled off high frequency response, finding the correct place for the knee of the curve for a
particular room is unlikely. Perhaps less difficult is knowing how the lowest frequencies
should measure. The best way to handle the frequencies below 100 Hz is to adopt a what
you see is what you get policy and do not equalize.
Another equally frustrating problem is the inability of the pink noise / real-time analyzer
approach to accurately convey what is going on in the frequency range from about 100 to
400 Hz. For the sake of simplicity, my own Real X Curve chart does not show how these
frequencies can sometimes measure at reduced amplitudes, rather than flat, in good
sounding systems. See Figure 4. In my experience, however, the actual shape of the

frequency response depicted by an analyzer in these frequencies is not consistent from

theatre to theatre, even though the sound systems involved may have the same tone.
Furthermore, the way speakers behave in these frequencies can be influenced by the room.
How they should measure with pink noise is also room dependent. Sound systems tuned
so that the analyzer shows a flat response between 100 and 400 Hz will often sound
bloated, boomy or honky, while others will sound fine.
There seems to be as many solutions to the challenges of tuning motion picture sound
systems as there are technicians and authors who choose to write about them. Readers of
this magazine are surely familiar with my approach. (See IF THEY KNEW WHAT YOU
WERE MISSING, PART 3 in the November, 1997 issue of BOXOFFICE. This article may
also be downloaded at www.hps4000.com/pages/special/missing.pdf.) It is, however, an
admittedly personal approach that relies on art as much as equipment. The proof of the
success of any technique is in the listening, however, not in the rhetoric. Those really
interested in learning what works best merely need to stick their heads in the different
rooms, setup different ways and hear for themselves. Fortunately, the differences are very
evident, making judgments easy.
A new measurement system is needed. Whenever it arrives, the inventors will surely find
themselves standing on the shoulders of Ioan Allen. Until we have a reliable method for
measuring what something sounds like, it turns out that his original approach to the
equalization of those older theatre speakers of the 1970s, remains the best solution to
tuning a sound system. By comparing the sound heard from theatre speakers to a known
high quality source, one can hear the difference and make adjustments accordingly. Since
there are still no such measurement methods, we will need to rely on our ears for
listening.