Presence speakers - What do you think?

[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.