Presence speakers - What do you think?

[StevenSurprenant]

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

LMAO!

I couldn't stop laughing at what you said! I could actually visualize you sitting there with your popcorn and beer.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

There is something you can say to participate(this is not about winning, but presenting accurate information) in this discussion. How about some truth, facts, and science, and a little less of the anecdotal and BS.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

This is nothing like what happened in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

[StevenSurprenant]

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

I wasn't talking to you at the time.

As for the last part, you're just being mean. It would have been better to use the term ignorant, not stupid.

Let me tell you about "experts"...

The word is at best, ambiguous. It doesn't meant that that person knows everything about a subject, only that they know a great deal about it. The world is full of experts that diametrically disagree with each other. Given this "fact", whom you choose to believe is a matter of a persons personal sensibilities. It also implies that there is more than one way to interpret the same thing. You, being an "expert", should be able to question your positions when presented with contrary opinions. If someone says it sounds better this way or that way, even if it goes against what you think, it is a valid statement. I have no doubt that DSP would screw up the steering that you have mentioned so often, but is steering the most important aspect of what we hear at home? Apparently not if we feel that DSP improves the sound. DSP is not perfect, stereo is not perfect, and surround is not perfect.

Audio hasn't been around for that long to declare it perfect. When audio began, mono was considered the cats meow, but that wasn't good enough. Stereo made its debut and it was declared state of the art, then surround popped up and now it's the standard by which we judge audio. In 10 years or a hundred years, perhaps our entire wall will be a speaker comprised of thousands of point sources like a TV screen. The point is that it keeps getting better and when we look back at what used to be the standard, we would shake our heads in disbelief that we thought what came before was good sound. We can argue all we want about present day technologies, but compared to what is to come, it is grossly inferior. We will develop new theories and new technologies that haven't been imagined yet. Many of the theories that we base our present day understanding on will be wholly inadequate. So I ask you, what is the point of arguing about this? We should just enjoy what we have and not worry about perfection, which doesn't exist.

[StevenSurprenant]

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

What facts?

There are so many speaker configurations, so many amplifier topologies, so many room affects, so many ways to record an event, so many... Well you get the point. When you mix this all together, where is the science? You can make two speakers that spec out almost identically, but they sound totally different. You can use amplifiers that spec out almost identically, yet, they too may sound different. You can use an amp that specs out worse than another, but sounds better. When you mix something on your console, you mix according to what you hear on your speakers so by the time I get it, it sounds different because my speakers are different. I will agree that "science" will get you in the ball park, but it's our ears that make the final determination.

There is no way for "science" to accurately predict what our ears will hear, at least not yet. If someone states that what they hear is good, it's not anecdotal, it's a fact, to "them". You cannot quantify that in scientific terms. Isn't that what this is all about? How does it sound? The emotional response of an individual to the quality of a recording or an audio system cannot be put into numbers, yet that is the final goal. Mr. Bose amassed a fortune, not by pursuing science, but addressing the human factor.

When I watch a movie, I sometimes wonder why the front soundstage is so compressed toward the speakers. It doesn't have depth like it would in real life. In a real scenario I can tell if someone is closer or further away, even if only by a couple of feet, but I don't hear this in movies except on rare occasions. I know this is a result of how they mic the movie, but that's hardly accurate. Sometimes I may be watching people talking during a rain storm and all the rain is heard in the front. Some recordings use the surround speakers to bring the rain into the room to make it more realistic. We are at the mercy of the recording engineer. This isn't science, it's a decision of the engineer to try and make the movie sound as realistic as possible. Sometimes, when a door opens off screen, the engineer steers the sound hard right or left, which sounds unrealistic. I could go on and on about how the sound of many movies could be produced better, but the point is that it's not science.

I love science, but science is not everything when your throw in the human factor.

When you admire that shiny new car, is that science? You get the point.

If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

One more thing...

My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers)

You should be able to do this better than I. My hearing is not perfect, but I can tell when something is louder than another. Quite frankly, if I can do it, then I would suspect that most people could do the same. As for you thinking I wasn't truthful, what gives you the right to judge me? What purpose would it serve to not be honest? Quite frankly, I was amazed when I found the system to be spot on. Why do you think I bought the db meter? It wasn't to prove I was perfect, it was to, on your advice, to correct the system accurately because I didn't believe I could do it by ear. To be honest "again", I trust the meter more than I trust my hearing. Frankly, if you find it difficult to balance speaker levels by ear, what does that imply about your eq or mixing abilities? A musician doesn't have to use a meter to adjust their guitar strings. Are you saying that they actually can't do it without a meter? I'm being mean here, but you deserve it for what you said.

Let's not jack around anymore. Name some of your work and I will buy it and critique it and let you know how you are doing from an end users view point. I would love to do this for you and I will be fair and unbiased. Seriously! It will be fun. If you think I will criticize you just to be mean, I won't. I imagine that others will listen to your stuff too and if I am off track, they will let me know and besides, I don't want people to think I'm just being a jerk and that "would" make me look stupid.

[Hyfi]

What facts?



If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

[StevenSurprenant]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

I agree. I've always believed just that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

This is a purely subjective perspective. This does not address anything scientific, objective or any sort of reference.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

There is a logical step that starts the chain of what is good sounding. A speaker to speaker balance(achieved by instruments), a wide band flat frequency response(through design and corrected room response based on instruments), and a ideal dispersion pattern(which is achieved through measurements).

Once you have these things, you can enhance to your taste. Any thing less begins with a distortion, and distortions just pile up after that.

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

I cannot force anyone to do anything, and that is not my goal in the first place.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

This comment is based on the playback system, and cannot be applied to the source itself.

[StevenSurprenant]

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

This post is so full of BS I just don't know where to start.......The whole world must have perfect pitch. Well, if ANYONE can whistle at perfect frequencies, then let's just get rid of tone generators...who needs them.

This is not a mistake, this is a bald face lie.

[E-Stat]

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

[Hyfi]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

I don't totally dismiss science or tools that help with system setup.

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.

My argument is that MY EARS and BRAIN may like the way something sounds regardless of any scientific measurements. Your ears and brain may not like the same thing.

So who is right? Nobody, we all listen to what WE like and not what someone tells us we should like.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

Based on how the field sample measures up to the reference. This is why I take my mixes home and listen to them on three comparable two way systems as the reference mixing system.

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

I agree you need both. But you have to start with science first before marching on to the subjective. This is the very foundation of good speaker/room synergy. We may have a love for a specific speaker design, but you need the science of room acoustics to make them sound good in rooms.

[Feanor]

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

[Luvin Da Blues]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

LOL, Did you see this on CBC the other night?

Doc Zone - Episode - The Trouble with Experts

[Hyfi]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I listen to what my ears and brain tell me I like, not what someone tells me I should like, no mater what boner fides they have.

Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.

Sounds like sheep dip to me.

[Feanor]

...
Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.
...

Nope, I didn't say that, nor try to say it.

What I said was we should listen to experts and question our own, more limited knowledge.

[StevenSurprenant]

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

I understand the reason for your post and I commend you on trying to do the right thing, but apparently we are seeing this issue differently. That's okay and understandable.

The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.

[Feanor]

...
He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. ....
....

True about rude & belligerent when we get him fired up. Also, Sir T has occasionally called a person a "liar" when "mistaken" would be the more appropriate term. But we be charitable not to confuse his interpersonal style with his message.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

Oh really Steven. Science tells me that there is no synthetic that is a perfect copy of an original. It is a synthesized version of the original, and nothing more.

As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

Steven, how in the hell can you decide if something ruins intelligibility when you have no access to the original? Turning off the ambiance speakers does not address the fact that you are listening to a system so wildly different from the reference, that you have no way of knowing what is accurate or intended, and what is not.

My best friend who is a master chief once told be that a high quality steak well prepared does not need steak sauce or additives. It taste very good all by itself. When a person starts to add all kinds of stuff to the steak, you are compensating for a poor quality meat, or you are accommodating a personal preference based on the strength and weaknesses of your ears. There is no groundswell of complaints about the quality of soundtracks, but there are huge variances in the way they are played back.

On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

The only thing this comment tells me is that you don't have enough experience with EQ to use it wisely. A smiley face setup is to address weakness in the speakers or playback chain, and does nothing to address the real problem which is the room itself.. EQ is only beneficial at lower frequencies, and should never be used for mid to high frequencies. Passive devices are better at those frequencies than active ones.

I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

Which leads me to believe that you are compensating for a drastically different characteristics than the reference system. If the reference system didn't require height channels for accurate playback, the end users playback system should not demand it either.

I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

So what you are saying here is that sometimes it requires a distortion of the source to correct a distortion in a speaker system. That is quite a unique perspective

I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

Even after I have explained to you that I not only come from the recording side, but I do have 10 multichannel systems that I test my mixes on, you still make the same claim over and over again. My perspective is 2 dimensional (both studio and at home), and yours is singular. I am a content user and well as a content creator.

He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

When somebody tells me they balanced their speaker totally by ear, and made no reference to test tones whatsoever, then either they are insulting my intelligence, or they are lying through their teeth. When somebody makes the statement that I EQ the hell out of mono sources when played back through stereo speaker and it is not science, either they cannot comprehend what is written, or they don't know science at all.

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY can balance two speakers with dynamic sources. The constant inter-channel intensity and time differences would prevent this. Your room and your speakers would have to be perfect playback sources and environments to do so. Your ears would have to have perfect frequency and balance, and the differences in the shapes of our pinna's and ear canal would have to be exactly alike from person to person. Our ears cannot distinguish 60hz from 50hz, and cannot tell if one channel averages 75db and the other 78db -or if both are 75db. That is science.

Anyone who understands the concept of HRT effects understands completely why you have to EQ the hell out of a mono source being played back through 2 speakers. The inter-channel crosstalk based on the difference between the distance of our 2 ears creates a notch between 1-4khz(it averages 7"). When transferring a mono track to a stereo sources, that notch creates a instability, and hollowness to vocals positioned between these two speakers. We use EQ to stabilize that mono signals, and restore the fullness it had as a mono source coming from a mono channel. This is science Steven, do you get it?

The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

Steven, I am under the impression that you don't have a clue on the difference between science and supposition based on this statement. When I speak about our hearing mechanism, that is science and NOT supposition. When i am speaking about the effect of three center speakers versus one, that is purely science. When i speak about 5.1 playback versus artificial DSP derived 9.1, that is an argument of accuracy versus flavor. My argument leans heavily on the objective side versus yours on the purely objective side. What you are stating is that subjectivity trumps objectivity, and enhancements trump the accuracy of the original intent. Sorry, I cannot buy what you are selling here.

The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.

Funny Steven, I don't have "experts" in my field disagreeing with me. Since we all have a standard that we abide by, the only difference we have is in the personal choice of recording and mixing equipment to get there. That is totally okay as long as the objective is to stay within the standard.

If find it rather ironic that you would accuse me of supposition, and then without any knowledge whatsoever make the statement that experts in my field disagree with me, and there is a great deal of opinion floating around. How do you know this, do you work in my field. Obviously not, and I need not say anymore.