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

[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

[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

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

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

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

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;

A great example of what NOT to do in hometheater

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;

How loud do you listen?

Start at post #29

or this gem of responses

Monopole or Dipole surround speakers?

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.