Should I keep my Treble tone setting to "0dB" or bump it a little bit ? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by treyrhodes View Post

Y'know, back when they put those big treble and bass knobs on receivers, people weren't so afraid to give them a spin to their liking. I sorta miss those days. ;-)

I think the point is to have the sound such as to not need them.

Turning a knob is certainly easier than treating a room, granted. But if you want better sound, then one should consider addressing the real problem(s) rather than putting a band-aid on them.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 08:13 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

I think the point is to have the sound such as to not need them.

Turning a knob is certainly easier than treating a room, granted. But if you want better sound, then one should consider addressing the real problem(s) rather than putting a band-aid on them.

This presupposes that there's a single, ideal FR for all recordings. I wish that were true, but it isn't.
Gizmologist likes this.
RUR is offline  
post #93 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 08:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

This presupposes that there's a single, ideal FR for all recordings. I wish that were true, but it isn't.

If we are talking about overall FR response, I dont presuppose that at all. There are ways to steer the FR to your liking without resorting to EQ or processors is my point. Look at my FR response a few posts ago. The tilted response (bass being higher than the highs) is by design and I didnt accomplish it though EQ or tone controls. I could have made it bright or mid dominate if id liked as well.

While tone controls and/or EQ are the easy way to change your FR, its a myth that that is the only way or best way.

Now if your talking about individual masterings/recordings and their variations in terms of FR, then you have a point. If your one of those people that strive for every recoding to have the same tone and FR and you feel the need to adjust this for every song you play, then I would agree that tone/EQ is necessary given you cant feasibly change the room for each. But I think its a small minority that do this. Most strive for a overall response that suits the vast majority of the material they like to listen to. Admittedly, there are those occasional favorites that suffer from poor mastering and/recording that would benefit from EQ in some form. In this case, you could have EQ or tone controls that can be bypassed when unnecessary and engaged when their needed. But this line of thought is a completely different one from something like Audyssey or an EQ curve that is engaged on a full time basis to compensate for rooms acoustic problems.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #94 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 08:53 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

Now if your talking about individual masterings/recordings and their variations in terms of FR, then you have a point. If your one of those people that strive for every recoding to have the same tone and FR and you feel the need to adjust this for every song you play, then I would agree that tone/EQ is necessary given you cant feasibly change the room for each. But I think its a small minority that do this.
Yup, that's exactly what I was referring to and, apparently, I'm part of the "small minority".cool.gif

To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that treatment is a necessary first step. I just don't see it as a comprehensive solution.
RUR is offline  
post #95 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 786
Jim, I looked at your thread, very nice. You have only two speakers? How much time and $ did you spend on room treatment? Indeed an impressive fr graph you posted in any case...personally I'm not going to spend time in a rental house modifying the room much or actually not at all smile.gif....I've been lazy that way so far. I'll tweak with Audyssey and my controls to my liking, just starting to play around with the omnimic and minidsp on my subs.

lovinthehd is offline  
post #96 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 09:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Jim, I looked at your thread, very nice. You have only two speakers? How much time and $ did you spend on room treatment? Indeed an impressive fr graph you posted in any case...personally I'm not going to spend time in a rental house modifying the room much or actually not at all smile.gif....I've been lazy that way so far. I'll tweak with Audyssey and my controls to my liking, just starting to play around with the omnimic and minidsp on my subs.

2 speakers plus a sub. Thats it.

Overall room treatment costs were in the $1000 - $1200 range. Would have been more like $700 - $800 if not for some mistakes along the way (like investing in Auralex 2"studiofoam, worthless btw). I built the bass traps, diffusers, etc... myself. Otherwise the cost would have been too high for me to afford.

If I were in a rental house, I wouldnt have done what I did. Some 2'x4' acoustic panels at first reflection points could be done in a non-permanant way and you may consider that even in a rent house.

Time wise it took me about a year to complete. But the majority of that time was learning how things worked and what to do. If one did all the learning upfront, even DIY, I imagine a full and complete room treatment could be doable over several weeks or a couple months. It just depends on how much free time you have.

Thanks for the kind remarks on my FR. I mainly wanted to show people what can be achieved on a relatively low budget ($1000), by someone who is a poor carpenter, and started out knowing almost nothing about room acoustics. I have yet to see an Audyssey or EQ'd based FR graph at the listening position as good as one derived from a properly treated room.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #97 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 10:01 AM
Member
 
MitchFlorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post

You do realize that the multiple channels in modern receivers is specifically for multi-channel content, like movies, video-games, tv shows etc right? That the vast majority of receivers sold in this day and age are for multi-purpose Home Theater systems that are meant to play movies, music and games, right? That dedicated stereo systems for critical music listening is in a very small minority, right?

Because from your postings, you seem very ignorant as to the standard useage of the multi-channel recievers. Why do you need 5 to 7 speakers? If all you want to listen to is 2-channel music, you don't need them. They aren't forcing you to use them. The extra channels are for those who want to simulate a theatrical experience in their home. Of course, non-audiophiles often want to use all those extra speakers for music since they have them and thus Dolby and DTS made matrixing algorithms for music using 3+ speakers. Manufacturers put "All-channel stereo" as another option. All options. No big deal.

There are plenty of options out there in 2-channel Amplification for those who don't want to mess with a Home Theater reciever. And you get direct, uncolored (lesser-colored?) sound coming out of your speakers, which from what I've read here and elsewhere is the dream of every "True Audiophile" everywhere...


Most of my TV viewing involves older movies, news , documentaries, tv series, comedies etc. How often do you watch a movie like Mission Impossible or Ironman or SpiderMan where you hear a bomb or explosion behind you and you are supposed to feel like you are right there at the explosion? Very rare, and I don't care for that silly stuff anyway. I also don't like the hassle of constantly switching back and forth from 2 channel to 7 channel and the expense of buying those extra "satellite" speakers, which are usually of inferior quality to the front speakers. And who would want music played through those inferior speakers? For what, so you can feel like you are at the bottom of a well or at rock stadium?
Gizmologist likes this.
MitchFlorida is offline  
post #98 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 130
MitchFlorida - "Silly stuff" and lousy satellite speakers pretty much explains where you are coming from. Lots of people here take a more serious approach to multichannel audio. So do the people who produce the content.
BIslander is online now  
post #99 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gizmologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
What is so amusing in this thread is that many think they start with some sort or tonally perfect recording that was ordained to sound a certain way. The recording engineer is the guy who uses his OWN ears and speakers and the desire of the artist to manually adjust hundreds of EQ and shelving controls, so you already have a great deal of subjectivity involved before YOU even have access to the recording. What is the harm done in deciding that what ever the engineer liked may not match up with your preferences and manually adjusting the system to make your experience more enjoyable?

The concept makes about as much sense as asking a stranger how much light you should have in your house and the stranger does not know your house, what you are looking at, your eyes' sensitivity or your personal preference for soft or shadowy illumination or daylight in your living room.
Gizmologist is offline  
post #100 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

What is so amusing in this thread is that many think they start with some sort or tonally perfect recording that was ordained to sound a certain way. The recording engineer is the guy who uses his OWN ears and speakers and the desire of the artist to manually adjust hundreds of EQ and shelving controls, so you already have a great deal of subjectivity involved before YOU even have access to the recording. What is the harm done in deciding that what ever the engineer liked may not match up with your preferences and manually adjusting the system to make your experience more enjoyable?

The concept makes about as much sense as asking a stranger how much light you should have in your house and the stranger does not know your house, what you are looking at, your eyes' sensitivity or your personal preference for soft or shadowy illumination or daylight in your living room.

Your point is valid. However, I like a bit of "flavoring" or diversity to how things sound. I may like red flowers the best, but I wouldnt want to change the blues, whites and yellows from what they are.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #101 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 11:48 AM
Member
 
MitchFlorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

What is so amusing in this thread is that many think they start with some sort or tonally perfect recording that was ordained to sound a certain way. The recording engineer is the guy who uses his OWN ears and speakers and the desire of the artist to manually adjust hundreds of EQ and shelving controls, so you already have a great deal of subjectivity involved before YOU even have access to the recording. What is the harm done in deciding that what ever the engineer liked may not match up with your preferences and manually adjusting the system to make your experience more enjoyable?

The answer is that the Recording Engineer is being paid big bucks to engineer the sound, and I am not being paid anything to second-guess him. I simply do not have the time.
MitchFlorida is offline  
post #102 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gizmologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
So you feel that adjusting the sound a bit more to YOUR personal preference is wrong? Suppose you have a hearing deficit in the range of 5khz and up. You would not be experiencing what the engineer recorded without altering the controls just a bit. Why is that wrong? Your automatic equipment and software would adjust to what its presets have determined but that may leave you missing some of the intensity and timbre of the music.
treyrhodes likes this.
Gizmologist is offline  
post #103 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 01:20 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchFlorida View Post

The answer is that the Recording Engineer is being paid big bucks to engineer the sound, and I am not being paid anything to second-guess him. I simply do not have the time.

The likelihood of your hearing, in your room, the same frequency response heard by the mastering engineer is practically nil.

Ever measured the FR in your room, as Jim has done?
RUR is offline  
post #104 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 01:22 PM
Member
 
MitchFlorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
My stereo system is transparent and clear enough that I don't have to compensate for bad treble or bass response. People who have low quality audio equpment have no choice, they must boost either the bass and/or treble settings. I have invested enough money in my audio equipment that I don't need to do that. If you need to, that is fine.
MitchFlorida is offline  
post #105 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 01:37 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchFlorida View Post

My stereo system is transparent and clear enough that I don't have to compensate for bad treble or bass response. People who have low quality audio equpment have no choice, they must boost either the bass and/or treble settings. I have invested enough money in my audio equipment that I don't need to do that. If you need to, that is fine.

Ad hominems are no substitute for rational discussion, and money is no substitute for knowledge.

So, you don't understand why you won't hear what the mastering engineer heard? You haven't measured your room?
RUR is offline  
post #106 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 01:42 PM
Member
 
treyrhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

I think the point is to have the sound such as to not need them.

Turning a knob is certainly easier than treating a room, granted. But if you want better sound, then one should consider addressing the real problem(s) rather than putting a band-aid on them.

True. However, no one could argue against applying EQ adjustments at lower sound pressure levels versus "reference" (whatever that may be for the source material.) Low frequency response is, of course, the prime consideration. It simply cannot sound as it was intended to unless you compensate with EQ. IMHO, the higher the amplitude, the less you should need to use your EQ, all other things being equal.

Another consideration (and this may apply to the OP's point) is that, as adults who can afford such gear as we are all talking about, we may have attenuated our high frequency hearing to the extent that some adjustments might need to be made to the high end as well. And even at higher amplitudes.

Spin the knob!
Gizmologist likes this.
treyrhodes is offline  
post #107 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchFlorida View Post

I have invested enough money in my audio equipment that I don't need to do that. If you need to, that is fine.

Throwing money at your system means absolutely nothing apart from bragging rights.

Have a look at this thread were a bunch of guys had a speaker shootout at someone's place. Some very nice and costly speakers were brought over for comparison. Yet unfortunately they were all largely dominated by the room and they wouldn't have sounded anything like they would sound in a more neutral room.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #108 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by treyrhodes View Post

True. However, no one could argue against applying EQ adjustments at lower sound pressure levels versus "reference" (whatever that may be for the source material.) Low frequency response is, of course, the prime consideration. It simply cannot sound as it was intended to unless you compensate with EQ. IMHO, the higher the amplitude, the less you should need to use your EQ, all other things being equal.

I am finding through my own experience and experiments that I appreciate the sound quality improvements each time I get the measured frequency response smoother, freer from less severe peaks and dips. However I only like those improvements if it comes from physically changing placements in the room or from acoustic treatments or from better bass management/integration.

I can make the frequency response look better again with EQ, but I find it degrades sound quality from doing so. I'm not sure if it's the distortion it introduces or the fact you are altering the speaker's natural response. I would rather live with a peak or dip somewhere in the FR and no EQ. But of course I would still prefer a smoother response if I could achieve it with better room placement or treatments.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #109 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 02:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchFlorida View Post

My stereo system is transparent and clear enough that I don't have to compensate for bad treble or bass response. People who have low quality audio equipment have no choice, they must boost either the bass and/or treble settings. I have invested enough money in my audio equipment that I don't need to do that. If you need to, that is fine.

Perhaps.

But how much have you invested in room treatment?

Many a average room with no treatment have 10db peaks and 20 and 30db nulls. No amount of expensive gear is going to sound as intended in such an acoustic space. But if you really want to convince us all, post your FR response at the listening position with 1/24th oct smoothing and we will see.

If you somehow believe the room doesnt alter what your hear substantially (particularly minimal treated or untreated ones), then I am afraid you havent researched the subject properly or heard a properly treated room.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #110 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I am finding through my own experience and experiments that I appreciate the sound quality improvements each time I get the measured frequency response smoother, freer from less severe peaks and dips. However I only like those improvements if it comes from physically changing placements in the room or from acoustic treatments or from better bass management/integration.

I can make the frequency response look better again with EQ, but I find it degrades sound quality from doing so. I'm not sure if it's the distortion it introduces or the fact you are altering the speaker's natural response. I would rather live with a peak or dip somewhere in the FR and no EQ. But of course I would still prefer a smoother response if I could achieve it with better room placement or treatments.

+1

That is very close to my own take.

I actually own a EQ. But as you say, while I can get the FR just a bit smoother using it, it also causes a partial collapse of my soundstage.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #111 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

The likelihood of your hearing, in your room, the same frequency response heard by the mastering engineer is practically nil.

Great point. Many assume that merely leaving the tone controls neutral achieves a flat listening response. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Gizmologist and treyrhodes like this.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #112 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 03:24 PM
Member
 
treyrhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
This is all quite amusing. Love this subforum; it's like the wild west in here.

Anyway, I look at things perhaps differently than many, I suppose. I come from a music production background. So, in the case of two-channel music, I see EQ applied everywhere along the signal chain (even the speakers impart color in terms of frequency response.) I am all for preserving the gain structure of a signal chain but, forgetting the finer points of unity gain for a second, let's take a look at your average guitar track, recorded live (perhaps the case in which a purist might not want to ruin the sound with excessive EQ.)

First, the instrument itself has tone controls, of course. Then there may be a multitude of effects pedals which apply tone shaping also in terms of FR. Then the preamp section of the instrument amp has a tone stack that shapes FR. Then the speaker transducer applies its own FR curve. Then the microphone transducer and room impart another. Then the mixing console's EQ faders are employed. Then the outboard effects gear. Then the whole mix is re-EQed at mixdown. (Heck, sometimes it is re-amped in studio or re-processed in ProTools!) Then the mix is re-EQed again and mastered to source. Then the signal is played back at home, let's say, and through another set of speakers with their own special coloration. And only now, you are not supposed to alter the FR of the preamp stage? Um, okay. If you say so. Me, I do so at will. And I have with my own recorded material. I am creatively participating in the sounds of the recording process, right up until it hits my cochlea.

You all may see it differently, but, I consider listening to be an active process, no matter what the gear. I have both mixed and mastered CDs and I do not consider the final master to be sacrosanct or the mastering engineer to be a high priest in the ivory tower. In the case of one CD in particular, the artist chose between two very differently EQed versions; I like the one he did not pick better! It is merely one man's or woman's opinion of what sounds best in his or her room with his or her gear.

Also, it may be worthwhile to consider that for years in the studio, guys like me have been mixing (in a very, very dead room) simultaneously for really crappy speakers and really great nearfield monitors. (In my case, the venerable sh*tbox Yamaha NS10s and truly gorgeous Genelec active monitors and sub.) A lot of guys I know, only use the NS10s. Now, try to wrap your head around this for a minute: the source is EQed at mixdown only for truly awful bookshelf speakers from 1978. Food for thought....
Gizmologist likes this.
treyrhodes is offline  
post #113 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by treyrhodes View Post

Also, it may be worthwhile to consider that for years in the studio, guys like me have been mixing (in a very, very dead room) simultaneously for really crappy speakers and really great nearfield monitors. (In my case, the venerable sh*tbox Yamaha NS10s and truly gorgeous Genelec active monitors and sub.) A lot of guys I know, only use the NS10s. Now, try to wrap your head around this for a minute: the source is EQed at mixdown only for truly awful bookshelf speakers from 1978. Food for thought....

I totally agree with what you are saying. I'm certainly not one that thinks "I must hear what the mixing engineer intended me to hear" or "there is only one true way to reproduce a CD" or some such nonsense. I will build my system to what pleases and sounds good to me.

That journey has led me to discover that applying EQ to fix a bad room, bad placement, bad speakers, is a compromise over having good speakers in a good room with good placement with no EQ needed.
treyrhodes likes this.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #114 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by treyrhodes View Post

This is all quite amusing. Love this subforum; it's like the wild west in here.

Anyway, I look at things perhaps differently than many, I suppose. I come from a music production background. So, in the case of two-channel music, I see EQ applied everywhere along the signal chain (even the speakers impart color in terms of frequency response.) I am all for preserving the gain structure of a signal chain but, forgetting the finer points of unity gain for a second, let's take a look at your average guitar track. First, the instrument itself has tone controls, of course. Then there may be a multitude of effects pedals which apply tone shaping also in terms of FR. Then the preamp section of the instrument amp has a tone stack that shapes FR. Then the speaker transducer applies its own FR curve. Then the microphone imparts another. Then the mixing console's EQ faders are employed. Then the outboard effects gear. Then the whole mix is re-EQed at mixdown. Then the mix is re-EQed again and mastered to source. Then the signal is played back at home, let's say, and through another set of speakers with their own special coloration. And only now, you are not supposed to alter the FR of the preamp stage? Um, okay. If you say so. Me, I do so at will. And I have with my own recorded material. I am creatively participating in the sounds of the recording process, right up until it hits my cochlea.

You all may see it differently, but, I consider listening to be an active process, no matter what the gear. I have both mixed and mastered CDs and I do not consider the final master to be sacrosanct or the mastering engineer to be a high priest in the ivory tower. In the case of one CD in particular, the artist chose between two very differently EQed versions; I like the one he did not pick better! It is merely one man's or woman's opinion of what sounds best in his or her room with his or her gear.

Also, it may be worthwhile to consider that for years in the studio, guys like me have been mixing (in a very, very dead room) simultaneously for really crappy speakers and really great nearfield monitors. (In my case, the venerable sh*tbox Yamaha NS10s and truly gorgeous Genelec active monitors and sub.) A lot of guys I know, only use the NS10s. Now, try to wrap your head around this for a minute: the source is EQed at mixdown only for truly awful bookshelf speakers from 1978. Food for thought....

I think whats being said, or rather, what I am saying anyways is that adding EQ or some other processor in the signal path has consequences. And through room treatment, you can fix most problems without these consequences. Add to that many problems still persist even when such devices are used, such as uneven decay times and high gain early reflections from the room. Its not about, oh no, you shouldnt use EQ or tone controls. Its about realizing the problem isnt solved by using them, and other problems are created by their use.

An analogy comes to mind. Take a painting. The artist, any artist can use any mix of colors in his/her creation. But the final product is a certain blend of them plus contrasts. An untreated room is akin to colored lights being used to view the painting without the viewer realizing the lights are colored. Now, one can say I like the painting better when its more blue, then reach for their blue tinted glasses, and then say, Ah! Thats better. But maybe, if the truth were known that the lights illuminating the painting were yellow to begin was the reason it seemed better viewed with blue sunglasses.

An illustration in artist intent.

Now, for the person who likes every painting they have ever viewed better when its more blue. OK. There is nothing wrong with that. But I think they owe it to themselves to see their paintings with the proper light before they decide this.


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #115 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:11 PM
Member
 
treyrhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I totally agree with what you are saying. I'm certainly not one that thinks "I must hear what the mixing engineer intended me to hear" or "there is only one true way to reproduce a CD" or some such nonsense. I will build my system to what pleases and sounds good to me.

That journey has led me to discover that applying EQ to fix a bad room, bad placement, bad speakers, is a compromise over having good speakers in a good room with good placement with no EQ needed.

The situation with multichannel movie soundtracks gets even weirder of course. These sources were engineered to be reproduced on (relatively) crude and highly-nonlinear JBL cinema systems and the like. They are big and boxy and replete with massive horn tweeters and huge drivers driven by what amount to FOH sound reinforcement amps. And let's not forget the panoply of subwoofers forcing huge amounts of low frequency energy down your throat that you'll find these days in a modern theater. So if you are a self-respecting cinephile you throw your DTS-HD mix into your Blu-ray player and send it a through a much different signal chain that, in some ways, is higher fidelity than you'll find at the theater. Sometimes it is worse. No matter, it will obviously be different and that's the key. Nevertheless those 200-lb birch-plywood JBL monsters are the reference target.
treyrhodes is offline  
post #116 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:28 PM
Member
 
treyrhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

I think whats being said, or rather, what I am saying anyways is that adding EQ or some other processor in the signal path has consequences. And through room treatment, you can fix most problems without these consequences. Add to that many problems still persist even when such devices are used, such as uneven decay times and high gain early reflections from the room. Its not about, oh no, you shouldnt use EQ or tone controls. Its about realizing the problem isnt solved by using them, and other problems are created by their use.

An analogy comes to mind. Take a painting. The artist, any artist can use any mix of colors in his/her creation. But the final product is a certain blend of them plus contrasts. An untreated room is akin to colored lights being used to view the painting without the viewer realizing the lights are colored. Now, one can say I like the painting better when its more blue, then reach for their blue tinted glasses, and then say, Ah! Thats better. But maybe, if the truth were known that the lights illuminating the painting were yellow to begin was the reason it seemed better viewed with blue sunglasses.

An illustration in artist intent.

Now, for the person who likes every painting they have ever viewed better when its more blue. OK. There is nothing wrong with that. But I think they owe it to themselves to see their paintings with the proper light before they decide this.

I find a more analogous situation to be the calibration of my display. I strive for reference levels but it is never perfect. I apply tweaks to the color values and whatnot at will. To make matters worse, In low light, I use different settings than in broad daylight. I have two calibrated modes. Okay, so, which is better? Which is more pure with respect to the artist's intent? Good question...

The obvious answer is the same as to the the OP's question and to the others who have chimed in: whatever makes you the happiest listening (or watching) is probably in line with what the artist intended. If that involves changing frequency responses, so what? It is necessary to change FR? Well, maybe, if it makes you happy. If it makes you unhappy to alter the response curve, then, by no means should you do it. That would likely also not be in line with the artist's intent of providing a joyful experience.
treyrhodes is offline  
post #117 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
grasshoppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: aridzona
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 131
This is a very good reading thread. Jim1961 I'm very impressed with your set-up
And the measurements you posted. I also read the thread on gearslutz,a lot of
Hard work involved there.

I briefly checked into room treatments. This was after I heard some paradigm
Studio 100's in a very well treated room at a dealer. Before we turned the system
On I looked around at the treatments and said to myself "this is way overkill and
I could NEVER get away with this" . The wife would shoot me. When he turned
On the system my jaw nearly hit the floor!! Yeah it was that good. I was at the
Dealer to pick up my Athem MRX-300. I bought it because of the Anthem room
Correction system. I have Paradigm Signature speakers in my living room.

The idea of a flat in room response is something I strive for. But, I also realize that
There are many variables in the equation. Obviously is your own hearing and the hearing
Of the recording engineer, and the mastering of the source material,etc,etc. I guess the bottom
Line is does it sound good to you? If your hearing is starting to go,then maybe you might
Want to boost the treble. I don't see a problem with that.

I have a 2.1 system set-up in a spare bedroom. I'm thinking of getting some basic
Room treatments and REW and see what I can accomplish. Using an outlaw audio
RR 2150,paradigm sub w/PBK and Studio 40's.

I thought I would post the ARC graphs of my left/right speakers so folks could
See what the room correction of ARC did. Yeah,definitely not an "audiophile"
Approach but, it works for me. ARC set the cut-offs for my mains at 60hz, and
I basically have a plus/minus 2db response. I'm very happy with the sound.
PS: the green line is the corrected freq response.


grasshoppers is online now  
post #118 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by treyrhodes View Post

I find a more analogous situation to be the calibration of my display. I strive for reference levels but it is never perfect. I apply tweaks to the color values and whatnot at will. To make matters worse, In low light, I use different settings than in broad daylight. I have two calibrated modes. Okay, so, which is better? Which is more pure with respect to the artist's intent? Good question...

The obvious answer is the same as to the the OP's question and to the others who have chimed in: whatever makes you the happiest listening (or watching) is probably in line with what the artist intended. If that involves changing frequency responses, so what? It is necessary to change FR? Well, maybe, if it makes you happy. If it makes you unhappy to alter the response curve, then, by no means should you do it. That would likely also not be in line with the artist's intent of providing a joyful experience.

If changing the color value lowered the resolution, would it change your approach?

Cocaine makes a lot of people happy. But what if their were a way to get even higher without the drug?


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
post #119 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gizmologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
In the recording of guitars and other stringed instruments, there are some interesting variations that play on the difference in acoustic transmission to control the overall sound. Some engineers will use a transformer coupled direct box from the pick-up outputs right in a mic channel while others will mix a direct box signal with a mic in front the on the cabinet the performer is listening to. The recorded signal is a mix of the two signals.

If the engineer uses that mix source arrangement but the performer uses in ear monitors, what he THINKS he is generating is not what the engineer is hearing or recording. There are multiple layers of source monitoring by everyone involved.
Gizmologist is offline  
post #120 of 139 Old 05-15-2013, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppers View Post

This is a very good reading thread. Jim1961 I'm very impressed with your set-up
And the measurements you posted. I also read the thread on gearslutz,a lot of
Hard work involved there.

I briefly checked into room treatments. This was after I heard some paradigm
Studio 100's in a very well treated room at a dealer. Before we turned the system
On I looked around at the treatments and said to myself "this is way overkill and
I could NEVER get away with this" . The wife would shoot me. When he turned
On the system my jaw nearly hit the floor!! Yeah it was that good. I was at the
Dealer to pick up my Athem MRX-300. I bought it because of the Anthem room
Correction system. I have Paradigm Signature speakers in my living room.

The idea of a flat in room response is something I strive for. But, I also realize that
There are many variables in the equation. Obviously is your own hearing and the hearing
Of the recording engineer, and the mastering of the source material,etc,etc. I guess the bottom
Line is does it sound good to you? If your hearing is starting to go,then maybe you might
Want to boost the treble. I don't see a problem with that.

I have a 2.1 system set-up in a spare bedroom. I'm thinking of getting some basic
Room treatments and REW and see what I can accomplish. Using an outlaw audio
RR 2150,paradigm sub w/PBK and Studio 40's.

I thought I would post the ARC graphs of my left/right speakers so folks could
See what the room correction of ARC did. Yeah,definitely not an "audiophile"
Approach but, it works for me. ARC set the cut-offs for my mains at 60hz, and
I basically have a plus/minus 2db response. I'm very happy with the sound.



http://cdn.avsforum.com/3/3e/3e7fa466_vbattach205474.jpeg

Thanks smile.gif

Despite (obviously) being a huge advocate of room treatment, I realize its not something everyone is going to do, or wants to do, and that is fine. Its more that I want to bring awareness of its benefits to people. I was in my late 40's before I jumped into this Rabbit hole. And like your experience at your dealer, I was shocked, amazed what a difference it makes. I was ignorant for a very long time and wished I had emerged from that ignorance decades ago. So, for me, I think of it as a favor to others to put it out there. Some of my posts may not be taken favorably, but the intent is there.

Your corrected graphs are very good. You should be proud. I see you like the bass to treble tilt that I do smile.gif


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.

Rega - Apollo, Rega - DAC, Goldpoint Passive, (2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jim19611961 is online now  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

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