The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

I would stop using my system if I had the mantality to do that!

Perhaps that's why I listen to 2 channel music in two channel stereo (with 2.1.1 speakers). Music mixed for 2 channel was designed to be listened to that way. Surround processing just mucks up the sound.

2 channel recording and playback mucks up sound too (except perhaps for ambisonic). Perhaps that's why sometimes (often actually) I prefer 'upmixed' to straight 2 ch (or could also be due to decreasing the psychoacoustic influence of room reflections in my rather bright space). I like to be able to have both 'pure' 2 ch (2.1 actually) and surround synthesis as my options.
krabapple is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post


I've not seen any evidence in my 29 years of conducting listening tests on loudspeakers that trained listeners prefer loudspeakers with boosted/hyped bass. When you put these anechoically flat, accurate loudspeakers in a listening room away from the wall there will be a certain amount of "room gain" at low frequencies that shouldn't be removed by the room correction device. My theory is that the recording was probably made with a similar room gain built into the mix and to remove it upon playback is adding a distortion (it sounds too thin and bright).

I can argue this from another angle: simply listen to your stereo recordings over headphones that have a flat bass response down to 20 Hz. How do the recordings sound? Mostly likely they will sound very thin in the bass because you have effectively removed the room and its LF gain from your listening experience. It wouldn't surprise me if the most preferred headphones had a broadband LF boost that compensated for the missing LF room gain and tactile information present when the recording was made.



Since nearly all of us measure our systems in room rather than anechoically, and since room gain varies a lot from room to room, what would be a ballpark FR target when the system is measured in room?

Flat? It seems the answer is no.

What would be the ballpark FR target of speaker in room?


Here is a suggested X-curve target that I got elsewhere. The FR in the 100 to 400 Hz area is subject to inaccuracies in room measurement systems.


J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #153 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 09:29 AM
Member
 
cap'n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Hi,

I certainly concede that as a Harman International Research Acoustician you certainly have more of a grasp of the subject than I do as a layperson.

However, perhaps the weighting of the each cluster isn't a simple matter of just applying a factor based on the number of measurements (seats) within a cluster.

Larry

In fact you would be right, since the clustering is "fuzzy", meaning the responses do dot belong exclusively to one or another cluster. Still, you cannot get a better result in terms of simple spectral error than by using a spatial average and equalizing it flat.
cap'n is offline  
post #154 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post


2 channel recording and playback mucks up sound too (except perhaps for ambisonic).



Yes, but it mucks it up in the way that the original sound mixer designed it to be mucked up.

Kind of interesting side bar, but I have been playing around with my system to improve the sound of my mono DVDs (DD 1.0). You can even improve mono with a little work!
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #155 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LarryChanin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Music mixed for 2 channel was designed to be listened to that way. Surround processing just mucks up the sound.

Hi Palmer,

If I understand correctly the ideal acoustic environment for 2 channels is rather different, i.e., livelier, than the ideal acoustic environment for multichannel content. Therefore, if your room acoustics is relatively lively, and then you use surround processing to upconvert it to multichannel then it is reasonable to expect a less than optimum result.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not an audiophile, but I always upconvert two channel content to multichannel, and it always sounds better than left as two-channel in my relatively dead home theater. Better yet, I simply listen to multichannel music.

Larry



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LarryChanin is offline  
post #156 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 10:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,396
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1037 Post(s)
Liked: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Haskins View Post

It is aggravating as hell that you have to continually twitter with it. I just want to push a button and forget about the hardware, at least for awhile.

It used to be aggravating 15 years ago; now it's reflex. It helps to have a processor that allows for quick and easy adjustments. Somewhere in the first song I'll usually adjust tilt and surround processing to my tastes, and forget about the hardware for the rest of the album.

Unfortunately, I don't envision a push button that will make those adjustments automatically. I use my pre-pro mostly for listening to 2-channel music in surround (movies are a distant second priority). Since there is no standard with music, I could end up listening to one CD at -20 and then have to bump it up to -9 for the next album, just to keep the same volume level.

As Roger alluded to earlier, how is even a simple feature like Loudness Compensation supposed to work properly when each album averages a different level from reference? And even if you could get the music industry standardized overnight, what am I supposed to do about the 1500 CDs sitting on my shelf?

So I'm with you for almost wanting a second volume control for the sub, just to deal with variances from recording to recording. Heck, I'm doing something similar already. Minor pain, but I prefer that to the alternative (using the same setting for all music recordings).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #157 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LarryChanin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

You're missing my point, it's not so much that it was the evaluation method rather the evaluation itself, since the design parameters of the EQ's themselves vary and were designed with subjective objectives, i.e. what Audyssey felt should be done vs what ARC felt should be done when they designed these things. To try to do an objective, assessment shouldn't the test be in the environment the stuff was designed for?
Sure, I can understand that it can be easier to pick up differences with a mono signal from a purists perspective, what I can't understand is if you can't tell the differences in the intended environment, multi channel home audio, what's to evaluate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

It seems to me in a short term test you are trying to make it easier to ascertain diffrerences not harder. That seems to me to be all the mono-vs multi channel test means. It doesn't mean that the differences don't exist, it means they are easier to determine. You could of course, have a loud air conditioner going on in the room or the kids yelling and it would maybe more akin to actual use, but that isn't the goal. (Not trying to be provocative, just an exageration to make a point.)

Hi Randy,

I believe the original poster conceded that he appreciates that certain types of critical listening may be easier to achieve with monaural content rather than multichannel.

However, I believe a key point he is making, that seems to be repeatedly overlooked, is that some important functions of competing room correction products only have relevance in a multichannel setting. For example, some or all of the products may have features specifically designed to timbre match speakers in order to facilitate more realistic panning of sounds from one channel to another. One can not reasonably infer the effectiveness of a multichannel feature by listening to monaural content.

Obviously, the focus of this particular test was not to consider these type of multichannel specific equalization features, nor to determine listener preferences applied to movies.

Larry



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LarryChanin is offline  
post #158 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 02:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post


However, I believe a key point he is making, that seems to be repeatedly overlooked, is that some important functions of competing room correction products only have relevance in a multichannel setting. For example, some or all of the products may have features specifically designed to timbre match speakers in order to facilitate more realistic panning of sounds from one channel to another. One can not reasonably infer the effectiveness of a multichannel feature by listening to monaural content.

Obviously, the focus of this particular test was not to consider these type of multichannel specific equalization features, nor to determine listener preferences applied to movies.

Right, for instance I believe that Audyssey's target curve, (which is what they exclusively came to market with upon inception) was developed with a lot of subjective tests in varying environments to emulate the intended use of the end product.
I'm not sure they can do anything about timber matching - that's over my head - but I believe, using Audyssey as an example, that if there's a finite number of filters available, they can be moved and used where it best suits the multi-channel outcome - and that result may not be the best outcome for a single speaker.

I couldn't find it except that it says something like "measurements were done according to product instructions", but if the measurements were done using all speakers and then they used the mono set up for evaluation wouldn't that guarantee a skewed result? If it was done with just the sub and left speaker then it would add credibility, but it's still not an app the product was designed for.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #159 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 02:40 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post

Hi Randy,

I believe the original poster conceded that he appreciates that certain types of critical listening may be easier to achieve with monaural content rather than multichannel.

However, I believe a key point he is making, that seems to be repeatedly overlooked, is that some important functions of competing room correction products only have relevance in a multichannel setting. For example, some or all of the products may have features specifically designed to timbre match speakers in order to facilitate more realistic panning of sounds from one channel to another. One can not reasonably infer the effectiveness of a multichannel feature by listening to monaural content.

Obviously, the focus of this particular test was not to consider these type of multichannel specific equalization features, nor to determine listener preferences applied to movies.

Larry

I consider "channel timbre matching" to be equalizing the loudspeakers so they have identical frequency response. Anything other than that I think is seriously questionable and misguided. Firstly, the recordings were not mixed over such a system. Secondly, our auditory perceptual/cognitive system does a good job of timbre matching sources as they move around the room. Does the timbre of your partner's voice really change that much when they walk around you in a circle? Not really: in fact, it's pretty constant. And any timbre changes related to HRTF's provide important cues needed for localization.

We learn and adapt to the idiosyncratic physical/timbral characteristics of our own HRTF's as explained by Gunther Theile's Associative Model of Hearing.

Cheers,
Sean Olive

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #160 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LarryChanin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

I consider "channel timbre matching" to be equalizing the loudspeakers so they have identical frequency response. Anything other than that I think is questionable and misguided Firstly, the recordings were not mixed over such a system. Secondly, our auditory perceptual/cognitive system does a good job of timbre matching sources as they move around the room. Does the timbre of your partner's voice really change that much in timbre they walk around you in a circle in room? Not really:in fact it's pretty constant. Any timbre changes related to HRTF's provide important cues needed for front/back localization. Don't you want to know where the front and rear channels are located?

We adapt to idiosyncratic physical/timbre characteristics of our own HRTF's as explained by Gunther Theile's Associative Model of Hearing.

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the remarks.

I think I understand. Our ears are constructed in such a manner to filter identical sounds coming from the rear to create a different "timbre" than when coming from the front. These tonal differences usually helps us tell whether sounds are coming from the front or rear, particularly for on-axis sounds. Our brain then processes these differences into spacial cues and interprets the similar sounds as being the same timbre.


Obviously, Audyssey isn't going to reveal the details of their processing, and I'm sure if they did I would never fully understand it.

However, I gather from a high-level response to one of my questions that, for better or worse, it does more than equalize to an identical target curve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

The rules used in the algorithm to cluster the measurements taken in the room include criteria for timbre matching. Room EQ based on on-axis only or on power response only is not effective. So, a significant part of the calculation is focused on timbre matching. It includes room frequency response information, similarities in off axis measurements, and time response (reflection) information because it is trying to timbre match the in-room (not the anechoic) response.

Perhaps the feature is merely intended to make non-identical speakers sound similar and not render a theoretically identical timbre. That is, they are marketing a feature to deal with a less than ideal situation, but none the less a practical concern in many home listening environments.

Larry



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LarryChanin is offline  
post #161 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 03:21 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Sean,

“…give me a 7.1-ch ganged tone control with adjustable turnover from 100-500 Hz.”

Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for you to give it to us as part of RC?

“When you put these anechoically flat, accurate loudspeakers in a listening room away from the wall there will be a certain amount of "room gain" at low frequencies that shouldn't be removed by the room correction device. My theory is that the recording was probably made with a similar room gain built into the mix and to remove it upon playback is adding a distortion (it sounds too thin and bright).”

I don't understand; how could the RC remove the room gain from the recording, as setup is done with signals from the RC system?

The room gain is not in the recording per se. Rather the recording was monitored under conditions where room gain was present, and it affected how the recording engineer adjusted the relative the bass in the recording.

If you take later remove some of the LF room gain out of the recording or playback monitoring set-up via room correction, then the same recording will sound thin.

Cheers,
Sean Olive

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #162 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 04:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 153
I see, thanks, Sean.

I sent you a PM.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #163 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 07:08 PM
Senior Member
 
youngho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008 View Post

listeners prefer loudspeakers that have a flat, smooth on-axis response, extended bandwidth, and smooth off-axis response.

I have a stupid question: why wouldn't a product like the BeoLab 5 or another well-designed speaker with extremely wide (180) or even horizontally omnipolar dispersion pattern be the most preferred by listeners? I couldn't ever quite figure that out while reading "Sound Reproduction." Thanks so much!
youngho is offline  
post #164 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 10:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rabident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Do RC systems do anything to address the reverberation time of the room? If for instance RT60 is reference, does room correction make it sound like you're listening in an RT60 room? If not, then isn't that a key variable in sound quality of "the room" that RC fails to equalize?

Also, couldn't another large portion of the variances observed as preference be due to individual hearing? It would be interesting if each person was given a hearing test to determine the FR of their ears and factor that into the correction curve of each test. Instead of ending up with an average curve preferred by most people, maybe there's a more specific better sounding target curve if variances in human hearing were compensated for and eliminated as a variable.

 

 

rabident is offline  
post #165 of 583 Old 11-06-2009, 11:08 PM
Newbie
 
matin.leese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Kind of interesting side bar, but I have been playing around with my system to improve the sound of my mono DVDs (DD 1.0). You can even improve mono with a little work!

Waves Audio sell a plug-in for this called "PS22 Stereo Maker" which you may find interesting. It was invented by Michael Gerzon. Assuming you can't afford this (or Pro Tools to run it under), you can download the users' manual from their website as a PDF.

I am not allowed to post the URLs as links, so just search the Waves website for "PS22" and click on "Manuals". Michael Gerzon is in Wikipedia.

Regards,
Martin
matin.leese is offline  
post #166 of 583 Old 11-07-2009, 09:53 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

Do RC systems do anything to address the reverberation time of the room? If for instance RT60 is reference, does room correction make it sound like you're listening in an RT60 room? If not, then isn't that a key variable in sound quality of "the room" that RC fails to equalize?

Also, couldn't another large portion of the variances observed as preference be due to individual hearing? It would be interesting if each person was given a hearing test to determine the FR of their ears and factor that into the correction curve of each test. Instead of ending up with an average curve preferred by most people, maybe there's a more specific better sounding target curve if variances in human hearing were compensated for and eliminated as a variable.

The term "room correction" is a bit of a misnomer since room correction cannot effectively fix room problems above the room transition frequency including RT60. Below the room transition frequency, you can equalize the steady-state in-room response at one or more seats to minimize the effects of room resonances/boundary effects, and correct the LF response of the loudspeaker to some degree. Above the transition frequency, you are mostly equalizing problems with the on and off-axis responses of the loudspeaker. Room correction cannot cancel or add reflections in the room. If people are claiming this, they are smoking something besides tobacco.

The RT60 is the time it takes the reflected sounds in a large space to decay 60 dB in level below the direct sound. It is an acoustical term that does not apply to small rooms since diffuse fields do not exist in small rooms. A diffuse field by definition must have the following properties: it is isotopic (the sound is identical from all directions of incidence), and it is homogenous (the sound field is constant as you move throughout the room). If you walk around a room listening to a loudspeaker - you will have problems finding an area where both those properties exist.

Regarding individual listener room correction preferences: the listeners in this test had normal audiometric hearing and were trained. The individual listener preferences for room corrections are shown in the AES preprint. While there were some small variations among listeners in their top 1-2 choices there was consensus in the top 3 (RC1-RC3) and bottom (RC4-RC6) three groupings of the products based on preference.

Cheers,
Sean Olive

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #167 of 583 Old 11-07-2009, 11:40 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Tonmeister2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westlake Village, CA, USA
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngho View Post

I have a stupid question: why wouldn't a product like the BeoLab 5 or another well-designed speaker with extremely wide (180) or even horizontally omnipolar dispersion pattern be the most preferred by listeners? I couldn't ever quite figure that out while reading "Sound Reproduction." Thanks so much!

Perhaps all things being equal, wide dispersion loudspeakers may well be preferred. However, remember that Toole's and Klippel's studies on loudspeaker dispersion were limited to mono and stereo reproduction. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the spatial benefits of wide dispersion loudspeakers may become less of an advantage with multichannel recordings where the recording itself can provide the spatial cues required for increased envelopment and apparent source width. In these situations, a more directional loudspeaker could possibly provide a wider spatial palette since the increased directivity permits a more compact, well-defined image when required, or a very spacious image via manipulation of the side/rear channels when the music or film plot demands this.

Another thing to remember is that the benefits of wide dispersion loudspeakers can be negated if the relative levels of the first lateral reflections are attenuated due to room geometry, loudspeaker/listener placement, or acoustical treatment of the walls.

We've tested several very wide dispersion loudspeakers in mono, including the model you mentioned, and there can be problems other than directivity that can affect the preference ratings.

Cheers,
Sean Olive

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tonmeister2008 is offline  
post #168 of 583 Old 11-07-2009, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LarryChanin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 6,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Right, for instance I believe that Audyssey's target curve, (which is what they exclusively came to market with upon inception) was developed with a lot of subjective tests in varying environments to emulate the intended use of the end product.
I'm not sure they can do anything about timber matching - that's over my head - but I believe, using Audyssey as an example, that if there's a finite number of filters available, they can be moved and used where it best suits the multi-channel outcome - and that result may not be the best outcome for a single speaker.

I couldn't find it except that it says something like "measurements were done according to product instructions", but if the measurements were done using all speakers and then they used the mono set up for evaluation wouldn't that guarantee a skewed result? If it was done with just the sub and left speaker then it would add credibility, but it's still not an app the product was designed for.

Hi,

Audyssey did a lot of subjective testing and developed their own version of equal loudness curves. This data was used to develop their Dynamic EQ add-on to MultEQ. Dynamic EQ considers the actual real-time listening level and adjusts the flat bass region of its target curves, tilting the bass upward. It would have been interesting to see how MultEQ XT Pro plus Dynamic EQ would have placed in the preference test, however, that feature is not available in the Sound Equalizer and therefore was not tested.

Audyssey also continued Tom Holman's work at THX on re-equalization and developed their own versions of high frequency roll-offs and incorporated them in the Audyssey Reference Target curves. This feature would have been available in Sean's testing and so Audyssey was not at a disadvantage in this regard.

Although Sean is dubious as to the value of doing more than equalizing each satellite speaker to the same target curve, nevertheless Audyssey claims to do a more comprehensive type of timbre matching than just frequency matching. However, that feature only has utility if more than one satellite speaker is playing at the same time.

Apart from timbre matching I don't believe the basic equalization of the subwoofer and a single main speaker would be compromised by running with only one satellite speaker. Although it measures all speakers when it does its measurements, Audyssey performs the equalization on each speaker individually. That is, it runs a test signal to each individual speaker, one at a time, and then calculate the filters for each channel. So the measurements do not require a multichannel setting where all channels are active simultaneously.

In summary, the most fundamental disadvantage to Audyssey in Sean's testing wasn't that the testing was done with a single satellite speaker. It was that Dynamic EQ was not considered as Audyssey's means of intelligently altering its Reference Target curve which is flat below 4 kHz. Sean and others of course are correct, a flat target curve may not always be the optimal curve.

Larry



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LarryChanin is offline  
post #169 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 08:48 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

With regards to the circle of confusion, it seems that cinema mixes provide far more "standardization" than the music industry. Do we have any idea what reference listening level is in a music mix? We know that for movie mixes. I would think this is important to the psychoacoustic issues of perception of reproduced bass at different volume levels. If everything starts at a known place, aka "reference," then those can be factored in.

Admittedly, my head is swimming and if my question seems misplaced, I apologize.

At least one of the RC's has a target curve intended for cinema content, but yet the three pieces were all music. Well recorded, perhaps, as was acknowledged, but not to cinema standards. Would an RC with a cinema correction curve not have a leg down right out of the gate? If the answer is that they ALL had cinema curves, then ... nevermind.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #170 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

At least one of the RC's has a target curve intended for cinema content, but yet the three pieces were all music. Well recorded, perhaps, as was acknowledged, but not to cinema standards. Would an RC with a cinema correction curve not have a leg down right out of the gate?

As an aside, what does the purveyor of a cinema-tuned RC suggest their users do when playing music? If it's inappropriate to use the cinema curve, there must be some other means to accommodate music within the RC envelope, I'd think.

Roger

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #171 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

As an aside, what does the purveyor of a cinema-tuned RC suggest their users do when playing music? If it's inappropriate to use the cinema curve, there must be some other means to accommodate music within the RC envelope, I'd think.

Rhetorical, right?

Someone earlier in the thread posted "a work in progress" wrt RC schemes and that got an "amen" from me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #172 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Admittedly, my head is swimming and if my question seems misplaced, I apologize.

At least one of the RC's has a target curve intended for cinema content, but yet the three pieces were all music. Well recorded, perhaps, as was acknowledged, but not to cinema standards. Would an RC with a cinema correction curve not have a leg down right out of the gate? If the answer is that they ALL had cinema curves, then ... nevermind.

What RCs have a "cinema" curve? I know of the BassQ having that, but I can't remember any others off the top of my head.
Cam Man is offline  
post #173 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 10:13 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

What RCs have a "cinema" curve? I know of the BassQ having that, but I can't remember any others off the top of my head.

Audyssey's "default" target curve emulates in the home the curve mixing stages are EQ'd to. Some gear has a flat alternative, and some others have a workaround .. of sorts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #174 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Audyssey's "default" target curve emulates in the home the curve mixing stages are EQ'd to. Some gear has a flat alternative, and some others have a workaround .. of sorts.

Thank you. Somehow I have missed that. Given that most of that target is flat, I have always been under the impression that the gentle roll off done by the Audyssey curve was a target based on research that resulted in a roll off common to all "good" rooms using "good" speakers (as opposed to purely flat out to 20KHz). I thought that this didn't attempt to translate the cinema response to the home as does THX post-processing.
Cam Man is offline  
post #175 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Sean,

Can you comment on whether or not the Harmon RC system (RC1 and 2) correct in the time domain? If yes can you explain how the system would correct in the time domain?

I have always been curious as to how a system would correct in the time domain. Any explanation here would be appreciated.
Frank D is offline  
post #176 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 07:44 PM
Member
 
Gregor Samsa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was initially irritated that this study did not identify which signal alteration systems (I heartily agree that calling them "room correction" is a misnomer) produced which results. After perusing this thread and thinking about it, I realize that this was the right thing to do. Moreover, the degree of identification you have done is excessive. The reason for this is that people tend to reify studies like this, when in actuality, this study has virtually zero relevance for the experience of listeners enjoying music or movies in their home.

In delineating the reasons for my conclusion, I will acknowledge that some of this repeats points that others have made or alluded to.

1. The n was woefully small and the description of the subjects quite limited. This makes it impossible for any reader to determine whether they were sufficiently similar to him or her to make comparisons relevant. These people positively correlated "boomy" with their overall satisfaction with their listening experience. Is this true for most people? Certainly not for audiophiles. I'm also skeptical that you had sufficient power for the ANOVA to be valid.

2. You conducted the study in a room tweaked to within an inch of its life. Do you have a dollar figure on the cost of the acoustic treatment employed? Far beyond the means of the average listener, and unlikely to be encountered in the real world.

3. A limited and homogeneous sample of music. It would be hard to find 3 more similar artists. There is no jazz or classical, let alone death metal, ambient, rap, etc.

4. A lack of specificity to the subjective dependent variables. Do you have any data on whether people can reliably determine whether music is "thin" or "muffled"? Without reliability, of course, the question of validity is moot. I had to smile when I saw you employ the terms "forward" and "colored". When audiophiles use such terms, AES types greet them with sneering and derision.

5. The music employed was downmixed to mono. Nobody listens to mono any more except audiophiles and people who listen to music on clock radios. Audiophiles are, of course, self deluded and those who listen on clock radios have no need for the signal processing tested.

6. One group of components are used. There are myriad types of speakers that real people use. Would you have achieved similar results with Magnepans? Lowthers? Klipschhorns? How about different amplifiers? Oh, wait. All amplifiers sound the same, right? So where does Harman get off charging so much for Levinsons?

I understand that some of this is endemic to the process. You have to have sufficient control of variables to rule out confounds in your results. However, the greater this control, the less the relevance to real-world experience. I also understand the need to limit the factors assessed. Other approaches are impractical. Who wants to try to interpret a 10-way interaction?

So the responsible stand is to not overinterpret these results. It would be more than "bad manners" to reveal the results more fully, it would have been misleading. I did notice that a concern for manners didn't prevent you from tooting the horn of your own system or bum-rapping a competitors speaker (and a discontinued model at that) in this thread.

In other areas of Psychology research (which is what you are doing whether you recognize it or not) both laboratory research and naturalistic observation are considered important. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are considered, with the hope that, somewhere in the middle, consistent and generalizable conclusions can be reached. It is therefore puzzling that places like the AES are so dismissive of the experiences of audiophiles. This isn't just engineering that you are dealing with, it's human perception. This is a far more ephemeral, quixotic, and emotionally tinged endeavor.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in civilization. If you don't like government, move to Somalia.
Gregor Samsa is offline  
post #177 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 08:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 173
You seem unaware that this study wasn't the first time anyone had ever tested human audio perception at Harman. It rests on decades of studies by Olive and others -- studies concerning many of the issues you seem to think were only arbitrarily addressed, if at all.
krabapple is offline  
post #178 of 583 Old 11-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Senior Member
 
youngho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor Samsa View Post

2. You conducted the study in a room tweaked to within an inch of its life. Do you have a dollar figure on the cost of the acoustic treatment employed? Far beyond the means of the average listener, and unlikely to be encountered in the real world.

As opposed to the equipment under test, which would not be "far beyond the means of the average listener." As a point of reference, the room correction products cost $2500-$7000, and the B&W 802Ns retailed for about $8000. For $10000+, one could buy a substantial number of ASC Tube Traps (the larger half-round ones cost a little more than $1000 in the 8' tall version), RPG Skylines (<$200 each), and absorption panels (variable in cost, but should not consume the remainder of the budget).

Quote:
So the responsible stand is to not overinterpret these results. It would be more than "bad manners" to reveal the results more fully, it would have been misleading. I did notice that a concern for manners didn't prevent you from tooting the horn of your own system or bum-rapping a competitors speaker (and a discontinued model at that) in this thread.

These measurements suggest that the current model also has significant directivity problems: http://stereophile.com/floorloudspea...bw/index4.html

(edited to remove potentially inflammatory content)
youngho is offline  
post #179 of 583 Old 11-09-2009, 03:15 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
could it be time to unsubscribe in such an amazingly short period of time?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #180 of 583 Old 11-09-2009, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin View Post


...Apart from timbre matching I don't believe the basic equalization of the subwoofer and a single main speaker would be compromised by running with only one satellite speaker. Although it measures all speakers when it does its measurements, Audyssey performs the equalization on each speaker individually.

I think it depends on the compromises the fuzzy logic has to make when considering the whole, including mulptiple seats. Would the end result of just EQ'ing the speaker and one sub at one listening position be different than if those two were EQ'd as part of the 7.1 set up at multiple seats?
rnrgagne is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off