Presence speakers - What do you think?

[StevenSurprenant]

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

I'm going to make a point to listen to these and perhaps others. You've peaked my interest. I would love to change my opinion because horns have two qualities that I admire, dynamics and efficiency.

Thanks.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[bfalls]

When I worked in CBS's tape facility we used a 500Hz tone to set levels every morning on our tape duplicators. As a newby I had to run each tape through a computer dedicated for reading levels and EQ. Daily for over a year I listened, tested and set levels on 150 cassette and 20 8-Track duplicators.

I also performed EQ on our QA and A/B test rooms weekly. I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz (standard test frequencies on TEAC test tapes).

Our A/B test engineer had a better ear than I. I was the tech responsible for her hardware. Once she said her 500Hz level test tape was distorted. I couldn't hear it, but when tested it had 2% distortion. Normal spec was +/- .5%.

Most of us listen for pleasure. From my experience those who listen more critically, don't enjoy the music as much. With tape it was very difficult, there's so much that can go wrong bias distortion, scrape flutter, sibilance, wow. Knowing what to listen for at times spoiled the music for me. My condolences to reviewers who's job it is to find fault in different designs. They're always comparing to a reference and finding differences. In the case of tapes, ignorance is bliss.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

Sure, there is a difference. I really don't hold it against him. He's not really a bad sort. I kind of like him and he does try to help.

[E-Stat]

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.

I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too.

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought I made it clear that there were horns that didn't sound like horns.

No, you didn't.

You're right, but aren't you the one that keeps knocking my systems configuration and yet have never heard it either? You tell me that more than one center channel is wrong on all accounts and you tell me that DSP is wrong on all accounts. I'm just feeding back what you gave me.

I have heard more than one center speaker, and I've heard Yamaha's DSP at work in a system. When I make my opinions on both of these, at least it is an experienced one. The same cannot be said about you and my system. I am making a judgement on these two technologies, you are making a judgement on something you have never heard.

People don't care what the microphone captures, they want a reproduction of the real event. Isn't that what this whole audio thing is about? I'm surprised to hear anyone say what you just did. I don't think any speaker manufacturer would say their speakers are so good they sound just like the microphone.

What kind of BS statement is this. If they want the real event, they go to it. It would take hundreds of microphones to capture enough detail to make something sound real. It would take hundreds of speakers to play this all back. That is not financially feasible on the recording side, or the playback side. When we are listening to recordings, we are listening to what the microphones have captured. If you are looking for a real event, sell you system, and go to events.

Huh?

I figured this would be your response.

Perhaps so, but like I said, if people feel it improves that sound, then perhaps the recording engineer could have done a better job. BTW, last night I performed the ultimate test, the girl friend test. I switched the DSP off and on without telling her what I was doing and asked her which she preferred. She choose the DSP. I asked her why and she replied, "it made everything sound clearer." So there you go...

Oh brother, the epitome of testing accuracy. The girlfriend test. Science ought to love this breakthrough.

As far as your statement of "improves that sound", and "perhaps the recording engineer could have done better", these are subjective. arrogant, arm chair statements. How does one go about improving the reference? Band-aids? Fuzzy wuzzy DSP enhancements? Esoteric speaker designs more appropriate for 2 channel music than movie soundtracks? I don't think so.

Since when does a matrix generated processed sound better than the accurate original sound? When you goal is to degrade and distort the original intentions of the soundtrack creator. When you are trying to compensate for the inadequacy of the reproducing system.

There you go, insulting me. Are you telling me that if you moved your home system into my comparably small room that it will sound the same as it does at your house?

You are insulting yourself with your comments. I am not saying this at all, the house or room is not the center of this debate. It is the ability of whatever SYSTEM to accurately playback what is on the media PERIOD. You are mixing room characteristics with SYSTEM resolution.

As I have told you, I have my system set up to the standard that you mentioned, front speakers 30 degrees from center, back speakers within 20 degrees behind the seating position.

Curiously no mention of the center channel, especially important with a system that has limited vertical and horizontal dispersion.

I envy you for that, but as an end user, I have to live with what someone else "feels" is correct.

That is because the original creator is correct. The original creator created the reference, the end user can only judge the creation based on the capabilities of their system, and how it lines up to the reference.

Being that I pay money for their services, I feel that I have a right to dictate my expectations to them. You would never let a home decorator have free reign on what they do to your home, you'd want some control over the outcome, wouldn't you? How is this any different?

When dealing with any audio or visual technology, since when have you paid for access to the creator, or dictate to the creator how it is supposed to sound or look? What expert like perspective do you have to challenge those professionals, you amateur perspective? Hell no! I am not going to let anyone that has zero studio experience, zero soundtrack mixing or mastering experience, zero soundtrack pre and post production experience, zero score mixing experience, zero audio experience on the pre and post production side tell me how to do my job. I don't get paid enough to allow that.

Your analogy of a home decorator is faulty. You have direct interaction with them, you have none with a sound designers, mixer, or masterers. You have zero input at any level of pre and post production whether we are talking about sound or picture.

I BS you not, but after 40+ years of careful listening, I should have gotten something out of it. Don't you think? Anybody can do anything reasonably well if they put the time and effort in it.

So you think your arm chair experience is greater than my 25 years of experience in creating what you listen to? The blatant arrogance of this statement is staggering.

I do not think you're stupid. I think you are a very smart man and whether I agree with you or not, I respect your opinion. I also think you know a great deal more than I do. The difference between you and I is that in your world, everything is already mapped out, defined to the nth degree and there is no room for any variance.

Once again, I live in both worlds. I create both mutlichannel and 2 channel tracks, and I am a listener to them on the other side. If accuracy was you true goal(instead of distorting and overly enhancing), then variance is a curse rather than a blessing. In multichannel music and movies(as opposed to 2 channel audio) there are standards that are transferable from one environment to the next. Follow those standards, and there is a constancy from one place to the next.

I have lived my entire life listening to experts declare one thing or another as fact, yet years latter, I heard many of these same people use the phrase, "we used to believe".

It sounds to me that you put your heart and soul into your work and have pride in what you do. I commend you on that and feel that you fully deserve that praise.

From my perspective, I've listened to speakers designed in so many ways that it's mind boggling, monopole, dipole, bipole, planers, point sources, horns, electrostats, plasma, line arrays, and mixtures of these technologies. The list is much larger than this, but the point is that they all sound different in one way or another. Some people claim that the ideal speaker is a point source and their logic is valid. Some people love horns because they are very dynamic and that is strong reason to want horns. Without going on infinitum, each has it's strengths "and" weaknesses. There is no right or wrong, The only "real" metric that we can measure a system by is reality, what we hear from life around us. Even so, people buy what they think sounds good to them regardless of that metric.

I cannot disagree with any of this statement.

The same applies to what you do. You have a certain criteria that you go by when making a product, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks it as good as it gets. Apparently, we want more than you can offer and so we resort to DSP or some other artificial magic. Right or wrong, if we think it sounds better, than it does, at least to us. You need to accept that and not be so critical.

Respects...

Steven, you are wrong about this on so many levels. I have but one criteria when I make the product. It must sound the best it can within the standards set by SMPTE, or the client. The only time somebody wants to alter the reference, is when they are compensating for a poor playback system that does not come close to the reference system it was created on. There is no way any sound designer, or re-recording engineer can design a soundtrack that is optimized for every different speaker design, or room characteristic out in the field. Your entire perspective on this issue is completely twisted. It is up to the end user to put together a system that accurately portrays the intent of the creator, not the other way around.

If you are no expert in sound deisgn, sound mixing, performing surgical operations, doing corporate accounting, or DOG TRAINING, how can your amatuer experience possible trump the professionals? It can't, and it is the height of arrogance that you think you can.

With absolutely no experience or education, it is not wise to challenge those who have both. My Dad gave me this wise advice when I was a kid. It might not hurt you any to take that advice.

[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.

[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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

Your limb just broke, and now you have hit the pavement.

I made no mention about what sound good or bad. I made mention that we cannot use our ears as measuring devices. They are not linear enough for that task(see ISO:226), they cannot balance speakers(we have ear to ear deviances personally and from person to person), and each person's ears different from the next in the areas of frequency extension, inter-ear balance, head shape(HRF transfer effects), different pinna sizes(which will result in a different frequency response from one person ear to the next).

Measuring instruments are better at these things, and our own ears and tastes are what establishes personal preferences.

[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.

[Hyfi]

I made no mention about what sound good or bad.

Please refer back to post #10
Presence speakers - What do you think?

Where it went like this

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

So you didn't use the words good or bad, you just told us that it's wrong and that it should not be used.

But, there are people who happen to like it whether it measures up or not as quoted above.

Why do you say they should not use it, need it, or like it just because you have the opposite opinion?

[Hyfi]

I find that some of my preferences differ with his, too.

With my modest HT, I tried lowering the mains to be closer to the center speaker to improve coherency following his suggestion. The tradeoff is that you lose natural sounding image height - as found at virtually every theatre experience. The underlying issue is not that the mains are too high - the center is too low.

rw

I have read many places where putting the center atop the tv is the best spot. I'm looking for a new center and that is why the Usher caught my eye. It is angled up so the sound will go from below the tv up to your ear or close enough in that direction.

[StevenSurprenant]

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. ...

I only started your quote or this would be a book...

I'll get right to the point...

Let me ask you a question...

If all engineers follow the same standard, then why do a great many of my CD's sound like crap and a few others sound fantastic?

I've gotten to the point that I rarely buy CD's any more because more often than not, I end up throwing them in a drawer. I love the music, but I hate the recording of it.

Why is that?

I've asked you this before and you ignored me.

Don't blame it on my equipment. I've had a number of systems ranging in the tens of thousands of dollars and a crappy CD is a crappy CD no matter what. I've heard many people complain about the quality of many recordings so I am not alone in this quagmire.

If you recording engineers adhere to the same science, the same principles and the same standards, why are my draws full of coasters?

This goes for movies too.

If you want to hear complaints about the quality of your work (not personally, but in general) listen to the end users.

You and your like can go through life patting yourselves on the back for a job well done, but that means nothing when the person buying your product thinks its garbage. Fortunately, most people don't have good audio systems or the complaints would overwhelm the industry.

Although limited, it's the good recordings that keep me hanging on.


While I'm asking questions...

As you well know, if the monitors that you mix on are sonically colored, anything you do will sound colored on speakers that are more accurate in the home. I would assume that you would want the most accurate speakers possible in the studio. Why don't home audio systems use the same speakers as you do in the studio? Or... Why don't studios use high quality home speakers as their reference. I do know that some do, but why don't all studios use them.


Addendum:

BTW, I looked up what it takes to be an audio engineer and found that you can do it in as little as 4 weeks, longer if you stretch the courses out. The only requirement is a high school education.

It took me 2 years of college just to get into the meat of real engineering courses at a university. It seems to me that audio engineering is more like real estate or truck driving school.

Well anyway, I have to rethink your credentials... I thought I was talking to someone else.