New set-up does not sound the way it should.

[TheReturnOfJj]

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up. The problem I am having is that the sound does not come out sounding particularly "full". I have a feeling that it may have something to do with the bass. Could it have something to do with the bass cross over? I don't even know if that plays a role in a stereo set-up. Right now I have it set at 80hz. What would make the bass sound "fuller" raising or lowering it. Is it even disable with my speakers? I did the YPAO automatic set-up and played with various settings to no avail. My speaker stats are below if that helps. Any advice on enhancing my sound would be greatly appreciated.

Frequency Response: Lf Cutoff -10 dB, 32 Hz; (-6 dB) 38 - 23,000 Hz
Sensitivity (1w (2.83V) @ 1m, IEC-filtered Pink Noise, C-weighted): Anechoic Chamber, 86 dB; Typical Listening Room, 88 dB
Impedance: Nominal, 6 Ohms; Minimum, 4 Ohms
Input Power (RMS,Clipping < 10% of the Time): Recommended, 15-200 Watts; Program, 100 Watts
Crossover: 2,200 Hz, B3
Internal Volume Design Type: 0.50 cu ft (14 liter)
Dimensions: 8-1/2" wide, 15-3/8" high, 11-1/2" deep
Weight: 18.5 lbs. each

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up. The problem I am having is that the sound does not come out sounding particularly "full". I have a feeling that it may have something to do with the bass. Could it have something to do with the bass cross over? I don't even know if that plays a role in a stereo set-up. Right now I have it set at 80hz. What would make the bass sound "fuller" raising or lowering it. Is it even disable with my speakers? I did the YPAO automatic set-up and played with various settings to no avail. My speaker stats are below if that helps. Any advice on enhancing my sound would be greatly appreciated.

Frequency Response: Lf Cutoff -10 dB, 32 Hz; (-6 dB) 38 - 23,000 Hz
Sensitivity (1w (2.83V) @ 1m, IEC-filtered Pink Noise, C-weighted): Anechoic Chamber, 86 dB; Typical Listening Room, 88 dB
Impedance: Nominal, 6 Ohms; Minimum, 4 Ohms
Input Power (RMS,Clipping < 10% of the Time): Recommended, 15-200 Watts; Program, 100 Watts
Crossover: 2,200 Hz, B3
Internal Volume Design Type: 0.50 cu ft (14 liter)
Dimensions: 8-1/2" wide, 15-3/8" high, 11-1/2" deep
Weight: 18.5 lbs. each

What you need to do is set your bass management to full range. You don't have a subwoofer, and by setting the bass management to 80hz, your are sending your bass into nowhere.

Bass management is only to be used in the presence of a subwoofer.

[blackraven]

Ditto! You are running a 2ch rig not a multichannel home theater set up. Therefore you do not want to cut off the bass and you do not need the YPAO set up. In addition, those speakers will need a period of time to break in to sound their best. Probably some where between 20-100 hrs of play time.

[TheReturnOfJj]

How am I cutting off the bass?

[Glen B]

Deep, satisfying bass with most rock/popular/jazz music goes down to around 30-40Hz, and even lower with pipe organ music. When you set a crossover frequency as high as 80Hz, you're rolling off all that deep bass. "Rolloff" means the level of low frequencies decrease as you go downward in frequency range. One other thing, according to the speaker specs you listed, the LF cutoff is -20dB @ 32Hz, meaning the bass level is down 20 decibels at 32Hz. That is a pretty significant bass rolloff. You can try placing the speakers closer to the rear walls to help reinforce the low frequencies.

[TheReturnOfJj]

Does that mean I should go down to 60hz maybe even 40hz? 80hz was the default from the a/v.

[Glen B]

Yes go down to 40Hz, or 30Hz if available. Experiment.

[markw]

Learn to love your owners manual. Every receiver is different and nobody here knows the intricate ins and outs of every one.

That being said, find the appropiate menu/setting and set your subwoofer to "No" or "Off". This will route all the signal to your main speakers.

If that doesn't work, as a previous poster stated, set the crossover to as low a number as possible.

[BadAssJazz]

I just purchased a Yamaha RX-V673 A/V receiver, a pair of PSB G1 speakers, and a set of anticable speaker wires, for a stereo set-up.

Just curious: Is there a particular reason why you chose the Yamaha AVR over an integrated amplifier for your 2 channel rig?

[E-Stat]

Does that mean I should go down to 60hz maybe even 40hz? 80hz was the default from the a/v.
Like Sir T said, forget the crossover altogether. Using it to any degree simply rolls of bass.

Set speakers to "full range" with no cutoff frequency.

[Glen B]

On Page 64 of the Yamaha RX-V673 user manual, it states, in the LFE effects menu setup to select "front" speakers, so that all bass sounds are directed to the right and left front speakers.

[TheReturnOfJj]

I do not really know anything about amps. Plus, I like to have the possibility of upgrading my system down the road.

[markw]

I do not really know anything about amps.Now would be a very good time to learn, what with all this good advice being thrown at you.


Plus, I like to have the possibility of upgrading my system down the road.And you think other units will be less complex?

[TheReturnOfJj]

Like I said I don't know. And yeah, it is greatly appreciated.

[blackraven]

Did you get the problem solved?

[TheReturnOfJj]

Not really, I am considering trying the speakers on a different receiver. To see if there is something wrong with my equipment. I do appreciate all the help though.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not really, I am considering trying the speakers on a different receiver. To see if there is something wrong with my equipment. I do appreciate all the help though.

May I suggest that your expectation of bass quantity may be out of line with what the speakers can actually reproduce This speaker is -6 at 38hz, and -10 at 32hz which means the output of this speaker is falling quickly below 40hz. If you have them in a medium to large size room(or open space), the "knee" of the roll off would be much higher, and the falling off much faster as well.

If you want more bass, perhaps a subwoofer would be in order here. You could go back to the 80hz crossover, and potentially have more bass below that frequency. You could also set up the main speakers for best imaging, and the subwoofer for the best bass.

[StevenSurprenant]

On your remote there is a button that say's "Pure Direct". This sends everything to your front speakers bypassing all the other circuitry, including subs or any other speakers you have. This is strictly for 2 channel. In essence, your receiver becomes an integrated 2 channel amp.

If this still doesn't do it for you, I might suggest a sub running off of your Left and Right Front Pre outs. (This is for "Pure Direct" mode only) Do not use the Sub Pre Outs in this configuration. If you do, switching to "Pure Direct" will cut the sub out of the circuit.

Your other option with a sub, is to connect the Sub to the Sub Pre Outs and select the "Straight" button on your remote. This mode allows access to speaker configuration and tone controls, which you may have to adjust. The advantage of this configuration is that it works equally well for surround when you get your other speakers.

I hope this helps.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Setting the mains to full range through bass management, and going pure direct will accomplish exactly the same thing - it will send a full range unfiltered signal to the main speakers.

The OP ran Yamaha's auto equalization program, and that will benefit the overall sound of the system even if it is just two channel. If you use pure direct, that equalization will be defeated, and the OP will hear a less refined sound. While the auto EQ is not the best, it is better than nothing at all.

If you are going to use a sub, it is much more simple and easy to use the sub out or LFE out with bass management controlling the crossover point. Running a sub off the pre outs of the L/R mains(and old school two channel mentality) is overly complicated, and not necessary at all. Going this direction causes you to lose the precise high/low pass filters in the receiver which helps subwoofer to main speaker integration. Why make the setup more complicated than necessary, and still not get the best sound?

[blackraven]

Those PSB GB Speakers need time to break in. I would run them continuously for 8-12 hours a day for about a week and let the woofers break in. They are not going to give you deep bass. What they will give you is nice tight mid bass. Also, the GB's should have bass ports, make sure that the ports do not have plugs in them. Many speakers with Ports including some PSB models come with foam port plugs that you can use to tighten up the bass but they also decrease the bass. Removing the plugs will give you more prominent bass.

If you have all the settings correct with the Onkyo receiver, it could be that the receiver just does not put out much bass or it could be your music source such as your CD, DVD player, computer or mp3 player. Also try speaker placement. Moving them to the corners of the room will help with bass.

[StevenSurprenant]

If you are going to use a sub, it is much more simple and easy to use the sub out or LFE out with bass management controlling the crossover point. Running a sub off the pre outs of the L/R mains(and old school two channel mentality) is overly complicated, and not necessary at all.

Going this direction causes you to lose the precise high/low pass filters in the receiver which helps subwoofer to main speaker integration. Why make the setup more complicated than necessary, and still not get the best sound?

@ TheReturn0: In response to T's suggestion...

If you're just interested in 2 channel audio, then using the "Pure Direct" button and the L/R Pre-out for a sub, is the much simpler way to go (one button - 2 wires - no menu adjustments). Although I would suggest a sub with a sharp crossover slope. Many of the cheaper subs have a gradual slope and that makes it hard to integrate with your mains. An 18db slope should work well. Stay away from subs with a 6db slope.

If you are running your main speakers full range (Large), there is very little to gain by letting your receiver handle the bass. In fact, it might even make it worse since the sub's crossover point (with the control on the sub) can be more finely adjusted compared to what a receiver usually allows you to do. The only other thing is that going through the receivers circuitry you need to set your speakers up correctly. There is a slight learning curve here, but once you got it, you got it. The advantage of using the receivers circuitry for bass management is that it also allows you to use the tone controls. I should mention too that I have a Yamaha and while its auto adjust works well enough, I tend to adjust the EQ by hand for my preference.

Either setup will work well enough and we are splitting hairs on this issue.

Using the receiver to handle bass and setting your mains to "small" will set the crossover for both the sub and the mains, which is what T is speaking about. Whether it sounds better that way is a determination that only you can make. There is an added advantage of doing it this way and that is bass is removed from the mains allowing them to play a little louder, or lowering the amount of power the receiver needs to feed them during normal play.

With one set of speakers I have, I set the mains to small and used the receivers circuitry to split the bass. With the speakers I am using currently, I run them full range (large).

The bottom line is, what sounds the best to you...

We keep talking about a sub that you don't have. Without the sub gives you two choices for the present configuration. Run the receiver in "Pure Direct" mode or in "Straight" (On your remote) mode which allows you to use your tone controls. There are other options, but you can look into those later. I think "Straight" just bypasses your DSP effects.

As for your setup, go into your menu (if you haven' already done so) and shut off all of your speakers (including sub) except the mains (front). Then set the Front speakers to large. I assume you've already done this. Adjust your EQ (if you want) and you should be finished. There are other adjustments for movies, but this is all you need for music.

I noticed that your EQ is parametric... Great! If you already have everything set up and you're still not happy with the sound, try adjusting the EQ manually. This should really help.

There are many ways to do the same thing or variations, so there are will be omissions in what I've written. Otherwise, it would be confusing.

Good luck!

BTW, The only reason I brought this up in reference to T's suggestion is that there are many ways to skin a cat and many times the results are different. You're the boss here and only you can decide what works best for you.

I have a surround system set up one way. My 2 channel system is set up another way.

[markw]

Assuming you've done all that is suggested, like sending a full-range signal to those speakers, that woud lead me to question what you think it "should" sound like as opposed to what it "does" sound like.

I don't have those particular speakers but I do have a small bookshelf of the same class* and they do put out quite nice sound for what they are, given the realities of physics. In fact, They're one of my all time favorite speakers.

As others have said, mine will do a very, very credible job with music over most of the audiable range for music but when it gets down to the low lows, it peters out. Likewise, it won't produce chest thumping mid/upper-bass that some larger speakers will. That's to be expected from a passive speaker of this size. This means that for HT use or even the sub-bass notes some synth music produces, a subwoofer is going to needed to bring on the dinosaur stomps.

So, what do you mean by "the way it should" and what are you comparing it with?

* 6 1/2" 2 way Sound Dynamics RTS 3's being driven by 2 50 watt cannels of an old DPL receiver.)

[bobsticks]

What you need to do is set your bass management to full range. You don't have a subwoofer, and by setting the bass management to 80hz, your are sending your bass into nowhere.

Bass management is only to be used in the presence of a subwoofer.

^ this

[Mr Peabody]

Steven is correct, what Sir T said makes sense, but sometimes real world results don't make sense, all the Yamaha AVR's I've heard benefit greatly in "pure direct" mode for music. The break in period is a real event as well. I'm not familiar with PSB, I wonder if this receiver can drive them adequately. The expectation point is valid as well.

Yamaha aside, every time I've heard the auto set up programs used it resulted in a flatter response, I like this personally but I know others who will not turn it on preferring more of a bass hump, I try to explain to them your sub shouldn't be heard on a simple closing of a door but we also try to tell kids that their car stereo should have other frequencies than bass as well which mostly fall on deaf ears :).

I just recently set up my Artison sub where the amp has an EQ built in with microphone. I have one of the Carver CD's with a full frequency sweep. Before the EQ was ran I thought the sub sounded good but I could hear variations as the CD went up in frequency, after the EQ was ran I was amazed at how smooth that track sounded as it went up in frequency, it was quite a noticeable change.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I understand the idea behind pure direct, I also understand the reality of room acoustics. Putting a receiver in the pure direct mode is one way to skin a cat. But that cat skinning will result a less optimum result when room acoustics are taken into consideration. Bypassing a receivers video circuits is only helpful if those circuits are poorly shielded. We have no evidence that is the case with Yamaha receivers. What we do know is most rooms are not set up acoustically for good sound, and most people do not understand room acoustics enough to grasp how important it is. Hence why they brush aside its importance in favor of a direct mode, which has yet to prove it improves the sound. There is no doubt that taming peaks in modal frequencies(below 200hz) does improves the audio. That is the area where the room is louder than the direct output, and why the direct mode is less beneficial in that area.

Personally, I would rather go for the set up that produces the best sound, than one who's audibility is dubious at best. We are not talking about skinning cats, we are talking about getting the best sound from thus set up.

The importance of this is far from splitting hairs. It is only splitting hairs if you do not have a good understanding of room acoustics, and the role it plays in getting the best sound from your equipment.

[blackraven]

Here's a review on the GB-1's showing how speaker placement for these speakers can make a difference in sound-

AudioEnz - PSB G-Design GB1 (http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2008/psb_gb1.shtml)

[StevenSurprenant]

While I understand the idea behind pure direct, I also understand the reality of room acoustics.

It's been my experience that room acoustics are best treated mechanically first (with absorbers, diffusers, bass traps, and speaker positioning) and then, if needed, electronically. In fact, in some cases if the room isn't treated properly, no amount of EQ can fix the problem. A standing wave would be an example.

The other thing is that not everyone prefers a flat response. Many people hear it as dull. Considering that every speaker system sounds different and different in different rooms, there is no reference that can be achieved, so accuracy is a moot point. We do the best we can with what we have.

The very best sound I've heard is from good speakers, room treatment, and no EQ. I'm not saying that EQ can't improve that, but often enough, it can make it worse if not properly applied using testing gear in the process. This is beyond the scope of most home systems and their owners.

I should also add that using an equalizer to correct room reflections may correct it in one sitting position, but throw it off in another position.

The bottom line is that room abnormalities should be corrected by mechanical means and speaker abnormalities with EQ. This isn't a hard set rule since each affects the other from the listening position.

MrPeabody likes the results of AutoEQ in his system. When I run AutoEQ on my Yamaha, I find the bass is too strong so I tend to lower the bass to my liking. It's all a matter of preference and and I assume the equipment. I suspect that AutoEQ on my system is less than perfect, especially in the bass region. I do prefer a flatter adjustment compared to the smiley face EQ and any adjustments I make are usually very small.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's been my experience that room acoustics are best treated mechanically first (with absorbers, diffusers, bass traps, and speaker positioning) and then, if needed, electronically. In fact, in some cases if the room isn't treated properly, no amount of EQ can fix the problem. A standing wave would be an example.

Nobody would define room treatments as mechanic. They are passive in nature. You would be surprised at the sophistication of current auto-EQ programs. From at least one seating position they can tame the effects of a room born standing wave more precisely than a corner trap can.


The other thing is that not everyone prefers a flat response. Many people hear it as dull. Considering that every speaker system sounds different and different in different rooms, there is no reference that can be achieved, so accuracy is a moot point. We do the best we can with what we have.

Your comments here do not stand up to research. A flat frequency response is perceived as too bright, not dull. Why? Because of something called the Robinson-Dadson curve, which shows our hearing is less sensitive at very low, and very high frequencies.

Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Dadson_curves)

Fortunately the best EQ programs offer at least two curves, and some several. The reference is to start off flat, and choose a curve of your choice after that. Experience with these programs rather than guessing what they do is helpful.


The very best sound I've heard is from good speakers, room treatment, and no EQ. I'm not saying that EQ can't improve that, but often enough, it can make it worse if not properly applied using testing gear in the process. This is beyond the scope of most home systems and their owners.

Which is why we have auto-EQ doing this work for us. It just requires a calibrated microphone(included with the processor), and a camera or microphone stand to hold it.

Passive room treatment is great for non modal regions, but completely ineffective in the modal region where the room dominates what we hear. If this is the best you heard, then you need more experience with active eq combined with passive correction. Passive room correction in the non model region, and active electronic EQ in the modal region will lead to the best results. Dr. Floyd Tool, Sean Olive, and Dr. Geddes have all done white papers that confirm this.


I should also add that using an equalizer to correct room reflections may correct it in one sitting position, but throw it off in another position.

The same can be said for passive room correction as well. Also you would be very surprised how well Audussey MultiEQ XT pro, ARC, and Trinnov does on multiple seats. It can't make all seats perfect, but it makes them measure better than not using anything at all(or even all passive correction). Passive(mechanical is incorrect as wall based treatments don't move) treatment is very imprecise. You can put a absorber on the wall, and soak up frequencies that are not a problem. Passive room correction removes energy from a room imprecisely, and that is a fact. Auto-EQ and Parametric EQ can target a peak, and lower or eliminate it. Passive EQ cannot.


The bottom line is that room abnormalities should be corrected by mechanical means and speaker abnormalities with EQ. This isn't a hard set rule since each affects the other from the listening position.

You cannot correct poor speaker response with EQ, that is a fact. Trying to do so will effect the phase and transient response of a speaker. Not even auto-EQ can do that.

A smart person in A/V pulls from a wide tool belt, not a narrow one. Passive and electronic room correction is better than just passive alone, especially in the presence of broadband signals. The benefit of active EQ cannot be dismissed. It has the ability to tackle very specific frequencies, while leaving non offending frequencies alone. Passive room correction(panels, foam etc) cannot do that PERIOD - hence why it is better to use both, than just one.


MrPeabody likes the results of AutoEQ in his system. When I run AutoEQ on my Yamaha, I find the bass is too strong so I tend to lower the bass to my liking. It's all a matter of preference and and I assume the equipment. I suspect that AutoEQ on my system is less than perfect, especially in the bass region. I do prefer a flatter adjustment compared to the smiley face EQ and any adjustments I make are usually very small.

I think a lot of folks like auto-EQ which is why it is so popular, and found on so many receivers and processors. Yamaha's implementation of auto-EQ is decent, but not the best. However, it is better than nothing at all, and certainly better than a non precise all passive way of room correction. The reason it is so popular and widespread is because it does not require a broad extensive education in small room acoustics, which is much too complex for most folks to grasp. When it comes to correcting a room, the more tools you have, the better the results will be. All passive correction is not enough, and certainly not precise enough. Enough research and testing by Toole, Olive, and Geddes has proven this.

[StevenSurprenant]

Mechanical or Passive is semantics, not worth mentioning.


A flat frequency response is perceived as too bright, not dull.

That doesn't agree with my experiences nor that of many other peoples opinions. If you're saying that Flat lacks excess bass and that is what you are calling bright, then it is again semantics. I've never heard of anyone saying that flat sounds bright, until now.


You cannot correct poor speaker response with EQ, that is a fact.

EQ's cannot correct every aspect of speaker performance. That's not what it's for. There are unit's that can adjust all those parameters, but not a regular EQ. Everyone knows that.


I think a lot of folks like auto-EQ ... certainly better than a non precise all passive way of room correction... All passive correction is not enough, and certainly not precise enough.

All this is common knowledge, but hardly applicable to most people. Most people don't use "Passive" treatment, nor are they too concerned with EQ except to make their system sound the way they like.

Do you really think that most people, if they had tone controls and a "Flat" button that they would choose "Flat" most of the time? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. Why do you think Bose is so popular. He gave people what they wanted, not what some engineer thinks they should have.

I don't know why you're blowing this way out or proportion. I doubt that the person who started this post has any interest in this, let alone you and I going back and forth.

The fact is that the things you are saying are valid in a studio and in a high end home system, but has very little value for the average home owner. I would also suspect that adjusting an average system to the degree that you speak about would hardly be noticeable in most homes with most systems.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mechanical or Passive is semantics, not worth mentioning.

Perhaps it is just that you don't know the difference because there is one. A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate. I have never heard of anyone plugging in their room treatments
A passive device does not move or require any voltage to operate. Much like room room treatments. It is worth mention when you understand the difference.



That doesn't agree with my experiences nor that of many other peoples opinions. If you're saying that Flat lacks excess bass and that is what you are calling bright, then it is again semantics. I've never heard of anyone saying that flat sounds bright, until now.

Then you have probably been doing more talking than listening. Your personal experiences are not transferable and therefore not a reference for anything but a personal opinion. There is a right way, and a wrong way to use auto EQ, and some auto EQ programs are FAR better than others. In your case, it could well be user error and a lack of EQ precision - Yamaha's is not exactly an equal to Trinnov, ARC, or Audyssey when it comes to accuracy.

A flat frequency response is just what it states..flat. That means little or no deviation with the frequencies it is designed to work with - in this case 20-20khz. When you combine Robinson/Dadson's research with that fact(its called connecting the dots), then you can plainly see that there is no emphasis in the bass, it is flat. Our hearing becomes less sensitive at low frequencies, so that would mean a flat curve would be bass shy, and therefore perceived as bright, not dull. A dull system would not measure flat(it would have more bass), and there would be a noticeable de-emphasis on the high end. Measured flat is linear, and our ears are very non-linear in perceiving a linear measurement. It might be helpful for you to read Fletcher Munson/Robinson and Dadson curve rather than dismissing it.

Equal_Loudness_Contours (http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Equal_Loudness_Contours.html)

Notice these words

The curves are lowest in the range from 1 to 5 kHz, with a dip at 4 kHz, indicating that the ear is most sensitive to frequencies in this range. The intensity level of higher or lower tones must be raised substantially in order to create the same impression of LOUDNESS.

All of this is science not semantics. It is easy to dismiss it as semantics when you don't understand the science.


EQ's cannot correct every aspect of speaker performance. That's not what it's for. There are unit's that can adjust all those parameters, but not a regular EQ. Everyone knows that.

I don't think you can say EVERYONE knows this. This is a diffusive none scientific response of ever saw one. You would have to test the knowledge of everyone that has a sound system to verify this kind of vague diffusive response.


All this is common knowledge, but hardly applicable to most people. Most people don't use "Passive" treatment, nor are they too concerned with EQ except to make their system sound the way they like.

So this becomes a contradictory statement. If this was common knowledge, EVERYONE to some degree would be using both passive treatments and EQ. This is applicable to everyone that desires the best out of their system. Most people don't understand acoustics PERIOD, hence why passive treatments and EQ are not used in every system out there. We have not even discussed myths that are propagated as fact.


Do you really think that most people, if they had tone controls and a "Flat" button that they would choose "Flat" most of the time? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

Flat would not sound very good to many, and some folks don't like the crude effects of tone controls. So your question is unanswerable.


Why do you think Bose is so popular. He gave people what they wanted, not what some engineer thinks they should have.

He did not give people what they wanted, he shaped their perceptions using marketing to make them believe they were getting something they weren't. If he gave "people" what they wanted, then everyone would own a Bose system. You really don't understand what makes Bose so popular. It is a pinch of ignorance, all in one convenience, renaming and claiming technology that already existed, and effective marketing to non audio and videophiles. In other words, ignorance is bliss.


I don't know why you're blowing this way out or proportion. I doubt that the person who started this post has any interest in this, let alone you and I going back and forth.

Lots of people other than the OP will read this, and probably learn something in the process. Just because you are not, does not mean everyone won't. Why are you afraid of this discussion? Could it be not so sure footing on the issue?


The fact is that the things you are saying are valid in a studio and in a high end home system, but has very little value for the average home owner.

I think the average home owner would have to decide that, not you based on your assumptions whether they will or not. I know some average home owners that love great sound.


I would also suspect that adjusting an average system to the degree that you speak about would hardly be noticeable in most homes with most systems.

And you would be wrong entirely. Do you really think the average system would not benefit from improved room acoustics? Do you really think the average system would not sound better properly placed within the room? Do you really think the average person would not notice a bass peak that is removed from the seating position, or that imaging just improved because the speakers angles have been adjusted? I would say yes they would, I have seen it enough times to know you are completely wrong on this.

Anyone that has sound system whether it is in a studio, or somebody's living room could always use more knowledge about how to improve it. That is why people come here, to get knowledge on how to do so. The idea that you need to be in the studio, or have a high end system to benefit from acoustical improvements flies in the very face of Dr. Floyd Tools research on what sounds good to the average listener. One of his conclusion stated that if a person knew how (got educated) to make their system sound better, they would strongly pursue that goal. Apparently there are some average folks interested in great sound, or companies like Auralex, RPG Acoustics, and several other acoustical manufacturing companies would not be as large and profitable as they are. There are not enough studios or high ends installs to do that alone.

[StevenSurprenant]

This conversation is so stupid!


A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate

A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you keep bringing up the obvious like it's some revelation or secret. All this information is common knowledge. As for it's importance, it's hardly meaningful in most home environments.

I'm not going to play this silly game with you. You are getting way too far off subject and this tit for tat adds nothing to the thread subject. All the author of this thread wanted was to know how to get more boom from his box.

If you want to start another fight, go somewhere else. I'm not biting.

If you want to start another subject, re-post your last reply in another thread.

[StevenSurprenant]

A mechanical device has to have moving parts, and/or requires some level of voltage to operate. I have never heard of anyone plugging in their room treatments
A passive device does not move or require any voltage to operate. Much like room room treatments. It is worth mention when you understand the difference.


A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise. Therefore, you are wrong.



Then you have probably been doing more talking than listening. Your personal experiences are not transferable and therefore not a reference for anything but a personal opinion. There is a right way, and a wrong way to use auto EQ, and some auto EQ programs are FAR better than others. In your case, it could well be user error and a lack of EQ precision - Yamaha's is not exactly an equal to Trinnov, ARC, or Audyssey when it comes to accuracy.


Personal experiences is the reason why many of us come to sites like this. We can read the marketing that promises the world, but has little value. We can read theory, which is freely available all over the net, but has no value to the average person. For instance, I don't need to know how a car works to decide which car to buy. If I approached buying a car like you approach audio, I would have to have an understanding of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and material sciences just to get started understanding the basics. Except for people who make a living designing cars, none of this is important. The man on the street just wants to know, does it look good, is it comfortable, does it drive and handle well, what gas mileage does it get, and how much does it cost. To find the answers to these questions, we don't ask scientists or engineers, we ask people who actually drove these cars and listen to their opinion about their experience. To the average owner, all the science and technology that goes into every car is the last thing on their mind. The same applies to audio systems.



A flat frequency response is just what it states..flat. That means little or no deviation with the frequencies it is designed to work with - in this case 20-20khz. When you combine Robinson/Dadson's research with that fact(its called connecting the dots), then you can plainly see that there is no emphasis in the bass, it is flat. Our hearing becomes less sensitive at low frequencies, so that would mean a flat curve would be bass shy, and therefore perceived as bright, not dull. A dull system would not measure flat(it would have more bass), and there would be a noticeable de-emphasis on the high end. Measured flat is linear, and our ears are very non-linear in perceiving a linear measurement. It might be helpful for you to read Fletcher Munson/Robinson and Dadson curve rather than dismissing it.


Equal_Loudness_Contours (http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Equal_Loudness_Contours.html)



This is again common knowledge for anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time. We are all aware of how our hearing perceives the loudness of different frequencies at different loudness levels. That is why older receivers had “Loudness” buttons on their front panels. While, in most cases, it wasn't the best implementation, it did demonstrate an awareness of this phenomena. Do you really believe that in the absence of an EQ that the sound that comes out of our speakers is anything like these curves? These curves only relate to our ears ability to determine loudness and have nothing to do with anything else. In real life we hear sounds at levels that the curves show. We record and play back these sounds at the same levels as real life. We do not have to add some artificial curves to the playback unless there is a deficiency in the audio chain, such as poorly designed speakers. The reason why many of us like “Flat” is because it keeps harmonics at realistic levels relative to the fundamental frequencies that created them, hence sounding more like the instruments that created the sounds. Some people don't care about that, they just want to feel the bass thumping on their chest.


As you're fully aware of, if we play back our music at lower levels, we loose a great deal of the bass and treble. This is the reason why receivers had those “Loudness” buttons, it was meant to be used at times like this. Because our hearing is not linear, at lower volumes, the bass and treble are reduced, sometimes below the threshold of audibility while sound in the approximate range of 500 to 5k remains audible. While in a properly EQ'ed system, this sound is accurate relative to what live would sound like at this volume, our brains tell us that it's not right. So what do we do? We adjust our tone controls to what our brain says is more realistic, or we push that “loudness” button. It may not be technically correct in the pure sense, but it does sound a whole lot better to a lot of people.


There is also another issue that throws EQ out of whack and that is speaker dynamics. Some speakers keep their output linear at lower volumes and some do not do this very well. Also, heated voice coils don't react the same as they did before they got hot. So it's foolish to throw all your eggs in the same basket and think that EQ solves all the problems. There are many mechanical and electrical problems, and room effect problems with speakers that degrade the sound. In a decent speaker EQ is not a panacea that corrects all those ills.




Notice these words


The curves are lowest in the range from 1 to 5 kHz, with a dip at 4 kHz, indicating that the ear is most sensitive to frequencies in this range. The intensity level of higher or lower tones must be raised substantially in order to create the same impression of LOUDNESS.


All of this is science not semantics. It is easy to dismiss it as semantics when you don't understand the science.


I don't think you can say EVERYONE knows this. This is a diffusive none scientific response of ever saw one. You would have to test the knowledge of everyone that has a sound system to verify this kind of vague diffusive response.


So this becomes a contradictory statement. If this was common knowledge, EVERYONE to some degree would be using both passive treatments and EQ. This is applicable to everyone that desires the best out of their system. Most people don't understand acoustics PERIOD, hence why passive treatments and EQ are not used in every system out there. We have not even discussed myths that are propagated as fact.


Flat would not sound very good to many, and some folks don't like the crude effects of tone controls. So your question is unanswerable.


Knowing something and caring enough to do something about it are two different things. How many people want their living room to look like a recording studio or have a dedicated room just for that? Look at photos of systems that the members on this site have posted. You will notice that except in rare cases, none of these even remotely come close to being set up ideally perfect. In fact, most of them are not even remotely close. None-the-less, their owners are happy campers. So tell me again how important all this idealism is.





He did not give people what they wanted, he shaped their perceptions using marketing to make them believe they were getting something they weren't. If he gave "people" what they wanted, then everyone would own a Bose system. You really don't understand what makes Bose so popular. It is a pinch of ignorance, all in one convenience, renaming and claiming technology that already existed, and effective marketing to non audio and videophiles. In other words, ignorance is bliss.


Apparently you did not read about how he made his decision to go the route he did. To refresh your memory, he set up demo's using the most linear speakers he could get his hands on at the time and speakers that were far from linear. After running trials with many people, he concluded that most people preferred the sound that he based his entire line on and not on the most accurate sound. Go figure!, but it paid off in spades. I will concede that marketing has played a large role in his success, but it wouldn't have worked if people thought his speakers sounded bad. It seems that most Bose owners love their speakers, regardless of how inaccurate as they are.







Lots of people other than the OP will read this, and probably learn something in the process. Just because you are not, does not mean everyone won't. Why are you afraid of this discussion? Could it be not so sure footing on the issue?


Yes. Hopefully they will learn what's really important and what's overkill.



I think the average home owner would have to decide that, not you based on your assumptions whether they will or not. I know some average home owners that love great sound.


They have decided. That's why their systems don't dominate their homes and their lives.





And you would be wrong entirely. Do you really think the average system would not benefit from improved room acoustics? Do you really think the average system would not sound better properly placed within the room? Do you really think the average person would not notice a bass peak that is removed from the seating position, or that imaging just improved because the speakers angles have been adjusted? I would say yes they would, I have seen it enough times to know you are completely wrong on this.


Anyone that has sound system whether it is in a studio, or somebody's living room could always use more knowledge about how to improve it. That is why people come here, to get knowledge on how to do so. The idea that you need to be in the studio, or have a high end system to benefit from acoustical improvements flies in the very face of Dr. Floyd Tools research on what sounds good to the average listener. One of his conclusion stated that if a person knew how (got educated) to make their system sound better, they would strongly pursue that goal. Apparently there are some average folks interested in great sound, or companies like Auralex, RPG Acoustics, and several other acoustical manufacturing companies would not be as large and profitable as they are. There are not enough studios or high ends installs to do that alone.


Granted, every system could be improved, but not everyone is a fanatic about sound. I've heard a good many systems that hurt my ears to listen to them, but their owners were proud of what they had. People like yourself and other fanatics (like myself) are the only ones that care about these things. Frankly, I don't care about theory, or about equipment that is cost prohibited, or about turning my home into a recording studio. What I care about is good sound, at a good price, that doesn't dominate my home or my life. That is the real world.


You seem to think that everyone should tweak their systems to the nth degree and you also seem to think that everyone's audio goal should be the same. That's not dealing with reality.


I've played the game, tweaked the room, tweaked the equipment, and bored my friends and neighbors obsessing about this, but all this was for naught. The tweaks improved things to a small degree, but it wasn't earth shattering. I've listened to some of the finest equipment made for the home owner and in the end, I've realized that compared to live, reproduced audio is only a shallow reproduction of the real thing. Sometimes and in some instances, it gets close, but only for a moment. I've learned that my brain can close the gap somewhat between real and reproduced.


You seem to think that we're all a bunch of no nothings that require your expertise. That is hardly the way it is. While some of your posts are interesting, they are hardly earth shattering and are a constant repetition of what we already know. Once in a while you throw something into the mix that is new news, but not too often. This doesn't mean that I and others don't appreciate your contributions, we do, but many times you seem to be more concerned about being right than anything else. You are not always right, there I've said it.


When we were discussing turntables, you wouldn't listen to anything anyone had to say. You reported your thoughts on the issue which didn't coincide with my findings. I just received a new vinyl album and like all the albums before it, it sounds much better than the CD versions. Blame it on my equipment, my hearing, or anything else that pleases you, but if I had listened to you I would not be enjoying this new found treasure. That's why I don't believe everything you say. When it come to the real world, you are not always right.


Tell you what. Let's test your expertise. If you had $1,000 to spend on a complete 2 channel system, what would you buy? If you had $2,000 for a complete surround system, what would you buy? These are the types of questions that people mostly want the answers to. My questions are not rhetorical. What equipment would you buy?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A car muffler is a mechanical device, has no moving parts and uses no current. It's whole purpose is to reduce noise. Therefore, you are wrong.

Sorry, but you are wrong. A car muffler is a passive device much like acoustical materials are. An example of a mechanical muffler would be a noise cancelling one, of which there are little or none around. Just to understand how much a muffler is like room treatment read this:

Dissipative mufflers use absorptive materials that dissipate the acoustic energy into heat. Sounds like acoustical treatments to me, as they do exactly the same thing.

Mechanical muffler:

Active mufflers attenuate unwanted noise by adding sound to counteract it. The disturbances add algebraically, resulting in a cancellation of the unwanted sound. An active muffler consists of sensors (such as microphones), a controller, and actuators (such as loudspeakers).

Read more: muffler: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/muffler#ixzz2KXhuJC6i)

Not as up on mechanical versus passive as you would like folks to believe.






Personal experiences is the reason why many of us come to sites like this. We can read the marketing that promises the world, but has little value. We can read theory, which is freely available all over the net, but has no value to the average person. For instance, I don't need to know how a car works to decide which car to buy. If I approached buying a car like you approach audio, I would have to have an understanding of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and material sciences just to get started understanding the basics. Except for people who make a living designing cars, none of this is important. The man on the street just wants to know, does it look good, is it comfortable, does it drive and handle well, what gas mileage does it get, and how much does it cost. To find the answers to these questions, we don't ask scientists or engineers, we ask people who actually drove these cars and listen to their opinion about their experience. To the average owner, all the science and technology that goes into every car is the last thing on their mind. The same applies to audio systems.

Personal experience vary from person to person, and can hardly be relied on for anything but personal opinion. So your advice seems to be "rely on your lack of technical knowledge, and remain ignorant about how the things you purchase actually work". Buying a car, and buying a sound system are so different in nature that they cannot be compared in the way you are trying. It is a very poor example at best, and completely off the chart at its worst.


This is again common knowledge for anyone who has been in this hobby for any length of time. We are all aware of how our hearing perceives the loudness of different frequencies at different loudness levels. That is why older receivers had “Loudness” buttons on their front panels. While, in most cases, it wasn't the best implementation, it did demonstrate an awareness of this phenomena. Do you really believe that in the absence of an EQ that the sound that comes out of our speakers is anything like these curves?

Actually no, but what we hear from the loudspeakers does. The problem here is you cannot seem to separate a loudspeaker from an ear. A loudspeaker is a reproduction device, and our ears are capture devices. Different functions clearly. If you are SO aware of how the loudness curve works, then how did you get it so wrong. Flat equals dull? Not hardly, and totally contrary to Dr. Toole listening research. You keep saying this is common knowledge, but how come so many people (including yourself) seem to know so little about the subject, and how come so little is discussed on the subject on most forums? Because not many people understand, or are even educated on this topic of equal loudness, and room acoustics. You are bending the truth here...a lot.


These curves only relate to our ears ability to determine loudness and have nothing to do with anything else.

You forgot something here. It does not determine just loudness, it determines loudness versus frequency. I thought this was common knowledge?


In real life we hear sounds at levels that the curves show. We record and play back these sounds at the same levels as real life. We do not have to add some artificial curves to the playback unless there is a deficiency in the audio chain, such as poorly designed speakers. The reason why many of us like “Flat” is because it keeps harmonics at realistic levels relative to the fundamental frequencies that created them, hence sounding more like the instruments that created the sounds. Some people don't care about that, they just want to feel the bass thumping on their chest.

You have a penchant for skipping detail, detail that is supposed to be common knowledge. Have you ever heard of something called a "house curve"(based on your responses, or course not) It is a curve applied to a subwoofer(preferably) at it's lower end to compensate for what our ears perceive as a falling response(or flat response). That counters the effect of the equal loudness curve at lower frequencies, and keeps the speaker system sounded "flat" to the ears down to the lowest frequencies of hearing. Even the finest systems on earth need this curve, it is a ear issue, not a speaker issue. This is something you dismiss as a poorly designed speaker because you don't seem to understand Just how the ear/brain perceives sound at low frequencies.(or high frequencies for that matter).

This idea that a "flat" frequency response "keeps harmonics at realistic levels" is pure unscientific nonsense. Even with a non-flat speaker, the harmonics will never be louder than the fundamental. I know of no instrument whether amplified or acoustics that produces a louder harmonic than the fundamental. According to Dr. Toole's research of 10,000 listeners, our ears love speakers a flat frequency response from 40-12khz, with a rising response below 40hz, and a falling response above 12khz. This is why a house curve is "not some artificial curve" applied to playback, it is a desirable curve based on listening tests.

I thought this was common knowledge? I guess not.



As you're fully aware of, if we play back our music at lower levels, we loose a great deal of the bass and treble. This is the reason why receivers had those “Loudness” buttons, it was meant to be used at times like this.

Unfortunately manufacturers didn't pay much attention to hearing research, or they would have probably not designed their "loudness" response effects at 50 and 10khz - the frequencies that most "loudness" button effect. 50hz is too high to counter the effects of the equal loudness curve, and so is 10khz. They should have set them at 30hz and above 4khz.


Because our hearing is not linear, at lower volumes, the bass and treble are reduced, sometimes below the threshold of audibility while sound in the approximate range of 500 to 5k remains audible.

You are still off. The threshold for insensitive in the lower range is near 100hz.



While in a properly EQ'ed system, this sound is accurate relative to what live would sound like at this volume, our brains tell us that it's not right. So what do we do? We adjust our tone controls to what our brain says is more realistic, or we push that “loudness” button. It may not be technically correct in the pure sense, but it does sound a whole lot better to a lot of people.

Since I don't use tone controls(they are completely ineffective, and they sound unnatural) I cannot argue this point.



There is also another issue that throws EQ out of whack and that is speaker dynamics. Some speakers keep their output linear at lower volumes and some do not do this very well.

It does not matter if a speaker is linear at its lower end, our ears are not - hence why a house curve is necessary. That is not a EQ or not situation, that is a hearing situation.


Also, heated voice coils don't react the same as they did before they got hot.

This is a red herring statement if I ever read one. Woofers do a magnificent job of cooling themselves by the pumping action of the driver, and the heat absorbing properties of the stuffing behind the driver. The only driver that can be effected by heating is the tweeter, and you would have to drive the tweeter at near deafening levels before the heating of the voice coils changes its response.


So it's foolish to throw all your eggs in the same basket and think that EQ solves all the problems. There are many mechanical and electrical problems, and room effect problems with speakers that degrade the sound. In a decent speaker EQ is not a panacea that corrects all those ills.

I think one is even more foolish to dismiss EQ in the way you have. There isn't a single publishing acoustician that I know that would make a simple, silly statement such as this. No EQ is far worse than EQ'ing what needs to be. Dr. Geddes, Dr. Toole, Dr. Olive, Todd Welti all state that at least the subwoofer MUST be EQ'd to counter room modes at lower frequencies. I have stated nowhere in my posts that EQ alone was the answer to anything. I said WIDE TOOL BELT, meaning EQ, effective traps, and passive room treatments ALTOGETHER.


Knowing something and caring enough to do something about it are two different things. How many people want their living room to look like a recording studio or have a dedicated room just for that?

This shows just how far behind the times you actually are. A properly treated room does not have to look like a recording studio. Passive treatments these days can look like a fine painting, or make you think you are looking out of a window. In most of my rooms, you don't even notice they are there, because either it has been painted, or the fabric matched to the color of the walls. They can be installed in living rooms, and easily pass the WAF. You need to catch up, the world of acoustical treatments has passed your "experience" right by.



Look at photos of systems that the members on this site have posted. You will notice that except in rare cases, none of these even remotely come close to being set up ideally perfect.

Your fishbowl is way too small. This website is a VERY poor example to make any point on.


In fact, most of them are not even remotely close. None-the-less, their owners are happy campers. So tell me again how important all this idealism is.

That idealism separates a well designed and implemented system from a system set up by an uneducated, unknowledgeable amateur. That idealism separates mediocre performance from truly excellent performance. That idealism is the difference between the way you set up your system(with all of its pre-built in compromises), from a person who knows what he or she is doing, and has few compromises. One mans floor is another mans roof. I want to make sure that if I am somebody's floor, that floor would have to be on the edge of space.


Apparently you did not read about how he made his decision to go the route he did. To refresh your memory, he set up demo's using the most linear speakers he could get his hands on at the time and speakers that were far from linear. After running trials with many people, he concluded that most people preferred the sound that he based his entire line on and not on the most accurate sound.

Since we have no detail of his testing methodology, the equipment he used, or of the music preferences of the listeners, we don't know if he skewed listeners towards his designs by compromising the other design do we? But we do know that later testing done by the Canadian Radio Society(which had a huge sample size) conducted by Dr. Toole flies in the very face of Dr. Bose's design. Dr. Bose was looking for an effect, not good sound. The basis of his design was flawed from the beginning, as we do not hear reflections in our rooms like we do in concert halls. The paths are too short in small rooms, and the reflections are more dense because of that. The concert hall is the exact opposite.


Go figure!, but it paid off in spades. I will concede that marketing has played a large role in his success, but it wouldn't have worked if people thought his speakers sounded bad.

With his line of speakers, how can one address its sound? It more room than speaker


It seems that most Bose owners love their speakers, regardless of how inaccurate as they are.

They love the convenience and simplicity. There is no evidence they love them for their sound quality. If sound quality was the driving force of Bose, they would allow speaker to speaker comparison in brick and mortar stores, they would not be afraid to publish their speaker specs(try finding them anywhere), and they would not threaten to sue a magazines because of poor reviews of their speakers. All evidence here points to marketing driven sales, not great reviews of his equipment.


Yes. Hopefully they will learn what's really important and what's overkill.

Or what is over your head. We sometimes call things "overkill" when we don't really understand it, or uneducatedly think it is not important.


They have decided. That's why their systems don't dominate their homes and their lives.

Once again, a fishbowl perspective. Go to AVSforum.com and check out the systems there. Go to Hometheaterforum.com and check out the systems on that website. Go to Audioholics.com and check out the systems there. YOU have decided YOU don't want YOUR system dominating your house. Others don't care if it does.


Granted, every system could be improved, but not everyone is a fanatic about sound. I've heard a good many systems that hurt my ears to listen to them, but their owners were proud of what they had. People like yourself and other fanatics (like myself) are the only ones that care about these things. Frankly, I don't care about theory, or about equipment that is cost prohibited, or about turning my home into a recording studio. What I care about is good sound, at a good price, that doesn't dominate my home or my life. That is the real world.

Hence why you came here to complain about directional dialog(and blamed it on the source), then the dynamic range of the sources(when you listen too low, and have a high ambient level room), and then the loudness of the effects(oh really, at a peak level of 80db!! are you kidding?). It seems to me that your theory less unscientific approach has not served you well with all of these complaints.


You seem to think that everyone should tweak their systems to the nth degree and you also seem to think that everyone's audio goal should be the same. That's not dealing with reality.

Doesn't everyone want to get the best sound out their equipment? If not, why would they be here. They could just follow your wild wild west approach to it, and get the same poor results you got. Once again, there are some like yourself that like mediocrity, and there are folks like myself that love the best sound we can get out of our investment, and do mind going to the nth degree to get it.

That is the reality.



I've played the game, tweaked the room, tweaked the equipment, and bored my friends and neighbors obsessing about this, but all this was for naught.

Probably because you didn't know what you were doing in the first place. Since you don't like theory(you said this yourself), and it is VERY apparent you don't know the science of good reproduction - then all the great tools in the world are not going to help you one bit. Those tools only work if a person knows how to use them. In those hands, nothing is for naught.


The tweaks improved things to a small degree, but it wasn't earth shattering. I've listened to some of the finest equipment made for the home owner and in the end, I've realized that compared to live, reproduced audio is only a shallow reproduction of the real thing. Sometimes and in some instances, it gets close, but only for a moment. I've learned that my brain can close the gap somewhat between real and reproduced.

Your brain can do this IF the gap between the two is not that wide. Unless you compare a system to the live event at the same time, comparing a live event to your system reproduction capabilities is a useless exercise. Secondly, even expecting your system to sound like a live event is senseless and stupid from the get go. Our home systems give us one perspective. A live event comparison depends on how close or how far you sit from the sources. If you sit too far, you are not hearing the sources at all, but the room as a whole.



You seem to think that we're all a bunch of no nothings that require your expertise. That is hardly the way it is. While some of your posts are interesting, they are hardly earth shattering and are a constant repetition of what we already know.

Well Steven, you are hardly a person to judge this. What we have seen from you is that you don't even have a basic understanding of room acoustics, speaker room interaction, the loudness curve, how to get clean clear dialog without using two center speakers(which does not work), the difference between what the front speakers do, and what the surrounds do in HT, and this epic fail here;

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-theater-video/great-example-what-not-do-hometheater-38849.html


Once in a while you throw something into the mix that is new news, but not too often. This doesn't mean that I and others don't appreciate your contributions, we do, but many times you seem to be more concerned about being right than anything else. You are not always right, there I've said it.

All of this posturing is very telling. Once again, you are attempting to belittle my knowledge, and also pretending that you are more knowledgeable. Since I have already poked enough very large holes in your comments to drive a truck through, the reality is much different. You don't really know as much as you would like folks to believe, and you try and hide that by deflecting, or making statement that are vague and sometimes nonfactual. If you are going to posture in this way, at least be factual about it.

Some examples of this posturing;

http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/how-loud-do-you-listen-37742-2.html

Start at post #29

or this gem of responses

http://forums.audioreview.com/home-theater-video/monopole-dipole-surround-speakers-37265.html

Post #18 is particularly telling, but your response at #22 was even more telling. Couldn't debate the information, so it went personal.

During this discussion, you were wrong in several ways, but tried to make it look like you knew what you were talking about.


When we were discussing turntables, you wouldn't listen to anything anyone had to say. You reported your thoughts on the issue which didn't coincide with my findings. I just received a new vinyl album and like all the albums before it, it sounds much better than the CD versions. Blame it on my equipment, my hearing, or anything else that pleases you, but if I had listened to you I would not be enjoying this new found treasure. That's why I don't believe everything you say. When it come to the real world, you are not always right.

When it comes to this world, you haven't been right yet. So it is pretty difficult for you to make any statement about right and wrong. We weren't discussing turntables, we were discussing CD versus vinyl. From a recording and mixing engineers perspective, my points are well understood. On a personal level, everything is very subjective. I even supported my comments with links. What did you support yours with? Your opinion, which is different from person to person.



Tell you what. Let's test your expertise. If you had $1,000 to spend on a complete 2 channel system, what would you buy? If you had $2,000 for a complete surround system, what would you buy? These are the types of questions that people mostly want the answers to. My questions are not rhetorical. What equipment would you buy?

This is the dumbest thing I have read in a while(well not that long ago). This does not show ANY expertise at all PERIOD! I am astonished that you would post this to demonstrate expertise(well may I am not astonished). This is a matter of personal choice, not expertise. Do you know what expertise is?

I would not spend $1000 on a two channel system, it wouldn't be enough money to get the performance I want. $2000 dollars on a HT system is also not enough to suit my needs.

So back at ya;

1. Where is the proper starting placement of a subwoofer in a small room?

2. What is the best NC level for hometheater?

3. What are the worst acoustical problems for small rooms?

4. What it the ideal RT time of a HT room?

5. How does one get even bass over the entire room?

6. Can you read the results of a RTA measurement of a room if I give you an example?

7. Can you tell a nearfield measurement from a far field one?

8. Can you tell me how soundtracks are created?

9. Can you tell when its better to use diffusion or absorption based on measurements?

10. What is the proper delay time for the surround speakers relative to the front speakers?

Since I am sure you will be busy trying to google most of this, I'll give you some time. Some of this you won't find on google, but I am sure that since most of this is "common knowledge", you won't have any problems answering it.

[JOHNNY DRASTIC]

Hi JJ! Yup, putting it all together is really nutbusting. The people that have replied to you are giving you some great info. Most importantly, is to familiarize yourself with your new equipement. Go over all your manuals page by page, and give your system some time to break in! There is no way that with what you have, you are not able to produce a decent bottom end for your speakers. Speaker placement and room size have alot to do with this. Take the time to experiment. Do not get frustrated, it will cloud your pattern of thoughts, be patient, it will all come together. Also I noticed that your speakers have a 88db sensitivity and run from 6-4 ohms. Check the specs on your receiver to make sure you have enough amperage to run these babies. Understand that it is not all about watts per channel. This plays a small role. Wish I could be of more help. Good luck!

[BadAssJazz]

A great discussion to be sure, but I'm guessing that we lost the OP somewhere along the way. Ha ha!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Small observation here, and something I have suspected for quite a while. I notice that when online psychology is present, and certain individual jumps with both feet and hands. When subjective opinion is propagated, that same individual jumps in with the whole body. However, when things require objectivity, education, logic, and science, and the art, all we get is the crickets chirping so loudly, it is deafening.

Does not seem all that posturing works so well when those topics are discussed.

[recoveryone]

What?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? :)

[JStudrawa]

Terrence, his question is valid as people in my particular position have these limits. $2000 for a 5.1 system is definitely realistic. Not for you, but for the average consumer. We're looking for advice within our budgets.

I'd like to know what you would recommend, personally.

[Mr Peabody]

Hey, Hotlanta, I lived in Lithonia for a couple years back in the 90's. I forgot the name of the stereo store but I bought my first surround processor in GA, I think the store was close to Tucker. I bought a Yamaha Pro Logic processor with built in amps for center and surround. I enjoyed my time there except for the humidity.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, his question is valid as people in my particular position have these limits. $2000 for a 5.1 system is definitely realistic. Not for you, but for the average consumer. We're looking for advice within our budgets.

I'd like to know what you would recommend, personally.

If you want equipment recommendation from me Josh, your budget would have to be a lot larger than $2000. The pre-pro I would choose cost more than $2000.

[E-Stat]

I've never heard of anyone saying that flat sounds bright, until now.
Not trying to pile on, but I've made that observation many times in the past. Measured flat is intolerably bright to me at the top. Similarly, I don't like a number of *audiophile* speakers that are designed that way and have no HF contour to tame it.

Conversely, I do like measured flat at the bottom especially through the mid bass although some folks consider it thin if not played at extremely loud levels. I get the ear sensitivity thing, but boosted bass always sounds *boosted* to me.

[StevenSurprenant]

Not trying to pile on, but I've made that observation many times in the past. Measured flat is intolerably bright to me at the top. Similarly, I don't like a number of *audiophile* speakers that are designed that way and have no HF contour to tame it.

Conversely, I do like measured flat at the bottom especially through the mid bass although some folks consider it thin if not played at extremely loud levels. I get the ear sensitivity thing, but boosted bass always sounds *boosted* to me.

That's interesting. That wasn't my observation at all. If anything, it just seemed to lack bass, but after adjusting to it for a short while, it sounds more natural. I guess that we all hear differently.

I totally agree with the boosted bass. While I can enjoy boosted bass in someone else's system for a short while, eventually it becomes annoying. I find that when I adjust tone controls, I tend to reduce levels rather than raise levels. If I do raise levels, it's only about 1 or 2 db. Mostly I find that I am reducing the bass level. It's all about the midrange, too much bass makes voices sound muddy, too much treble makes instruments sound unnatural or voices too thin. Of course it all depends on the speakers. With good speakers, I find that trying to EQ them is a waste of time because recording quality varies to a much greater degree than any variation in speaker output. Also, with the equipment that I've owned, I've yet to find an analog EQ that didn't degrade the signal. I've tried digital EQ's that are very transparent, but there's no place for one in my system at this time, nor do I feel the need for one.

Your post makes me wonder about the necessity or importance of EQ'ing a system flat. If many people think it sounds too bright, that makes me think that this is something that we don't want. Also, it doesn't make sense to me that EQ'ing a system flat makes it sound unnatural. It seems to me that an accurate system should sound just like live, not bright or anything else.

[E-Stat]

That's interesting. That wasn't my observation at all. If anything, it just seemed to lack bass, but after adjusting to it for a short while, it sounds more natural. I guess that we all hear differently.

I'm in my mid fifties and definitely don't hear burglar alarms like I did when I was 18. Having said that, a triangle still sounds like a triangle to me. A cymbal still sounds like a cymbal. A bell tree still sounds like a bell tree. Sizzlingly bright speakers sound as artificial to me today as they did when I was a teenager. Which is why I was never a JBL fan. Boom, sizzle.


Your post makes me wonder about the necessity or importance of EQ'ing a system flat.
In the latest Stereophile, Kal Rubinson tests a new Marantz processor with Audyssey. He notes that while it does offer a flat profile, the default involves a gradual rolloff at the top. The Sound Labs have an HF contour that I always run at some level of attenuation. They can be flat, but I don't like the result.

As for the bottom, I have spent considerable time in the main system with speaker placement and a small forest of bass traps to achieve flat response below 200 hz. I value bass quality as much as quantity. I prefer hearing texture rather than mud and thud.


Also, it doesn't make sense to me that EQ'ing a system flat makes it sound unnatural. It seems to me that an accurate system should sound just like live, not bright or anything else.
Yet another instance where humans hear differently than microphones.

[Feanor]

...
Your post makes me wonder about the necessity or importance of EQ'ing a system flat. If many people think it sounds too bright, that makes me think that this is something that we don't want. Also, it doesn't make sense to me that EQ'ing a system flat makes it sound unnatural. It seems to me that an accurate system should sound just like live, not bright or anything else.
I want to reiterate that I agree with E-Stat that a flat response (as actually measured) is too bright. As I understand high frequencies are more likely to be absorbed by room furnishings as well as by purpose-made reflection absorption; so possibly a speaker that measures flat in an anechoic chamber won't be too bright in a real room.

In my own case I measured HF roll-off at my listening position as well as at 3' from each speaker though less in that the latter. So I used a digital equalizer (an add-in to my computer music player) to achieve a flat response. The result was unlistenably bright. I have a far more natural result rolling off the measured flat response by roughly 3 dB per octave beginning at about 4 kHz.

I don't know the answer for to why most (not necessarily all) recordings are made they way they are to sound too bright on flat systems, but the fact is they are.

As for the speakers themselves, years ago most speakers were made with attenuators for their tweeters (and mids if the speakers were 3-way). Again I don't know why consumer and audiophile speakers rarely have these controls today -- other than the fatuous notion that the speaker is made perfect and therefore will sound perfect in any environment. (I note that most "professional studio monitors" do have both HF and bass trim controls.)

[Mr Peabody]

Interesting that if "flat" is too bright the most popular pattern on EQ's back in the day was the "smiley face", this means most boosted the treble even more than flat which you all say is already too bright. Talking about sizzle :). Of course, we are talking about systems that were further from having the ability to be flat in the first place.

3dB down beginning at 4k is some serious roll off. I wonder if that's a Maggie thing as Blackraven had to tame his tweeters with resistance as well as further adjust by rolling tubes and picking equipment to mate with the Maggies. I think controls on a speaker would be looked down on from a purist point of view. With that being said Revel offers a treble boost/cut on their higher level speakers, it's very slight, .5 & 1dB, some would say this wouldn't make a difference or you couldn't hear the difference, I can hear the difference but whose to say how accurate the adjustment is, there is also a bass "contour" to allow a couple of adjustments when placing close to wals or cabinets.

I'm sure that if we analyzed live music the response would be far from flat no matter the genre.

I do not EQ my music system. I do use Audessey on my HT and find the result desirable for listening, it flattens the bass and brings out the midrange more, the highs seem fine with the flatter response. I do notice that my audio buds seem to like more high end than I do from comments made when listening to gear etc.

[StevenSurprenant]

I'm in my mid fifties and definitely don't hear burglar alarms like I did when I was 18. Having said that, a triangle still sounds like a triangle to me. A cymbal still sounds like a cymbal. A bell tree still sounds like a bell tree. Sizzlingly bright speakers sound as artificial to me today as they did when I was a teenager. Which is why I was never a JBL fan. Boom, sizzle.

... I prefer hearing texture rather than mud and thud.

Yet another instance where humans hear differently than microphones.

I'm totally with you on your first paragraph. That's how I see it and I also never liked JBL.

I was exposed to texture rather than mud and thud when I had my Quad ESL's. It's very addictive and, now a priority for me.

It wouldn't surprise me that we totally agree on what sounds good. I'm not sure if we're both arguing the same side of the same point.

[Feanor]

Interesting that if "flat" is too bright the most popular pattern on EQ's back in the day was the "smiley face", this means most boosted the treble even more than flat which you all say is already too bright. Talking about sizzle :). Of course, we are talking about systems that were further from having the ability to be flat in the first place.

3dB down beginning at 4k is some serious roll off. I wonder if that's a Maggie thing as Blackraven had to tame his tweeters with resistance as well as further adjust by rolling tubes and picking equipment to mate with the Maggies. I think controls on a speaker would be looked down on from a purist point of view. With that being said Revel offers a treble boost/cut on their higher level speakers, it's very slight, .5 & 1dB, some would say this wouldn't make a difference or you couldn't hear the difference, I can hear the difference but whose to say how accurate the adjustment is, there is also a bass "contour" to allow a couple of adjustments when placing close to wals or cabinets.

I'm sure that if we analyzed live music the response would be far from flat no matter the genre.

I do not EQ my music system. I do use Audessey on my HT and find the result desirable for listening, it flattens the bass and brings out the midrange more, the highs seem fine with the flatter response. I do notice that my audio buds seem to like more high end than I do from comments made when listening to gear etc.
I guess I' need to clarify that I didn't mean -3 dB at 4000 Hz but at 8000 Hz (one octave above) and at least -6 dB at 16 kHz (two octaves). Remember too that this is against measured flat, not against the unEQ'd sound. (The unEQ'd sound was down even more than my EQ'd above about 12 kHz.)

"Purists" tend to be misguided about a lot of things. And I use Audessey too in HT, which works very well indeed.

[StevenSurprenant]

Iwant to reiterate that I agree with E-Stat that a flat response (asactually measured) is too bright.
I don't know the answer for to why most (not necessarily all)recordings are made they way they are to sound too bright on flat systems, but the fact is they are.

...Again I don't know why consumer and audiophile speakers rarely have these controls today

Perhaps you hit the nail on the head... It's not the speakers that are bright, it's the recordings.

I've too noticed that the vast majority of recordings are too bright. I just kept wondering why they are recorded that way. I blamed it on a myriad of reasons, mostly poor studio gear/speakers or bad audio engineers. It didn't occur to me that it would be intentional.

There are a number of (many) recordings that are very very good and sound just right (perfect) on a flat system. I had always assumed that these recordings were just recorded well and the bright ones were recorded poorly.

[Feanor]

Perhaps you hit the nail on the head... It's not the speakers that are bright, it's the recordings.

I've too noticed that the vast majority of recordings are too bright. I just kept wondering why they are recorded that way. I blamed it on a myriad of reasons, mostly poor studio gear/speakers or bad audio engineers. It didn't occur to me that it would be intentional.

There are a number of (many) recordings that are very very good and sound just right (perfect) on a flat system. I had always assumed that these recordings were just recorded well and the bright ones were recorded poorly.


I assume -- perhaps wrongly -- that studios take measures to assure that their monitors sound flat from the mastering engineer's listening position. That being the case I for one wonder why so many recordings, certainly classical recordings, sound too bright on home systems are measurably flat.

Perhaps our sage & guru, Sir Terrence, could shed some light on this.

Some recordings are a lot worse than others to be sure. What comes to mind for me are certain older Archiv CDs that are hideously bright. (Parenthetically these were truly and completely unlistenable through my old, classically solid state, Phase Linear 400 amp; with my more recent amps they sound better though obviously still far to bright.)

[Mr Peabody]

In the beginning of CD the recordings were bright because there was little remastering for CD if any and the recordings were EQ'd for vinyl which made for a terrible transfer, hence, most audiophiles when CD hit were very slow to embrace the format. Now it's all about recording with the highest possible recording levels and/or compression. So between all of that we clammer for the good recordings, those recorded correctly and handled with care to the pressing.

[JoeE SP9]

I guess I' need to clarify that I didn't mean -3 dB at 4000 Hz but at 8000 Hz (one octave above) and at least -6 dB at 16 kHz (two octaves). Remember too that this is against measured flat, not against the unEQ'd sound. (The unEQ'd sound was down even more than my EQ'd above about 12 kHz.)

"Purists" tend to be misguided about a lot of things. And I use Audessey too in HT, which works very well indeed.

I agree with you on this. Years ago when I got a 12 band equalizer I used an LP with test tones and a Radio Shack SPL meter to equalize my system flat(er). It was intolerably bright and harsh. After doing some research (not easy in the days before the internet) I found that a 6dB per octave roll off centered on 16KHz made the sound subjectively much better. I set the 16KHz slider at -6dB. Because of the way the controls on an octave equalizer work this gave me roll off starting at ~8KHz. I continued to use the settings my measurements suggested for the lower frequencies.

When I visit someone with an equalizer with a smiley face I'm reluctant to ask for a listen. If that smiley face is coupled with some JBL's or Klipsch speakers I go out of my way to not listen.

The overly accentuated top end of many modern speakers coupled with my sensitivity to a harsh treble makes many newer speakers unlistenable to me. What I call the "hyper-fi" sound just doesn't work for me.

[StevenSurprenant]

Do you think this brightness is just the nature of speakers or that recordings are made too bright?

I ask this because some records sound just right at flat settings. Actually the very best recordings I have sound very good at flat, the rest, not so much.

It just seems to me that if care is taken setting levels during recordings that we should get (as much as possible) a faithful reproduction of the actual event. Yet, a number of you have reported a bright sound when your speakers are set flat. That should not be so. If the monitors used during recordings are set flat, you should hear the same thing at home.

Can anyone explain this?

In a nutshell... (thinking to myself)

I should EQ my system flat so it sounds like it did in the studio, but if I do, it will sound bright and harsh, so then I need to EQ it so it doesn't sound like it was recorded.

I just don't get it

[Feanor]

I don't get either. But in fact, (at least for classical music), measured flat is too bright for almost all recordings.

I wonder if engineers are assuming that in the typical home listening space high frequencies will be absorbed so records will sound dull?? And/or that typical consumer speakers roll off the highs?? If they think this, they are apparently wrong at least for many audiophiles.

I guess also that engineers listen in what is called "near field", i.e. the situation where most of the sound comes directly from the speakers rather than the typical home situation where much sound is reflected from room boundaries. This would relate to their possible assumption that they need more HF to compensate for room absorption. Anyway, they'd be wrong in case of a lot of us.

[StevenSurprenant]

We do know that engineers play with the sound for different reasons, like compression to make it sound louder, so it's possible that they do other things too. Back in the early years of stereo they used to have one singer coming from one speaker and another from the other speaker. That worked well for console stereos since the speakers were close to each other, but rather distracting in a normal set up today.

Off subject... A rather interesting thing about hard right/left is that with large diaphragm speakers, such as electrostatic speakers, the voices are large and with small bookshelf speakers, the voices can be rather small, but in both cases the voices are only as large as the box or diaphragm. To me, the larger diaphragm sounds better. If the voices contain some ambiance or reverb/echo, then the voices begin to separate from the boxes and appear to be coming from behind the speaker.

You might have something with your comment about near field listening. It might be too that a properly acoustically treated room (like a studio) requires more high frequency energy so they apply it during the recording, but you already said that. If this is the case, then they need to rethink this.

Many years ago I was in a friends Van which had carpeting everywhere and the stereo sounded dead. I could see how boosting the treble could help in this environment.

The mystery continues...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I assume -- perhaps wrongly -- that studios take measures to assure that their monitors sound flat from the mastering engineer's listening position. That being the case I for one wonder why so many recordings, certainly classical recordings, sound too bright on home systems are measurably flat.

Perhaps our sage & guru, Sir Terrence, could shed some light on this.

Some recordings are a lot worse than others to be sure. What comes to mind for me are certain older Archiv CDs that are hideously bright. (Parenthetically these were truly and completely unlistenable through my old, classically solid state, Phase Linear 400 amp; with my more recent amps they sound better though obviously still far to bright.)

One has to take in consideration that there is more absorption and diffusion in a recording studio than there is in our homes. Most electronic EQ is done below 200hz, and I have never heard of a studio tech doing EEQ above that. And here is a reality, most peoples system are not flat PERIOD! Most people throw up a 1" panel on the walls, and think they have accomplished something. A 1" panel will do you good above 1K, so now the spectral balance of the room has some highs sucked up, but nothing else is controlled. If you are going to take energy out of the room, it must be done in a broad band way, not at extreme's.

Another thing to consider is the studio monitors versus your own personal choice of speaker. I use either my Dunlavy SC-V's, or my ATC's for mastering my church's stuff.
That same recording is going to sound totally different being reproduced in a highly reflective room, with a ribbon or panel.

How many audiophiles use a RTA to analyze their room/speaker interaction, or a automatic room correction processing in their system? Not many, but my studio systems are calibrated before before each session(whether the need to be, or not), something that never happens at home.

These days most recording studios use subwoofers to augement the main system, or use full or extended range speakers. While the main system(or frequencies above 40hz) is flat overall, and house curve applied to the bottom end of the subwoofer or main monitors(not the console positioned ones) to maintain an overall spectral balance. The house curve compensates for our loss of hearing insensitivity at low frequencies. Without that house curve, a flat speaker will sound overly bright.

How many audiophiles apply a house curve to their system to maintain octave to octave balance in their system? None I would imagine.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

like compression to make it sound louder

Compression does not make anything louder, it gently rounds off the peaks of the signal. Aside from turning up a fader, the only thing that can make a signal louder is a expander.

So you understand. It was not compression that started the loudness war, it was severe limiting.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't get either. But in fact, (at least for classical music), measured flat is too bright for almost all recordings.

I wonder if engineers are assuming that in the typical home listening space high frequencies will be absorbed so records will sound dull?? And/or that typical consumer speakers roll off the highs?? If they think this, they are apparently wrong at least for many audiophiles.

I guess also that engineers listen in what is called "near field", i.e. the situation where most of the sound comes directly from the speakers rather than the typical home situation where much sound is reflected from room boundaries. This would relate to their possible assumption that they need more HF to compensate for room absorption. Anyway, they'd be wrong in case of a lot of us.

One of the things that always troubles me(and I took a poster on this thread to task for this) is that the end user always assumes it is what we do in the studio that causes all of the problem. You can only make this assumption if your system is perfect in every way, because let's face it, what we hear in the studio is the reference. What happens in the home is the crap shot.

The best studios I have been in(and mine as well) have been designed, setup, and calibrated so the speaker/room interaction is pretty darn close to neutral. How many people can say this about there own system? Not many, as it is hugely expensive to do this, and it start at the construction of the room.

How many folks pay attention to the NC levels in their room? I have not heard many audiophiles mention this at all.

How many audiophiles pay attention to the RT time in their rooms? Not many based on the forums I visit.

So it the brightness really in the recording, or the way your OWN system is presenting it? I would go for the latter with a caveat - not all recordings are perfect.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You might have something with your comment about near field listening. It might be too that a properly acoustically treated room (like a studio) requires more high frequency energy so they apply it during the recording, but you already said that. If this is the case, then they need to rethink this.

Perhaps you need to rethink your statement. Studios don't throw up treatments before they place the speakers. The speakers are modeled in the room, placed, tested, and then room treatment is added to make the room sonically neutral. IF they did it in the way you mention here, they would be blowing tweeters left and right trying to compensate for a overly damped room. The object is not to suck all of the highs up, but to neutralize the room sonic signature.

What is more likely is there is not enough absorption and diffusion IN YOUR ROOM, and that is why recordings sound so bright.

Why is that nobody wants to take a critical look at their own room and system? Is it because they don't want to admit that it is fundamentally flawed?

This is a prime case of deflection. Blame the engineer, his speakers, and his room for why recordings sound so bright. Ignore the fact that the problem is likely your room, and your speakers and their interaction with each other.

[Feanor]

...
How many audiophiles use a RTA to analyze their room/speaker interaction, or a automatic room correction processing in their system? Not many, but my studio systems are calibrated before before each session(whether the need to be, or not), something that never happens at home.

These days most recording studios use subwoofers to augement the main system, or use full or extended range speakers. While the main system(or frequencies above 40hz) is flat overall, and house curve applied to the bottom end of the subwoofer or main monitors(not the console positioned ones) to maintain an overall spectral balance. The house curve compensates for our loss of hearing insensitivity at low frequencies. Without that house curve, a flat speaker will sound overly bright.

How many audiophiles apply a house curve to their system to maintain octave to octave balance in their system? None I would imagine.
I use OmniMic (from Parts Express) to measure my stereo system. I measure each speaker at three feet. The measurement (with 1/6 octave averaging) looks like this for the right speaker, (it's very similar for the left) ...

9206

It seem to me for flat response I would need to set the inverse of the above to get flat response. The inverse looks like this ...

9207

Getting as close to this as I can I do get quite flat response -- however it sounds far too bright with almost all recordings.

So instead I set up my equalizer, (Electri-Q plugin for Foobar2000), for this effect ...

9208

The result is far more natural. My roll-off starts very gradually at about 2kHz but I'm down about 6dB at 10kHz and even more higher up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I use OmniMic (from Parts Express) to measure my stereo system. I measure each speaker at three feet. The measurement (with 1/6 octave averaging) looks like this for the right speaker, (it's very similar for the left) ...

9206

It seem to me for flat response I would need to set the inverse of the above to get flat response. The inverse looks like this ...

9207

Getting as close to this as I can I do get quite flat response -- however it sounds far too bright with almost all recordings.

So instead I set up my equalizer, (Electri-Q plugin for Foobar2000), for this effect ...

9208

The result is far more natural. My roll-off starts very gradually at about 2kHz but I'm down about 6dB at 10kHz and even more higher up.

The problem with this measurement is that you have a HUGE peak that gradually rises from 500hz to 2khz. 2khz sits right in the middle of where our hearing is most sensitive, and even if you roll of frequencies above that, you are going to still hear brightness.

IMO Bill, you probably would do better by using room treatments to handle the dips and peaks above 200hz instead of EEQ. I personally would never use EQ above 200hz. It puts you at the mercy of the quality of the EQ algorithms(which could be excellent or very poor). I personally would like to see the non-averaged measurement. Smoothing hides detail.

This measurement(and no offense) is not very flat even after EQ. If you look at the before measurement, and the after Audyssey measurement, you get a ruler flat response(in music mode) from 20hz to 20khz. Most well designed studios(pre house curve) are also extremely flat from 20-20khz. Can you see why you would get a different reproduction result from the difference between a great studio tuning, and what you get on your system?

[Feanor]

The problem with this measurement is that you have a HUGE peak that gradually rises from 500hz to 2khz. 2khz sits right in the middle of where our hearing is most sensitive, and even if you roll of frequencies above that, you are going to still hear brightness.

IMO Bill, you probably would do better by using room treatments to handle the dips and peaks above 200hz instead of EEQ. I personally would never use EQ above 200hz. It puts you at the mercy of the quality of the EQ algorithms(which could be excellent or very poor). I personally would like to see the non-averaged measurement. Smoothing hides detail.

This measurement(and no offense) is not very flat even after EQ. If you look at the before measurement, and the after Audyssey measurement, you get a ruler flat response(in music mode) from 20hz to 20khz. Most well designed studios(pre house curve) are also extremely flat from 20-20khz. Can you see why you would get a different reproduction result from the difference between a great studio tuning, and what you get on your system?
The huge peak you refer to is certainly a problem and is almost caused by room effects. Unfortunately my scope for installing room treatments is small for various reasons.

No offence for sure. I definitely get a much flatter response using the Electri-Q equalizer, i.e. I can get rid of the larger peaks at least -- BTW, I have NOT shown the final measured response 'cause I can find the read-out: I'll need to take it again. But one thing is for sure: when I measured a flat response the sound is far too bright. With the smoothly rolled off response the sound is a lot more natural.

I wouldn't hammer the subject except that my experience is a common one, maybe even a typical one. From what you say the "house curve" is the recording engineers' effort to accommodate a real world listening experience. On the other hand the too-bright results many of us get with measured flat response is apparently being ignored.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The huge peak you refer to is certainly a problem and is almost caused by room effects. Unfortunately my scope for installing room treatments is small for various reasons.

So can you see how what we hear in the studio which is uber calibrated, equalized for flat response( no more than 1-2db deviation) over an extremely wide frequency range, and room treated for sonic neutrality?


No offence for sure. I definitely get a much flatter response using the Electri-Q equalizer, i.e. I can get rid of the larger peaks at least -- BTW, I have NOT shown the final measured response 'cause I can find the read-out: I'll need to take it again. But one thing is for sure: when I measured a flat response the sound is far too bright. With the smoothly rolled off response the sound is a lot more natural.

I don't think the roll off is the crust of our discussion. Via Auddyssey, I can choose 5 roll off curves, or a uber flat response well beyond 20khz. The problem I see with most people who do the roll off is there is no complementary house curve provided for the bottom end. The house curve, plus the roll off creates the most natural presentation without all of the high frequency energy. A system that does the roll off without the house curve will still sound too bright because you have to compensate for the lack of our ears sensitivity at low frequencies. This is where a big speaker will have a solid advantage over a bookshelf speaker without a subwoofer.


I wouldn't hammer the subject except that my experience is a common one, maybe even a typical one. From what you say the "house curve" is the recording engineers' effort to accommodate a real world listening experience. On the other hand the too-bright results many of us get with measured flat response is apparently being ignored.

But you don't have a flat response. A flat response has very little deviation from the mean curve. I would say no more than1-2db from 40hz to 12khz. When you can get that kind of frequency response, then one can complain about brightness. When one fully examines their own system and room, then you can complain. But when you are in a untreated room with high frequency energy bouncing all over the place(dispersion not very well controlled), you cannot complain about brightness in the source - especially if we did not hear that effect in the studio when mixing or mastering. As I have said before, the studio is the reference. Everything else is a crap shot.


I measure each speaker at three feet

Bill, you are not measuring the speaker/room interaction from this distance - you are measure the speaker. When you want to get a good picture about how your room and speaker are interacting, you have to measure from the listening seat. That measurement from 3ft will be completely different from a measurement taken 6ft away.

Here is something to mull over. Too much high frequency energy can also be a lack of bass. The lack of one thing can perceptively effect another.

[Feanor]

...
But you don't have a flat response. A flat response has very little deviation from the mean curve. I would say no more than1-2db from 40hz to 12khz. When you can get that kind of frequency response, then one can complain about brightness. When one fully examines their own system and room, then you can complain. But when you are in a untreated room with high frequency energy bouncing all over the place(dispersion not very well controlled), you cannot complain about brightness in the source - especially if we did not hear that effect in the studio when mixing or mastering. As I have said before, the studio is the reference. Everything else is a crap shot.

I think I need to repeat that I corrected my unEQ'd response to flat, (OK, almost so: +/-2dB up to 15kHz). Flat is what sounded too bright. EQ'ing for smooth (as opposed to lumpy) roll-off fixed the problem.


...
Bill, you are not measuring the speaker/room interaction from this distance - you are measure the speaker. When you want to get a good picture about how your room and speaker are interacting, you have to measure from the listening seat. That measurement from 3ft will be completely different from a measurement taken 6ft away.

Yes, true, the measurements are different. But correcting either near-speaker or listening position to flat produced a too-bright result.

A pundit at AA, (Morricab), explained that the listening position response is a "power response", i.e. measures a total response which is direct+reflected sound. He argued (1) that the D+R response was rolled off in the HF in typical listening rooms, consequently (2) correcting D+R to flat will sound too bright because the ear subliminally distinguishes between to two and favors the direct.


...
Here is something to mull over. Too much high frequency energy can also be a lack of bass. The lack of one thing can perceptively effect another.
I will likely experiment with this. My question is, which range frequencies ought to be boosted to compensate for the ear's relative insensitivity?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think I need to repeat that I corrected my unEQ'd response to flat, (OK, almost so: +/-2dB up to 15kHz). Flat is what sounded too bright. EQ'ing for smooth (as opposed to lumpy) roll-off fixed the problem.

It sounded to bright because you did nothing to address the bottom end as well. It takes both a roll off, and a house curve to achieve a natural wide band frequency response. In my signature system, I could go flat, or have five roll off curve. Because I deploy a house curve, even if I use the music mode(flat) I still don't experience this brightness you speak about from my sources.



Yes, true, the measurements are different. But correcting either near-speaker or listening position to flat produced a too-bright result.

Disagree here, A flat response near speaker, is a slightly rolled off response at the listening position - that is unless your room is VERY small. Room reflections wiill combine with the direct output of the speaker which will result in a slight roll off of the highs.


A pundit at AA, (Morricab), explained that the listening position response is a "power response", i.e. measures a total response which is direct+reflected sound. He argued (1) that the D+R response was rolled off in the HF in typical listening rooms, consequently (2) correcting D+R to flat will sound too bright because the ear subliminally distinguishes between to two and favors the direct.

The problem with this is it does not address the arrival time of the reflections, or how loud they are. Secondly if there is not a sufficient window for the direct arrival, there is no way the ear will be able to distinguish the direct sound from the reflective sound. His comment is very simplified.



I will likely experiment with this. My question is, which range frequencies ought to be boosted to compensate for the ear's relative insensitivity?

I personally start at 40hz, and work my way down. At 20hz in my system, the response is +6 at 20hz. This takes a very powerful subwoofer with a pretty big excursion capabilities.

[StevenSurprenant]

Perhaps you need to rethink your statement. Studios don't throw up treatments before they place the speakers...

I never said that.



This is a prime case of deflection. Blame the engineer, his speakers, and his room for why recordings sound so bright. Ignore the fact that the problem is likely your room, and your speakers and their interaction with each other.

As I mentioned previously, I have many recordings that sound very good without any brightness. I have many more that are very harsh, or bright, or muddy sounding. Some have soundstages that are extremely clear and defined, while some are wallpaper. On others, the singer is front with the background far behind and then there are the ones where the singer is buried with the background.

The recordings that I have run the entire gamut of what's good and what it not. There doesn't seem to be a problem with my speakers sounding just the same with all recordings. If you're thinking that I think my speakers are perfect, then you would be wrong. I've never heard a speaker that didn't have it's faults.

It seems to me that since recordings quality vary so much, the prime suspect would be the recordings.

It also occurs to me that if this problem of brightness is fairly standard than it makes no sense to keep doing what you're doing. What you hear in your studio doesn't matter (even though it might be technically correct), it's what we hear at home that we consider the results of your effort . So you can continue to produce what you call technically correct, but if the masses have to keep adjusting their treble down or to dress our homes to look like recording studios, then you have failed in your job. This applies to all recording studios.

One more thing...

Back in my early days I tried using EQ's to adjust the sound, but since there was so much variations in recordings, what made one song sound better made another one sound worse. I gave up and sold the unit. I've tried many times since, with the same results. In the event that sound quality becomes standardized, I will revisit this. However, I just don't think I will live long enough for that.

[Feanor]

It sounded to bright because you did nothing to address the bottom end as well. It takes both a roll off, and a house curve to achieve a natural wide band frequency response. In my signature system, I could go flat, or have five roll off curve. Because I deploy a house curve, even if I use the music mode(flat) I still don't experience this brightness you speak about from my sources.
...
I personally start at 40hz, and work my way down. At 20hz in my system, the response is +6 at 20hz. This takes a very powerful subwoofer with a pretty big excursion capabilities. ...
I'll try some bass boost, but (1) 20-40 Hz is very far below where I'm presently starting my roll-off, and (2) I doubt that my modest subwoofer will handle much boost in this region; it's vented box wih -3dB at about 30 Hz.


...
Disagree here [near and listening position both bright], A flat response near speaker, is a slightly rolled off response at the listening position - that is unless your room is VERY small. Room reflections wiil combine with the direct output of the speaker which will result in a slight roll off of the highs. ...
Consistent with your point, my near speaker non-EQ'd measurement shows less roll-off, but correcting even that to flat is still too bright.


...
The problem with this, [Morricab's comments] is it does not address the arrival time of the reflections, or how loud they are. Secondly if there is not a sufficient window for the direct arrival, there is no way the ear will be able to distinguish the direct sound from the reflective sound. His comment is very simplified. ...
Maybe simplification is my recounting rather than Morricab's actual words. Anyway, his basic point is that, in general, direct is sufficiently distinguished from reflected that it's preferable to EQ base on the near-speaker rather than listening position measurement.

I' curious if it's fair to say mastering studio listening positions are typically more like near-field than the typical home room, that is, based no just on actual distance but also the heavily absorbent environment?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I never said that.

You don't have to say it, but the implication in your statement if fairly obvious.



As I mentioned previously, I have many recordings that sound very good without any brightness. I have many more that are very harsh, or bright, or muddy sounding. Some have soundstages that are extremely clear and defined, while some are wallpaper. On others, the singer is front with the background far behind and then there are the ones where the singer is buried with the background.

Wow, a basic generic comment, how profound. Any one can make this statement, it defines nothing.


The recordings that I have run the entire gamut of what's good and what it not. There doesn't seem to be a problem with my speakers sounding just the same with all recordings. If you're thinking that I think my speakers are perfect, then you would be wrong. I've never heard a speaker that didn't have it's faults.

If you have speakers that sound the same with every recording, you speakers are not very good, or your rooms acoustics are dominating what you hear. Your first statement is subjective at best. Your last statement is meant to bring your system(loaded with compromises) to the same level as a high end system with little or no compromises. I am not impressed with this level of bridging. You actually demean and demote a system with far more capabilities than yours. Do you really think your stereo system is the equal to Ralph's on this board? I don't think so based on what you have described.


It seems to me that since recordings quality vary so much, the prime suspect would be the recordings.

It seems to me that since the end user systems also varies so much, then it could be their system as well. You have a penchant for deflection, and Stevie Wonder can see this.


It also occurs to me that if this problem of brightness is fairly standard than it makes no sense to keep doing what you're doing.

It seems to me you would have to do a substantial research project to verify this statement. Since you have not, then it is BS and deflection. If you are listening to what folks are saying around here, your sampling is way too small to come to the conclusion there is a standard. BS somebody else, I am not buying, you are over selling your point as usual.


What you hear in your studio doesn't matter (even though it might be technically correct), it's what we hear at home that we consider the results of your effort .

This is quite frankly one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard on this issue. The studio is the reference. It is a single purpose room that does not entertain people, you don't serve dinner in it, and it does not have a WAF to satisfy. What you hear at home is all over the place. Most folks don't use treatment or bass traps to control model ringing, you don't use EEQ to correct room/speaker interaction, have non symmetrical walls, and have high NC levels. Since all of this is all over the map(using your brain if you can), how can one well calibrated room account for this level of variation? Take a moment, because I know this is going to be difficult for you to get.


So you can continue to produce what you call technically correct, but if the masses have to keep adjusting their treble down or to dress our homes to look like recording studios, then you have failed in your job. This applies to all recording studios.

And if the studio is patterned after your untreated, unequalized room with ZERO model control, Zero energy control, and extremely poor thought out positioning of the speakers, then you will never get a great recording. Another rather narrow minded statement. It is not up to the studio to come down to your level, it is up to you as a end user to come up to the reference(studio)level. You have this twisted, and that is based on your own personal ignorance.


One more thing...

Back in my early days I tried using EQ's to adjust the sound, but since there was so much variations in recordings, what made one song sound better made another one sound worse. I gave up and sold the unit. I've tried many times since, with the same results. In the event that sound quality becomes standardized, I will revisit this. However, I just don't think I will live long enough for that.

The use of EQ's begins with knowledge of how to read the measurements, tell room reverberation from direct output, take phase and time into consideration, and knowing just how to set up the measuring system for the right result. It also requires the right EQ system(10-12 band system won't cut it). You have shown no knowledge of any of this based on our discussions, so I blame user ignorance, and user error when it comes to your use of EQ.

Then you must be old as hell right now, because standardization has already occurred.

http://www2.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/SurroundRecommendations.pdf

While the thrust of this paper addresses mutlichannel audio, critical thinking by just removing the center and surround channels helps a lot with establishing a precedent from stereo as well.

[bfalls]

In the beginning of CD the recordings were bright because there was little remastering for CD if any and the recordings were EQ'd for vinyl which made for a terrible transfer, hence, most audiophiles when CD hit were very slow to embrace the format. Now it's all about recording with the highest possible recording levels and/or compression. So between all of that we clammer for the good recordings, those recorded correctly and handled with care to the pressing.

I worked in a tape replication facility when CD first came out. I'm not surprised CDs sounded much brighter. Tapes were recorded @32x for 8-track and 40x for cassette. At this speed (especially with cassette) the upper end of the frequency range was very close to the bias frequency. To prevent interaction the response was reduced at the playback unit by a minimum of 4db @ 20KHz using a real-time analyzer. CD didn't require bias, so when the same masters were used for CD they sounded much brighter. At the time audiophiles believed this was related to the digitization process and/or jitter. But I suspect more realistically (at first) it was from using master tapes from the studios tape mastering library.

I was also responsible for EQ of our A/B and QC rooms. They were all small rooms, about 10x10, which doesn't sound small until you put in all the gear which included 1/2" and 1" mastering decks, four JBL Studio Monitors (for Quadrafonic), amplifiers, 8-Track and cassette decks. They were treated on all walls, but no bass traps. Our rooms were EQ'd for a flat response within +/- .5db using reference tapes. The authoring is finished before we received them. The only changes we made was to either transfer a 15ips master to 7.5ips or occasionally add Dolby noise reduction (B & C at the time). Our goal was to have all playback and recording units EQ'd for a flat response. We wanted the output identical to the intput.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll try some bass boost, but (1) 20-40 Hz is very far below where I'm presently starting my roll-off, and (2) I doubt that my modest subwoofer will handle much boost in this region; it's vented box wih -3dB at about 30 Hz.

Bill, totally understand. When you implementing a house curve, you really have to take into consideration the excursion limits, and the distortion levels of the subwoofer into account. This is why I model any potential system I build before I buy any equipment for a specific room.



Consistent with your point, my near speaker non-EQ'd measurement shows less roll-off, but correcting even that to flat is still too bright.

That is because your measurement is too close, and is not reflective of what you will hear(or measure) at the listening seat. One foot deviation can change a measurement very profoundly - three feet even more. You cannot know what you will hear if you don't measure where you will sit. Room resonances are different based on where you measure, and that is why it is best to measure where you sit. I would also add that 1/6 accuracy is not enough. When I measure a room, I use the Sim 3 system which measures at 1/48 an octave resolution. This ensures I see every knook and cranny of what how my speakers and room are interacting with each other.

Secondly, you are only addressing frequency response, not model ringing(echo's of the source from various walls). This is why I recommend a big belt of tools for correcting room/speaker interaction. Bass traps, and acoustical panels do a better job of addressing model ringing than EQ does. Model ringing is a result of a poorly or non-treated room(acoustical control).



Maybe simplification is my recounting rather than Morricab's actual words. Anyway, his basic point is that, in general, direct is sufficiently distinguished from reflected that it's preferable to EQ base on the near-speaker rather than listening position measurement.

Once again, his statement is woefully simplistic and ignorant. When we listen in small rooms, direct and reflected energy is highly dependent on how far we are from the speakers, and how far the speakers are from the nearest reflective surface. If we are farther away from the speakers than the speakers are from the nearest reflective surface, then the early reflections will dominate what we hear. If our speakers are closer to us than they are to the nearest reflective surface, then the precedence phenomena kicks into place, and we hear more direct sound than reflective. You have to have a some level of time threshold(20ms) before the ear can distinguish the direct output of the speaker, from the first reflection from a wall(or ceiling). Without that threshold, the ear cannot tell the direct output from a reflection.


I' curious if it's fair to say mastering studio listening positions are typically more like near-field than the typical home room, that is, based no just on actual distance but also the heavily absorbent environment?

Let's face it, studios have the same amount of listening position variability as the home environment. It depends on the type of music being mixed, and whether the console mounted speakers are predominately used, or the soffit mounted ones are. There may be considerable distance between the two. The difference is the best studios are tweaked to perfection for whatever distance the mixer sits, and the home is not in most cases.

[Feanor]

...
That is because your measurement is too close, and is not reflective of what you will hear(or measure) at the listening seat. One foot deviation can change a measurement very profoundly - three feet even more. You cannot know what you will hear if you don't measure where you will sit. Room resonances are different based on where you measure, and that is why it is best to measure where you sit. I would also add that 1/6 accuracy is not enough. When I measure a room, I use the Sim 3 system which measures at 1/48 an octave resolution. This ensures I see every knook and cranny of what how my speakers and room are interacting with each other.

Secondly, you are only addressing frequency response, not model ringing(echo's of the source from various walls). This is why I recommend a big belt of tools for correcting room/speaker interaction. Bass traps, and acoustical panels do a better job of addressing model ringing than EQ does. Model ringing is a result of a poorly or non-treated room(acoustical control). ...
Well at least I can EQ for my listening position -- which is what I had originally done. My OmniMic programs is capable of a bit more than just amplitude response so I'll explore it's capability.


...
When we listen in small rooms, direct and reflected energy is highly dependent on how far we are from the speakers, and how far the speakers are from the nearest reflective surface. If we are farther away from the speakers than the speakers are from the nearest reflective surface, then the early reflections will dominate what we hear. If our speakers are closer to us than they are to the nearest reflective surface, then the precedence phenomena kicks into place, and we hear more direct sound than reflective. You have to have a some level of time threshold(20ms) before the ear can distinguish the direct output of the speaker, from the first reflection from a wall(or ceiling). Without that threshold, the ear cannot tell the direct output from a reflection. ...
I can say a couple of things about my speakers and room. My Magneplanar 1.6QR tweeter's beam at high frequencies (say above 2kHz), so I guess there would be less amplitude of horizontal reflections from them than from wider dispersion tweeters; and since these drivers are very tall relative to their width, I would also guess less reflection from floor & ceiling. Also the side walls that deliver the first reflections are partly covered by drapes.

[StevenSurprenant]

T

You want to blame every one else if your products don't perform to their expectations. You expect a world of people to acoustically treat their homes and EQ their systems because what you produce is perfect. There's not an iota of a chance that you could be right.

The way I interpret “flat” is that it implies (theoretically speaking) a perfect reproduction of the real event. For instance, in a perfect world, a recorded instrument should sound just the same as if the instrument were actually playing in our home. We shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a speakers reproduction or the real instrument sitting where the speaker is. Room acoustics would not have any impact on the comparison in this scenario.


According to many folks here, “flat” sounds bright. Assuming that the speaker and recording are completely accurate would imply that the same instrument would also sound bright in the same room. Since I've listened to “real”instruments in my home and in different environments, I find that they do not sound bright, nor, in many cases if not most, do they sound the same as a reproduction. My conclusion is that what we hear from our speakers is not accurate, plain and simple.

The fact is that the technology doesn't exist to perfectly recreate a real instrument in our homes. For instance, I had a friend playing their violin in my living room. I know how it sounds. The only way to reproduce that sound is to record the violin from all sides using some type of 3D recording technology that doesn't exist and playing it back on a 3D playback system that also doesn't exist. Anything less than that is merely a shadow of the original event.

I don't expect you to understand what I just said, but understand this... I realize that today's technology is "far" from perfect and you can only work with what you have. Because of that, my expectations of you is tempered. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect you to produce a product that sounds as close to our present days technology's capabilities as possible.

You, my friend, are not instilling confidence in what you say.

I would respond to the points of your reply to me, but much of it doesn't make any sense. You assume way to much implying that I said things or believe things which I have not said.

On one hand we have T who claims that his work and the work of all audio technicians, like himself, are perfect. On the other hand, we have a world of people complaining about the quality of recordings. Whom do you think I would believe?

Think about what you're saying...

It's the speakers fault, it's the rooms fault, it's the playback equipment's fault,...la de da de da...

Have you ever considered asking questions when you don't understand something. You assume a great deal about what people think.

[StevenSurprenant]

My speaker ribbons are tall and when I lower my head below them ( too tall to get above them) the output drops to almost nothing. I can barely hear them and they are crossed over at about 1k Hz. Like your Maggies, I wouldn't expect much floor or ceiling interaction.

From the sides it is a different matter and not like your Maggies at all. The Maggies (mine included) are very directional. Except for the reflections to the rear, I wouldn't think there would be much room interaction at mid to higher frequencies. Maybe that's why they sound as good as they do.

When I was testing the crossovers for my speakers I was about 15 feet or so from them and they were about 5 feet from a side wall. My tweets have a wide dispersion characteristic and so I was getting a strong reflection from the side wall. The reflection was so strong that the image that this single speaker produced appeared to be coming from between the speaker and the wall. I found that interesting. If anything else, it showed the importance of taming the reflections.

One final thing...

My Maggies mount on the wall so not much can be done with them, but when I had my Quads (with similar directional characteristics to the maggies) treating the wall behind the speakers produced the cleanest sound. It didn't take a lot of treatment for maximum benefits.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

T

You want to blame every one else if your products don't perform to their expectations. You expect a world of people to acoustically treat their homes and EQ their systems because what you produce is perfect. There's not an iota of a chance that you could be right.

And you expect a very well recorded and mixed product done in a sonically neutral room to perform flawlessly in your untreated and unEQ'd room, with a severely under powered amp, and medium efficiency speakers. So who's expectations are really off the chart here?


The way I interpret “flat” is that it implies (theoretically speaking) a perfect reproduction of the real event.

Do you know ANYTHING about audio? Flat is a reference to a frequency response of a speaker or amp, not of the performance on the source. I bet you think a butt is a brain.


For instance, in a perfect world, a recorded instrument should sound just the same as if the instrument were actually playing in our home. We shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a speakers reproduction or the real instrument sitting where the speaker is. Room acoustics would not have any impact on the comparison in this scenario.

Actually no it should not. You cannot make a comparison between a live event with thousands of reflections of various lengths to our own small rooms with relatively short and and much more dense reflections and zero audible reverberation(which defines the size of the room). You cannot expect 4-7 microphones to pick up those thousands of reflections in the hall(which gives it its liveliness), and two speakers to reproduce them all. If you are still comparing live to a recording, either you are stuck in ignorance, or you just don't have a basic understand of what separates the two.



According to many folks here, “flat” sounds bright. Assuming that the speaker and recording are completely accurate would imply that the same instrument would also sound bright in the same room.

Can you tell me brightness how an accurate recording mixed in a sonically neutral studio will sound the same in your untreated room with its own unique sonic signature, own resonances, own nodes? It won't, and you are showing that you are not using your brain here.


Since I've listened to “real”instruments in my home and in different environments, I find that they do not sound bright, nor, in many cases if not most, do they sound the same as a reproduction. My conclusion is that what we hear from our speakers is not accurate, plain and simple.

Then you have piss poor speakers Steven. Don't blame the recording for that. In my systems, a piano sound like a piano, and violin sounds like a violin, a cello like a cello, and the human voice like a human voice with its own unique sonic character.

You need better speakers.


The fact is that the technology doesn't exist to perfectly recreate a real instrument in our homes. For instance, I had a friend playing their violin in my living room. I know how it sounds. The only way to reproduce that sound is to record the violin from all sides using some type of 3D recording technology that doesn't exist and playing it back on a 3D playback system that also doesn't exist. Anything less than that is merely a shadow of the original event.

More ignorance of technology. 3D recording and playback has been around for decades in the form of ambisonic technology. For a guy who thinks he knows everything, the exact opposite is proving more true.

First, violins don't radiate their sound omnidirectionally at all frequencies, high frequencies are very directional, the mids less so, and the lower notes are omnidirectional. Secondly one omnidirectional microphone is all you need to capture the sound of a violin, and you sure in the hell don't need a 3D capture or playback system to hear one played back accurately. So your conclusion is just as flawed as your knowledge of audio in general.


I don't expect you to understand what I just said, but understand this... I realize that today's technology is "far" from perfect and you can only work with what you have. Because of that, my expectations of you is tempered. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect you to produce a product that sounds as close to our present days technology's capabilities as possible.

I realize that your speakers are far from perfect, and distort and degrade a perfectly good signal. I don't expect that you would be able to play anything back accurately, so I continue to dismiss any criticisms you would have of any source. Your system is not well set up, your room is full of issues, and your perspective is so far off the chart, it borders on foolishness.


You, my friend, are not instilling confidence in what you say.

And you my friend are showing your ignorance on steroids.


I would respond to the points of your reply to me, but much of it doesn't make any sense. You assume way to much implying that I said things or believe things which I have not said.

It does not make sense to you because you are woefully uneducated on acoustics and how to build a quality system. Get that education, and things will be much more clear for you.


On one hand we have T who claims that his work and the work of all audio technicians, like himself, are perfect. On the other hand, we have a world of people complaining about the quality of recordings. Whom do you think I would believe?

[quote]Think about what you're saying...

Follow your own advice. I never said anything about perfect, it does not exist. I said the studio is the reference, and everything else is a crap shot. Do you have the cranial capacity to understand the difference?


It's the speakers fault, it's the rooms fault, it's the playback equipment's fault,...la de da de da...

And you, its the recording always because my system and room are perfect in every way. Your room is untreated, and you don't use any form of EQ. Are you telling me room modes don't exist? Are you telling me that model ringing does not exist? What I am telling you is to address these issues before complaining about the source. A great recording will sound like crap in your room the way it is.


Have you ever considered asking questions when you don't understand something. You assume a great deal about what people think.

I prefer to wait till that individual with the diarrhea mouth just reveal it, and you have done just that. 6 watts of amplification with a speaker with 91dbs sensitivity is not going to get you much in the way of dynamics. An untreated room is not going to be that great for ANY playback system. An unEQ'd sub is not going to sound very good, and will not blend well with the mains. And yet with all of these issues, you still want to blame the recording? Deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection. This is your MO for sure. Take all of the focus off of my piss poor system and room, and beam all that energy on to the recording. Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling.

You make it so hard to take you seriously....really.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well at least I can EQ for my listening position -- which is what I had originally done. My OmniMic programs is capable of a bit more than just amplitude response so I'll explore it's capability.

Bill, you are still going to have a problem that EQ cannot address. The modal ringing which leads to excessive mid and high frequencies if not treated. Only room treatments can address that.



I can say a couple of things about my speakers and room. My Magneplanar 1.6QR tweeter's beam at high frequencies (say above 2kHz), so I guess there would be less amplitude of horizontal reflections from them than from wider dispersion tweeters; and since these drivers are very tall relative to their width, I would also guess less reflection from floor & ceiling. Also the side walls that deliver the first reflections are partly covered by drapes.

What about the front wall, back wall and floor? What about from 2khz and down where most of the energy in music is? Drapes don't do anything below 1khz unless they are extremely heavy and folded. Even if they did absorb some high frequencies, then you room energy is now out of balance. Furnishings help to a degree, but there is no uniformity in how they work. They could be absorptive at mid frequencies, and reflective a high frequencies. Only broad band treatments are effective at uniformly removing energy from a room.

The dispersion pattern of your speaker with is reduced sidewall and ceiling reflection really does not matter. Because once a signal leaves your speaker and strikes a surface(back wall, floor) it scatters everywhere. Your speakers are a dipole, which means they engage the front wall profoundly. Once it does that, the scattering begins, so it does not really matter if the dispersion is limited vertically or horizontally.

I am just throwing some things out there that perhaps you could address to improve your room's acoustics. EQ'ing alone will not work. EQ for the bass, and passive treatments for the mid's and high's(and to supress modal ringing) works. Think big tool belt on this issue, but I fully realize you have limitations as well.

[StevenSurprenant]

T

Let me ask you a question. As I said, my friend played their violin in my living room. Could you record what I heard and play it back in my living room so that I couldn't tell the difference between the actual instrument and the recording? You can choose any equipment you want for recording and playback purposes. Money is no object since this is just hypothetical. We talking about 2 channel stereo.

Forget that I asked. We established that this can't be done.

Personally, I think it can be accomplished with headphones as the playback equipment, an anechoic room fitted with a large array of mics to record the spherical wave front emanating from the instrument and player, a little computer magic, and the room acoustics super imposed on this. It can be a project for a future researcher.

There is a technology that already exists, using headphones, that claims to be able to reproduce your stereo as you hear it in your home. Supposedly, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between listening to your stereo with or without the headphones, at least that's the claim. When you puy the headphones on, the speakers shut off. Take the headphones off, the speakers come back on. They say that it sounds exactly the same with room effects acting both ways.

[StevenSurprenant]

And you expect a very well recorded and mixed product done in a sonically neutral room to perform flawlessly in your untreated and unEQ'd room, with a severely under powered amp, and medium efficiency speakers. So who's expectations are really off the chart here?

So what you're saying is a person needs inefficient speakers and a lot of power to have good sound?



Do you know ANYTHING about audio? Flat is a reference to a frequency response of a speaker or amp, not of the performance on the source. I bet you think a butt is a brain.

Flat implies that a sound (instrument?) is recorded so that the the amplitude over the entire frequency range is an exact copy of the original sound, db per db at every point in the spectrum.



Actually no it should not. You cannot make a comparison between a live event with thousands of reflections of various lengths to our own small rooms with relatively short and and much more dense reflections and zero audible reverberation(which defines the size of the room). You cannot expect 4-7 microphones to pick up those thousands of reflections in the hall(which gives it its liveliness), and two speakers to reproduce them all. If you are still comparing live to a recording, either you are stuck in ignorance, or you just don't have a basic understand of what separates the two.


I'm not talking about recording room reflections, only the sound of the instrument, something that might be impossible to do and even if it were, there is no way to play it back.


Can you tell me brightness how an accurate recording mixed in a sonically neutral studio will sound the same in your untreated room with its own unique sonic signature, own resonances, own nodes? It won't, and you are showing that you are not using your brain here.

Therein lies the problem. You create a recording that sounds good in the studio. If my listening room is acoustically treated in a manner that an average home owner with interest in audio would do and my speakers are EQ'ed, why would I not have nearly the same sound as in the studio? Why are so many people reporting brightness. Frankly, I don't hear the brightness that they are referring to.



Then you have piss poor speakers Steven. Don't blame the recording for that. In my systems, a piano sound like a piano, and violin sounds like a violin, a cello like a cello, and the human voice like a human voice with its own unique sonic character.

You need better speakers.

Really, better speakers? I hear the same things you hear, the piano sounds like a piano and so on, but certainly not comparable to the real thing sitting in my living room. I've listened to some of the best systems money can buy, (well... a few years ago), and none of them can compare to live. Admittedly, I've only listened to systems under $120,000 and most of them that I considered good were in the range of about $30,000 - $50,000. I've heard lower priced systems that were pretty good to. I would still not claim that any of these systems are the equal to live, it just isn't so. Well anyway, that's my reference and in some ways my speakers are better performers than some of these systems and in some ways not. Needless to say, while my homebrew speakers are fairly decent, I would never directly compare them to the best, I would be putting my foot in my mouth if I did.


More ignorance of technology. 3D recording and playback has been around for decades in the form of ambisonic technology. For a guy who thinks he knows everything, the exact opposite is proving more true.

That's not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about recording and playing back a instrument that is devoid of any room acoustics that it was recorded in and have it sound identical to the same instrument in the same room. The only sounds would be the instrument itself and it's reflections in the room that it is being played back in, just like the real thing.


First, violins don't radiate their sound omnidirectionally at all frequencies, high frequencies are very directional, the mids less so, and the lower notes are omnidirectional. Secondly one omnidirectional microphone is all you need to capture the sound of a violin, and you sure in the hell don't need a 3D capture or playback system to hear one played back accurately. So your conclusion is just as flawed as your knowledge of audio in general.

I understand this and that is the problem. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Try and record a violin without any reflections of the room it's in and play it back so that it sounds like the real thing in my living room. It can't be done. What a recording offers is a representation of the instrument and the sonic character of room it was record in. When I play "that" back, I get the violin, the room it was in, and the sonic signature of my room. It will not sound like my friend playing in my room.


I realize that your speakers are far from perfect, and distort and degrade a perfectly good signal. I don't expect that you would be able to play anything back accurately, so I continue to dismiss any criticisms you would have of any source. Your system is not well set up, your room is full of issues, and your perspective is so far off the chart, it borders on foolishness.

Again, really? Come on, you're pulling my leg, trying to hurt my feelings, aren't you?


And you my friend are showing your ignorance on steroids.

It does not make sense to you because you are woefully uneducated on acoustics and how to build a quality system. Get that education, and things will be much more clear for you.

Are you serious? ROFL


Follow your own advice. I never said anything about perfect, it does not exist. I said the studio is the reference, and everything else is a crap shot. Do you have the cranial capacity to understand the difference?

Reference, really? (again I find myself saying that) I've got a stack of recording that tell me just the opposite. They all sound different and they all vary in quality. Now if you were to tell my that the best recordings I have are of reference quality, then you would also be saying that most studios throw the reference to the wind. I will admit that my very best ones are very very good.


And you, its the recording always because my system and room are perfect in every way. Your room is untreated, and you don't use any form of EQ. Are you telling me room modes don't exist? Are you telling me that model ringing does not exist? What I am telling you is to address these issues before complaining about the source. A great recording will sound like crap in your room the way it is.

Again, I repeat myself. My best recording are very very good. I sit in awe at how it sounds and what it does to my emotional being. This is without EQ and only modest room adjustments.


I prefer to wait till that individual with the diarrhea mouth just reveal it, and you have done just that. 6 watts of amplification with a speaker with 91dbs sensitivity is not going to get you much in the way of dynamics. An untreated room is not going to be that great for ANY playback system. An unEQ'd sub is not going to sound very good, and will not blend well with the mains. And yet with all of these issues, you still want to blame the recording? Deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection. This is your MO for sure. Take all of the focus off of my piss poor system and room, and beam all that energy on to the recording. Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling.

You make it so hard to take you seriously....really.

First off, I only play my system at a peak of about 75db and that is when I play it loud, although once in a blue moon with certain music I will crank it up to 90db. I never did like music very loud. This still leaves me plenty of headroom. I've used other more powerful amps, but for whatever reason, this little amp makes them sound dull and lifeless in comparison. I also had a Pass Labs amp (very nice) and Mark Levinson amp, both class A and this little amp sounds better. For a while I was running with an active crossover bi-amping each speaker which gave me even more available power, but I never used it all.

One of my main priorities in sound is clarity because I find that some systems don't sound very good at low volumes. At certain times, I play my system at, and I'm guessing, about 20db (it's too low for my meter to record). It's when I am reading or if I use it to fall to sleep. If fact, most people don't even notice that the stereo is playing because their movements and speaking masks it. At those volumes, I can barely hear the bass, but it still sounds good.

I didn't say that my room was untreated, but in the way you mean, no it isn't. I don't use a sub with the stereo, at least not now. I do use a sub with the surround system, but I really don't care much how that sounds, it's more than good enough for movies. Mostly I watch movies through the TV speakers.

Anyway, I know you tried to hurt my feelings with your words, but that's who you are. I don't understand the need to do this, but its what you do...

Tell you what. Tell me something you recorded, preferably a vocal with good soundstaging and I will let you know what I think of it. It's entirely possible that you do good work.

BTW, I've heard a couple of speakers that seemed bright. At first I thought they sounded good with extended highs, but I did notice that after extended listening, the highs seemed too sharp and dominated the sound. Perhaps this is what people are referring to.

[Feanor]

...
I am just throwing some things out there that perhaps you could address to improve your room's acoustics. EQ'ing alone will not work. EQ for the bass, and passive treatments for the mid's and high's(and to supress modal ringing) works. Think big tool belt on this issue, but I fully realize you have limitations as well.
And I appreciate you comments & advice. The fact is, though, that my listening room is a multi-purpose room where it just isn't practical to apply ideal, or even pretty good, treatments. My problem is pretty common I'd guess.

The bottom line here is that the sound is pretty good: better for the EQ'ing than not, and better for having the HF's rolled-off than not.

[StevenSurprenant]

Feanor - You might find this interesting...

Hearing is Believing - The Ultimate Small Mixing & Mastering Room - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB8H0HFMylo)

[Feanor]

Feanor - You might find this interesting...

Hearing is Believing - The Ultimate Small Mixing & Mastering Room - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB8H0HFMylo)
It was interesting. It seems to me that the heavy absorption and diffusion recommended by the video sponsor is pretty much what Sir Terrence is advocating too. I think you & I, on the other hand, recognize that most people are unable/unwilling to convert their listening rooms into what amounts to a quasi-anechoic chamber in order to achieve that ideal room linearity. My wife is a very tolerant person but she has her limits when it comes to my listening room = our living room.

So in the end we are left with the question unanswered, Why do engineers so often record with a balance that is too bright for real-world, home listening environments?

[StevenSurprenant]

My take on all of this is...

Audio has been important to me for a very long time and when I speak to people with lesser interest, they think I'm not being realistic and over the top. With T, the roles are reversed, I think he is over the top.

About the video... That room had bare walls and floors and no furniture to absorb any sound. It was a little smaller than my listening room, so in that regard, it was apples to apples except that I have a large opening to the side going into the kitchen near the right speaker. I also have carpeting, furniture, and window coverings that help tame reflections. I also have a large TV directly behind and between the speakers. The front of the speakers sit almost 3 foot away from the wall behind it. My room, as it is, doesn't sound anything like the room in the video did without any treatment. It sounds more like that room with treatment.

There was a time when I had even more sound absorption on the walls, but it deadened the sound too much from my listening position. There is a balance that must be reached. Too much absorption and the room begins to sound like an anechoic chamber, too little and it sounds like the room in the video. Sometimes diffuser panels are called for to disperse the reflection points, but I've never tried that, or felt the need.

I have Auralex foam which I have moved around the room to see if I can improve the sound and the only place it has made any impact is behind the speakers stacked on each side of the TV. The improvement was very very slight (hardly noticeable). I even covered the TV with the foam with no improvement. I had the same results when I had my Quads, except the improvement was a little greater (foam behind the speakers).

Just so you understand, what improved was the resolution and space of quieter detail in the soundstage like instruments and singers in the background. I assume that reflections were creating nulls and peaks that was obscuring some details while emphasizing others.

As for T's recommendations, I would not think they have much value in the home environment and even if they did, the improvement would be slight, unless the home owner lived in a home with hard floors, bare walls, and perhaps tall ceilings. I have been in homes like that and they are an acoustic nightmare.

If you look at the homes of people who are into highend audio or in a store where they have taken great care to set up their highend systems, they don't look (there are always exceptions) like a recording studio and any treatment they use is minimal. In many, if not most situations, it just isn't that big of a problem and doesn't require electronic gear to measure and adjust. The differences between two types/brands of speakers is infinitely a greater difference. Don't think that I'm saying that room treatment isn't necessary, you just don't have to go to extremes to achieve reasonable results.

The other thing is that audio is an imperfect medium and while it can sound very good, it is only a reflection of a live performance. Many of us spend years trying to improve on this reflection, but it has it's limitations. I think this is where many of us go astray. I was trying to get T to admit that a recording can never replace a real instrument playing in our listening room, but the issue was skirted.

Anyway, you've got some good stuff and I imagine that it sounds fantastic.

If you want to play around a bit with sound absorbtion, go to the foamfactory. You can get some foam much cheaper than Auralex foam and it's probably almost as good. At the very least, it might be fun to do and you might find that you don't need it.

sound proofing deadening, acoustic insulation foams, echo elimination, home studio soundproofing foam, (http://www.thefoamfactory.com/acousticfoam/acousticfoam.html)

There is also another product that I used for my speaker build. It deadens much much much more (yes "much") than the foam. It also quiets down lower frequencies that the foam. Sonic Barrier 1" Acoustic Foam w/PSA 18" x 24" 260-525 (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=260-525)

The advantage of this material is that it takes up less room and you can easily cover it with material so that it looks good on your wall. Also, you could probably use less of it than the foam.

You would be amazed at the differences between a bare wall sound reflection, the foam and especially the Acoustic foam from Parts express.

[Feanor]

Thank you, StevenS,

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

First reflections can be a problem as can bass "humps"; if so, the former can be controlled by wall deflection/absorption and the latter by bass traps. But agree that you don't have to go crazy to get satisfactory results. Equalization might not be as effective as absorption but I believe it can help. As a practical solution to the overall "too bright" problem, equalization is quite effective.

Thanks for the Foam Factory and Sonic Barrier references. I once used Sonic Barrier inside a DIY speaker and it seems to work well.

[StevenSurprenant]

I agree, just EQ it to what sounds good to you and all is good.

BTW, sometimes I forget that most people here have somewhat the same background and so some of things I say are preaching to the choir. Sorry about that...

[StevenSurprenant]

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

This is an issue that he probably doesn't understand so he blames the room which doesn't really answer the question. I don't know...

It occurred to me that when I had my room over dampened (sounding acoustically dead), turning up the higher frequencies might have compensated for some of that over absorption. I wonder if that is what's going on in the recording studios? The acoustic environment in a studio is not representative of a normal listening room so what they hear there will not sound like the same material played back at home.

That may explain why T insists that we treat our homes like recording studios?

[JohnMichael]

I am reading this thread and there are some judgements about one another you may find edited out. Make your points with judging another. Share what you believe by giving good information and not by trying to discredit someone elses opinion. You might gain more credibility that way.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So what you're saying is a person needs inefficient speakers and a lot of power to have good sound?

If this is what you interpret from my response, there is absolutely nothing happening upstairs. It is called dynamics. The ability to play very soft, and very loud if the recording calls for it. With a speaker with 91db sensitivity, and just 6 Watts, there is no way in hell your system can track all of the dynamics of a movie soundtrack unless it is nothing more than a talkie. A movie soundtrack(especially action movie) can have close to 90db of dyanmic range(loudest to softest signals), and there is no way in hell 6 watts can push that level of dynamics out of a 91 dbpw speaker.





Flat implies that a sound (instrument?) is recorded so that the the amplitude over the entire frequency range is an exact copy of the original sound, db per db at every point in the spectrum.

You still have it wrong. Flat is a measurement that has nothing to do with recording. Microphones can be flat, an amp can be flat, and a speaker can be flat, but not a recording which has changes in frequency response from moment to moment. I thought this was common knowledge?





I'm not talking about recording room reflections, only the sound of the instrument, something that might be impossible to do and even if it were, there is no way to play it back.

It is quite possible in a anechoic chamber, but that instrument would not sound anything like itself with all of the harmonic overtones sapped away. And yes there is a way to play it back. You record that instrument in the anechoic chamber, and you play it back at home through your speakers. Duh!




Therein lies the problem. You create a recording that sounds good in the studio. If my listening room is acoustically treated in a manner that an average home owner with interest in audio would do and my speakers are EQ'ed, why would I not have nearly the same sound as in the studio?

Maybe because you didn't measure the room first. If you willy nilly slap up treatments before actually measuring the room, the results you get are going to be all over the map.

The object is not to recreate the "studio" sound, but get the best performance out of your system in your room that you can. Most "average" home owners don't even shoot for that target, and you are a perfect example of that.



Why are so many people reporting brightness. Frankly, I don't hear the brightness that they are referring to.

Once again, you are overselling(bordering on just making crap up). In the last two days I have been on AVSforum, Bluray.com, DIYaudio.com, and hometheatershack.com looking for these widespread complaints about brightness in recordings. Guess what..I could not find one complaint on the so called issue. Not one complaint from websites that have 5-10 times the users, and 10-20 times the traffic. So either you are making up something that is not there, or you are listening to your own voice in an echo chamber.



Really, better speakers? I hear the same things you hear, the piano sounds like a piano and so on, but certainly not comparable to the real thing sitting in my living room. I've listened to some of the best systems money can buy, (well... a few years ago), and none of them can compare to live. Admittedly, I've only listened to systems under $120,000 and most of them that I considered good were in the range of about $30,000 - $50,000. I've heard lower priced systems that were pretty good to. I would still not claim that any of these systems are the equal to live, it just isn't so. Well anyway, that's my reference and in some ways my speakers are better performers than some of these systems and in some ways not. Needless to say, while my homebrew speakers are fairly decent, I would never directly compare them to the best, I would be putting my foot in my mouth if I did.

No system is equal to live. We have established that, so you can move on. However, there have been some demonstrations that are pretty darn close. One of those demo's was done at AES in Davies Hall that completely blew us away. The San Francisco Symphony was doing a concert, and right in the middle of the performance they stopped playing, got up, and walked out. However the music continued to play as if the orchestra was still playing, and nobody could tell where the orchestra stopped, and the recording began. It turns out it was after the first song. I am going to say that the speakers and amps where perhaps the finest I have ever heard, and since they were arrayed in the same width as the orchestra, and the hall acoustics played a huge role(not to mention the uber high quality signal processing), I was most likely hearing more room than the recording or the orchestra itself in the first place.




That's not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about recording and playing back a instrument that is devoid of any room acoustics that it was recorded in and have it sound identical to the same instrument in the same room. The only sounds would be the instrument itself and it's reflections in the room that it is being played back in, just like the real thing.

How in the hell can anyone suggest this? You are not using your brain at all? If I recorded an instrument anechoically, it will not sound like itself when played back in ANY room. And if it is played back in another room, it will have that room's sonic signature all over it and still lack harmonics which gives the instrument its timbre. This comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and nothing is done in this fashion in real life EVER. So it is irrelevant to the topic.




I understand this and that is the problem. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Try and record a violin without any reflections of the room it's in and play it back so that it sounds like the real thing in my living room. It can't be done. What a recording offers is a representation of the instrument and the sonic character of room it was record in. When I play "that" back, I get the violin, the room it was in, and the sonic signature of my room. It will not sound like my friend playing in my room.

Another rather stupid comment. Live is live, and a recording is a recording. Only a air head would try and bridge the two. The acoustics of the hall are an integral part of the sound of any acoustical instrument. Have you ever heard a recording done outdoors with no acoustical shell? It sounds like crap, because acoustical instruments were designed to be played by in concert halls with their own acoustical signature intact. You need walls so the harmonic overtones of the instrument can mix with the air, and blend in with the acoustics of the hall. Your lack of understanding in this area is causing you to create scenarios that are not reflective of real life.




Again, really? Come on, you're pulling my leg, trying to hurt my feelings, aren't you?

I don't care about your leg or your feelings. We are not discussing them are we?




Are you serious? ROFL

Well Steven, in all of the discussion we have had, you have managed to get 99% of the discussion absolutely wrong. That tells me that you don't know what you are talking about, and perhaps should do more learning than talking in the first place.




Reference, really? (again I find myself saying that) I've got a stack of recording that tell me just the opposite. They all sound different and they all vary in quality. Now if you were to tell my that the best recordings I have are of reference quality, then you would also be saying that most studios throw the reference to the wind. I will admit that my very best ones are very very good.

This is getting so freakin painful it is getting sickening. Have you ever heard of a point of reference?

Point of reference

an indicator that orients you generally; "it is used as a reference for comparing the heating and the electrical energy involved"

In this case, the studio where the sound was mixed is the reference for comparing what you hear in the home. No sound was mixed in your room, it is mixed in the studio. A recording mixed in my sonically neutral studio will not sound anything like it would in your untreated room - it will have too much of your room signature to do so. This is why we treat our rooms, and equalize our subs, to do the best we can to neutralize the sonic signature of the room. If the studio's sonics are neutralized, and your own room is as well, then the only difference you will here is the differing spatial or sonic presentation of the different speakers used in mixing and playback.




Again, I repeat myself. My best recording are very very good. I sit in awe at how it sounds and what it does to my emotional being. This is without EQ and only modest room adjustments.

This is subjective opinion that cannot be used outside your room, or with anyone else's ears. What sounds good to you, might not sound good to me. And a unEQ'd sub does not sound very good in small rooms. So what you are saying here is that acoustically your room is perfect. BS!! Let me measure that room. Two of the most dominate acousticians of our time say that you MUST use EQ at bass frequencies, and then we have a nobody who has not even a basic audio education saying he does not need it. What a bunch of whoey.



One of my main priorities in sound is clarity because I find that some systems don't sound very good at low volumes. At certain times, I play my system at, and I'm guessing, about 20db (it's too low for my meter to record). It's when I am reading or if I use it to fall to sleep. If fact, most people don't even notice that the stereo is playing because their movements and speaking masks it. At those volumes, I can barely hear the bass, but it still sounds good.

A meter will record 20db unless it costs a nickel. If your meter cannot record a sound, that is called silence.


I didn't say that my room was untreated, but in the way you mean, no it isn't. I don't use a sub with the stereo, at least not now. I do use a sub with the surround system, but I really don't care much how that sounds, it's more than good enough for movies. Mostly I watch movies through the TV speakers.

There are two reasons why a subwoofer does not sound very good. It is low quality in the first place, or it is not interacting with the room seamlessly because it is not EQ'd. Both of these point to user error. How does one use room treatments if they don't measure the room first? You can put good tools in uneducated hands, and they will be useless.


Anyway, I know you tried to hurt my feelings with your words, but that's who you are. I don't understand the need to do this, but its what you do...

I have said this so many times I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I don't care about your feelings. I will never care about your feelings, I am not interested in them. You are nothing more than writing on a screen to me.


Tell you what. Tell me something you recorded, preferably a vocal with good soundstaging and I will let you know what I think of it. It's entirely possible that you do good work.

Oh pleeeze, I am not going to play this game with you. Like your feelings, I don't care about your opinion either. If you want to hear what I have mixed, buy any first tier Disney Bluray or DVD title.


BTW, I've heard a couple of speakers that seemed bright. At first I thought they sounded good with extended highs, but I did notice that after extended listening, the highs seemed too sharp and dominated the sound. Perhaps this is what people are referring to.

Now we are getting somewhere, and it took long enough.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My take on all of this is...

Audio has been important to me for a very long time and when I speak to people with lesser interest, they think I'm not being realistic and over the top. With T, the roles are reversed, I think he is over the top.

You would think I was over the top because you believe is just slapping a system together, sitting it in a unmeasured room, randomly throw up some foam treatments(which are completely ineffective at frequencies that are the most troublesome in small rooms), and play your system at such low levels, all of the small details, micro and macro dynamics are completely lost to the ambient noise in your room. You reach WAAAAAY to low for me, and obviously I reach WAAAY too high for you. This is what happens when you have an educated approach to audio, versus a profoundly uneducated one.


About the video... That room had bare walls and floors and no furniture to absorb any sound. It was a little smaller than my listening room, so in that regard, it was apples to apples except that I have a large opening to the side going into the kitchen near the right speaker. I also have carpeting, furniture, and window coverings that help tame reflections. I also have a large TV directly behind and between the speakers. The front of the speakers sit almost 3 foot away from the wall behind it. My room, as it is, doesn't sound anything like the room in the video did without any treatment. It sounds more like that room with treatment.

Steve, my problem with you is that you think people are stupid. There is no way in hell your room could sound anything like this room. You have not measured a damn thing, have no bass traps, no controlled diffusion, no properly placed absorption, and nothing to control modal ringing. Carpeting, furniture and window covers have absolutely no measured co-effecients. It is all random. This room has been measured, and treatments added after the measurement to correct room adnormalities. And how does one listen to a low resolution MP3 audio file, and think they are hearing anything close to what was happening in that room in real time?


There was a time when I had even more sound absorption on the walls, but it deadened the sound too much from my listening position.

When you start off blind, you remain blind. Did you measure the room first? No you didn't, another crap shot.


There is a balance that must be reached. Too much absorption and the room begins to sound like an anechoic chamber, too little and it sounds like the room in the video.

You can't get a balance using your approach. You have to measure the room first before you put anything in the room. Isn't this common knowledge?


Sometimes diffuser panels are called for to disperse the reflection points, but I've never tried that, or felt the need.

If you have never tried it, how do you know you don't need it. Every room needs diffusion. Not just any diffusion, but control scattering diffusion.


I have Auralex foam which I have moved around the room to see if I can improve the sound and the only place it has made any impact is behind the speakers stacked on each side of the TV. The improvement was very very slight (hardly noticeable).

If it was hardly noticeable, you didn't put it in the right place. Once again, you can give an uneducated person great tools, and they will still be useless. Auralex foam put on a bare wall is absolutely ineffective. Foam must be placed on a baffle, and that baffle must have space between it and the wall to be effective. Foam is a poor value for its performance. When doing acoustics right, you use sound panels, not foam.


I even covered the TV with the foam with no improvement. I had the same results when I had my Quads, except the improvement was a little greater (foam behind the speakers).

Jeeze Louise, no wonder you heard no improvement. If you are going to use foam(or any other room treatments), you don't concentrate them in one area - as only that area will improve. You spread the treatments around the room so you absorb or diffuse in a uniform way.

Just so you understand, what improved was the resolution and space of quieter detail in the soundstage like instruments and singers in the background. I assume that reflections were creating nulls and peaks that was obscuring some details while emphasizing others.


As for T's recommendations, I would not think they have much value in the home environment and even if they did, the improvement would be slight, unless the home owner lived in a home with hard floors, bare walls, and perhaps tall ceilings. I have been in homes like that and they are an acoustic nightmare.

How would you know Mr. Assumption, you have never tried it. This is like saying I hate pizza but have never tasted it. Or I don't think a hot dog would taste good without ever having a bite of one. There are hundreds of thousand of people with dedicated hometheaters that would totally disagree with this ignorant comment. Did you look at the measurements in the video(or sorry, you wouldn't know what you are looking at in the first place). Those different measurements correlated exactly to what we hear. If the modal ringing was suppressed by the bass traps and diffusers, you would definitely hear a difference big time. If flutter echo is suppressed, you would hear a difference. Please do not comment on things you have never tried, or ever heard. This is how misinformation get's propagated.


If you look at the homes of people who are into highend audio or in a store where they have taken great care to set up their highend systems, they don't look (there are always exceptions) like a recording studio and any treatment they use is minimal.

First, who said a room has to look like a recording studio? You did, I sure in the heck didn't. I said several posts back it does NOT have to look like a recording studio because they now have treatments that look like paintings, or you can custom design your own treatment decor. All of my rooms are treated, but you would never notice because I matched my acoustical panels to the paint on the walls, or I used theme based acoustical panels that make you think you are looking out of a window. Secondly, I have been into many high end stores over my life, and not one of them sounded very good. The store is for showing off equipment, not acheiving high performance sound. Most all of these systems in stores are never measured, and have any correction done on them. The equipment is never optimized in the room, and it is sad you don't know this.


In many, if not most situations, it just isn't that big of a problem and doesn't require electronic gear to measure and adjust. The differences between two types/brands of speakers is infinitely a greater difference. Don't think that I'm saying that room treatment isn't necessary, you just don't have to go to extremes to achieve reasonable results.

Not that big a deal?. Well, when your audio perspective is basement based, I guess you are right. For those of us who thoroughly understand small room acoustics and are looking for the best sound from our investment, it is a huge deal. Every room in existence has a resonant point that can effect how a speaker interacts with it. If you have two parallel walls, you are going to have slap echo's and flutter.

Steve, your approach to audio is sickeningly bad. Any idea that you don't have to measure a room before adding treatments or EQ is just plain wrong. If you don't measure a room, how do you know how to treat it? Nobody in their right mind should follow what you are posting here, it is just plain bad information PERIOD!


The other thing is that audio is an imperfect medium and while it can sound very good, it is only a reflection of a live performance.

You sound like a broken record now. So because audio is imperfect, we should make it even more imperfect by just plopping a system in an unmeasured and untreated room like you do? I don't think so. You get the best out of that imperfection you can get.


Many of us spend years trying to improve on this reflection, but it has it's limitations.

Steve, you haven't even scratch the surface of improvement. And the only limitation has been your approach to audio. If I have managed to sonically neutralize my room, and set up my equipment so that it not only measures well, but sound great as well, then I have dealt with the only limitation I can control.


I think this is where many of us go astray. I was trying to get T to admit that a recording can never replace a real instrument playing in our listening room, but the issue was skirted.

I have never made any suggestion whatsoever that a recording can ever replace a real instrument. So why in the hell would I admit otherwise? Either you cannot read what is on your screen, or your emotions have taken over your thought process. I said pretty clearly a recording is a recording, and live is live. You cannot bridge or compare the two, its apples and apple juice.

Please read what is on the screen, and refrain from twisting it into something completely different.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is an issue that he probably doesn't understand so he blames the room which doesn't really answer the question. I don't know...

I blame the room because they for the most part are the problem. The are never measured, never treated properly, and people almost never pay attention to that component of audio playback. Just like there are bad recordings, there are acoustically bad rooms and poor performance equipment. Your idea and approach is that rooms are perfect, and science and research does not support that claim at all.


It occurred to me that when I had my room over dampened (sounding acoustically dead), turning up the higher frequencies might have compensated for some of that over absorption. I wonder if that is what's going on in the recording studios?

That is because you never measure the room before you put anything in it. We don't do that in the studio, so your comments about the studio are uneducatedly WRONG. Studios are measured(frequency response, reverberation time) then treatment is added(you don't do any of this). We don't just slap stuff up on the walls like you do, and expect wonderful things to happen. There is a strong emphasis on science when a studio is set up, and that does not happen much in people homes. You are a prime example of that.


The acoustic environment in a studio is not representative of a normal listening room so what they hear there will not sound like the same material played back at home.

And most normal listening rooms don't sound very good, and distort what we heard in the studio(acoustical issues). Funny, all of my Disney mixes I have done in the studio sound pretty darn close in sonic and spatial detail in my hometheaters. Why is that? Because I followed that standards that were set in the studio, and applied them to my hometheaters. While there is science based criteria for setting up a studio, there are no plaback standards in existence. So what you get with music is a crap shot. Multichannel music much like hometheater has standards to follow, so there is the possibility of less variance between the studio and home.


That may explain why T insists that we treat our homes like recording studios?

Studios are rooms with equipment in it. At home we have a room with equipment in it. Studios before treatment have a sonic signature. Our room untreated do as well. There reason both should have treatment is so your room does not color the sound coming from your speakers(which could also color the sound as well). There is no perfect interaction between the room and the speakers before treatment - science tells us this.

I am going to give you something to fill that head of yours with.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt2.pdf

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt2.pdf

This is a start. I know this is highly technical and scientific, but much like what you have done here I am sure you will muddle your way through it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am reading this thread and there are some judgements about one another you may find edited out. Make your points with judging another. Share what you believe by giving good information and not by trying to discredit someone elses opinion. You might gain more credibility that way.

JM, credibilty is gained by giving factual information, and it is lost by propagating misinformation. As long as the information is correct, you gain credibility. You don't gain credibility in your deliver of the factual information. People may not like the delivery, but factual information will always be credible.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you, StevenS,

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

Bill, I have a collection of about 4000 CD's and I can only find about two hand fulls of them that were overly bright when played back in my systems. Most systems are not flat enough, but we can all agree here that gently rolling off the high treble is much more natural sounding than flat. We also agree that flat is too bright, and maybe that is why recordings sound too bright when played back with an accurately flat response.


First reflections can be a problem as can bass "humps"; if so, the former can be controlled by wall deflection/absorption and the latter by bass traps. But agree that you don't have to go crazy to get satisfactory results. Equalization might not be as effective as absorption but I believe it can help. As a practical solution to the overall "too bright" problem, equalization is quite effective.

EQ is for the modal region(below 200hz), and treatments are for 200hz and above where they are most effective. Room treatments are not very precise below 200hz, and not particularly effective as well. EQ above 200hz messes with the phase and transient response of the speaker in the most critical area of our hearing - which is why it is not recommended for problems above 200hz. EQ does not suppress modal ringing, but acoustical panels and bass traps do.

You have to use the right tools to get the job done right.