I am trying to measure the frequency response of different audio canals, e.g. tubes, hollow pipes etc.

My experimental setup looks like this: I generate an audio signal with a loudspeaker (Visaton WS 17 E 4 Ohm, datasheet: Datasheet loudspeaker which then passes through my device under test (e.g. the tube) and is then measured by a microphone (with a flat frequency response).

Unfortunately the output of my loudspeaker when measured directly (without the device under test in between) does not show a somewhat flat frequency response, on the contrary I see something like this. To obtain the graph I apply basic FFT to the output data of the microphone.

Frequency response speaker

The input signals I am using are sine sweeps and white noise. Both results in very similar results. The same applies to the audio amplifier I am using, switching to a different one changed nothing. I therefore do not believe these two to be the issue.

I wonder now what I can do to obtain sensible results after the FFT. Do you have an idea how I can either improve the output of my loudspeaker respectively what causes the peaks and valleys in it? Alternatively, is there a way to kind of "subtract" the frequency response mathematically to obtain clean results?

I am very much looking forward to hearing any suggestions because I have already invested a lot of time and I am running out of ideas.

  • $\begingroup$ Random observation: the speaker will behave "better" if you place it in a cabinet (i suggest closed box, with sound deading fluff inside, a few liters volume). $\endgroup$
    – ghellquist
    Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 20:38

1 Answer 1


On a high level, your setup is:

$$X \rightarrow \fbox{$H$} \xrightarrow{X.H} \fbox{$DUT$} \xrightarrow{X.H.DUT} \fbox{$Mic$} \rightarrow Y_{measured} $$

where $H$ is the loudspeaker response. I'm assuming the $Mic$ response is flat.
You therefore need to compensate your measured response $Y_{measured} = X.H.DUT$ with the inverse of the loudspeaker response: $H^{-1}$

Devil is in the detail, and inverting a transfer function comes with its own set of problems, but your loudspeaker-only measurement looks "flat" enough to at least try that simple approach. Simply multiply your measured response $Y_{measured}$ by $H^{-1}$:

$$X \rightarrow \fbox{$H$} \xrightarrow{X.H} \fbox{$DUT$} \xrightarrow{X.H.DUT} \fbox{$Mic$} \rightarrow Y_{measured} \rightarrow \fbox{$1/H$} \xrightarrow{X.DUT} Y_{compensated} $$ or, in transfer function form: $$Y_{compensated} = X.H.DUT.H^{-1} = X.DUT$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. Absolutely, you have summarised what I was trying to explain in a more mathematical way. The microphone does indeed have a fairly flat response, it is small enough to be negligible in comparison to the loudspeaker.To obtain H−1, I have to divide the measured response by the original signal and then aplly an inverse FFT to it, correct? $\endgroup$
    – Scaty
    Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Scaty no, you have $H$ already (the loudspeaker-only response). Just compute $H^{-1} = 1/H$ then multiply the DUT response by that, effectively compensating for $H$ $\endgroup$
    – Jdip
    Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 10:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, as my input signal is supposed to have a flat response, my measurement should already be H. Sometimes when you think about a problem for too long, you don't see the simplest contexts anymore. I will try this now and hopefully it will solve or at least significantly attenuate my problems. $\endgroup$
    – Scaty
    Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 10:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.