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.
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.
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.
These are the ones I have been using. I've generally stuck with the lappy_mctopface variant. I have no idea about the naming, but these presets have been good enough for me without much messing about at all!
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
You can actually extract the Dolby Atmos settings and run them under either EasyEffects or natively under Pipewire without EasyEffects, using the Python script at https://github.com/antoinecellerier/speaker-tuning-to-easyef.... (Tested on my Thinkpad, works great).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Would you be able to export and share your settings as a preset?
https://github.com/ceiphr/ee-framework-presets
These are the ones I have been using. I've generally stuck with the lappy_mctopface variant. I have no idea about the naming, but these presets have been good enough for me without much messing about at all!
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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-...
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
Maybe I should’ve said “never meant to be subjective” – I meant the target.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I wonder how much of this comes down to marketing… I keep coming back to Posy’s “Desirable Nonsense” video [1].
[1]: https://youtu.be/B_8HDPBfvHI
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
Omnidirectional electret mics are nearly dead flat right out of the box, and cheap.
> Would be sweet if it could use the microphone to auto-tune the speakers by playing audio and listening to the result.
https://peqdb.com/#speakers
You need an omnidirectional mic.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
The software driving them is good.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
I appreciate it’s more sophisticated than a simple 5-band e.q. - but it’d still be interesting to hear unprocessed/processed.
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.
You can duplicate that tuning
https://github.com/antoinecellerier/speaker-tuning-to-easyef...
Used this to get an easyeffects Dolby profile for my framework 13 pro, made the sound at least tolerable.
You can actually extract the Dolby Atmos settings and run them under either EasyEffects or natively under Pipewire without EasyEffects, using the Python script at https://github.com/antoinecellerier/speaker-tuning-to-easyef.... (Tested on my Thinkpad, works great).
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.
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.
Thanks. It's working for me, although I have to leave the GUI window open all the time now.