How do I learn to recognize sound quality? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 03:47 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
NightScreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Question How do I learn to recognize sound quality?

I read the audio glossary guide. I didn't find it too helpful since I don't know how things like bloom,rich or tizzy is supposed to sound per say. I'm not even sure what sound quality is supposed to sound like to be honest. I think I may have some kind of sound bias, where I prefer certain types of sounds that apparently are not what audiophiles consider "quality" sound.
Like Bose...I really like their HP's and HT systems, but everyone says their trash. ok so I listen to something recommended like Klipsche and I didn't care for it.

I read people say...buy these particular models of Headphones cause they have good sound quality. So I tried a couple like the UltraSone hd780 and I forget the other one I got. Well they sound rather flat to me, it's the only way I can describe it. Maybe I just like punchy bass? I tend to heavily EQ everything...where it looks like a "V" shape on the Equalizer.
Is the frequency response supposed to be flat?...as in no EQ?

I'm interested in trying to retrain my hearing so to speak. I wonder if I'm just so used to certain types of sounds that it became a preference?...is that possible?

I'm not really talking about super expensive systems, just something adequate. I noticed this when I reinstalled my car audio system. I used JL Audio C3 fronts and JL Audio XD amplifier..mid level gear I'd say and even silver cladded copper RCA's with triple shielding.
Without any EQ, it sounds flat and dull to me...is this how I'm supposed to listen to it?
NightScreams is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 05:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
"I wonder if I'm just so used to certain types of sounds that it became a preference?...is that possible?"

Looks like it be so.

"Is the frequency response supposed to be flat?...as in no EQ?"

Yes, although I do sometimes have a little cut at 80 and 200 or so due to the room.

"I really like their HP's and HT systems"

Get what you like.

"I prefer certain types of sounds"

I'm not sure what that means. A flute has no bass, you like punchy bass, so you don't like a flute (unless it has a lot of bass?)

---

At this point, I would say my stereo has no "sound" - it sounds like what it plays. And THAT is "good sound quality" in terms of the playback system.

I'll be back later...



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

Last edited by RayDunzl; 07-13-2014 at 05:32 PM.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #3 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 05:34 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
NightScreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
"I wonder if I'm just so used to certain types of sounds that it became a preference?...is that possible?"

Looks like it be so.

"Is the frequency response supposed to be flat?...as in no EQ?"

Yes, although I do sometimes have a little cut at 80 and 200 or so due to the room.
I would assume this sound bias is very common considering what the mass consumers purchase. How can I go about making a flat EQ actually sound good if it's sounding too dull atm?

I wonder if this is similar to how people prefer more salt in their food simply because we are flooded with so much sodium in most every food product these days? But then again, if boosted frequencies sound good then what relevance does SQ really have to the individual? If it means one thing to an audiophile and something else to someone else then does it even have any real definition? How can it be corrected?
NightScreams is offline  
post #4 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 05:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
"How can it be corrected?"

What do you like to listen to?

This gives me chills:


This does not:

Djoel likes this.

I'll be back later...



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

Last edited by RayDunzl; 07-13-2014 at 05:45 PM.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #5 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 05:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 118
I'd say you have to listen to a lot of live unamplified acoustic music, do a lot of reading, and discover which kinds of loudspeakers and related components can deliver the same kind of sound. There's a whole bunch of books on high end audio out there, and while some of them are full of crap to some degree, they also occasionally make good points as to how to listen and what to listen for.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #6 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 05:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,120
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 303
First, you should buy what you like, and ignore what people on the Internet (most of whom are idiots) say. Bose, in particular, has made some really bad products, and some perfectly acceptable ones. The people who are telling you that Bose is always awful are probably just repeating something they've heard. OTOH, be aware that things can sound great on first listen but lose their appeal after extended listening.

Second, you need to understand the basic truth that only one component really matters much in determining the sound quality of your system: the speakers. Everything else can seem to matter, but that's almost always because you are inadvertently comparing them at different volume levels (and even tiny differences can fool you) or you're being influenced by things other than the sound—looks, price, brand reputation, salesman's patter, etc. We're all susceptible to this. Honest audiophiles admit to it.

Third, just because you're listening without EQ does not mean you're getting flat frequency response. Your speakers may not be flat (everything else probably is), and your room definitely is not.

Not sure how much this answers your question, but it might suggest that your question isn't quite as critical as you thought it was.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #7 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Djoel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
"How can it be corrected?"

What do you like to listen to?

This gives me chills:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2-zFh3tAU

This does not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9C7nQHmII&feature=kp

Love the cellos you posted, here are more great tunes to give you chills

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3SBzmDxGk

Djoel


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Djoel is offline  
post #8 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 06:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Back in the good old days, we used to have "music class" at school.

I played clarinet in the band, as early as the third grade, and on through high school, and played trombone for a while there (I wasn't good, but good enough I didn't get fired).

From that I know the sounds of most unamplified instruments.

I ran sound in a rocking lounge band for a year or so, got my experience with lots of power and balancing different elements of what the folks on stage were playing. I think we sounded good, nice triamped system, clean, and dynamic. No compressors in the PA stack, just the mikes, the board, then 31 band EQ to the 3 way crossover, to the amps, to the 18's, the 12's and the compression horn.

Much much later, I spent an hour or so in a lobby of the Atlanta Airport waiting for a flight with someone there playing a grand piano, most folks walked on by, I've got my head under the hood listening to see what my system at home was still missing in terms of piano tone and dynamics and mechanical noises.

He says "What are you doing?", I explained, he laughed.

If you want to know what "good sound" sounds like, you need first to know what "sound" sounds likes.
Djoel and Nodscene like this.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #9 of 33 Old 07-13-2014, 10:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
mtn-tech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Nevada
Posts: 963
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
I'd say you have to listen to a lot of live unamplified acoustic music...
Problem with this is many people's musical taste doesn't include any acoustic music and the only way to hear the music they like is live through a PA system or recordings through home speakers or headphones - and if it isn't music you care about you aren't going to care how it sounds.

I don't like classical, so I don't know how how my system sounds playing that kind of music. I love acoustic guitar and I have listened to a lot of it live and used it to audition speakers - but not everyone has a favorite acoustic music.

2-Ch (HT L/R): Oppo BDP-105 BD, Adcom GFP-750 pre, Bryston 10B Sub Xover, Bryston 4BSST2 / Paradigm Signature S4 v.2 (L/R), (2) SVS SB12-NSD (Subs)
Home Theater: Bryston 4BSST2 amp / Paradigm CC-590 (C), Outlaw 7700 amp / (4) Def Tech UIW-RSSII (LS/RS/LB/RB), Samsung 46” 3D LCD
mtn-tech is offline  
post #10 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 12:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtn-tech View Post
Problem with this is many people's musical taste doesn't include any acoustic music and the only way to hear the music they like is live through a PA system or recordings through home speakers or headphones - and if it isn't music you care about you aren't going to care how it sounds.
That's very true. On the other hand, if it's loud, amplified rock music, you're basically hearing the sound of the amps, lots of processing, and lots of multitrack edits and effects. Unless you know the master tape, any judgement calls you make about sound quality are all ephemeral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtn-tech View Post
I don't like classical, so I don't know how how my system sounds playing that kind of music. I love acoustic guitar and I have listened to a lot of it live and used it to audition speakers - but not everyone has a favorite acoustic music.
You could always go with solo jazz guitar or something like that. There are some very simple, popular jazz recordings that are actually often used for demoing million-dollar sound systems. Dave Brubeck's "Take 5" is a good one, very easy to find, and I've heard that on huge, huge systems at past CES exhibits.

You can make some good arguments that the human voice is one of the most difficult things to reproduce accurately, because we all know exactly how it sounds. But so much depends on acoustics and microphone selection and positioning, it's hard to make general predictions.

I'm often amused by people making observations about what they think they hear with lossy Dolby Digital tracks vs. a Lossless track, because none of them ever heard the final mix track in the recording studio. The truth is, a lot of the sound quality hinges on the ability of the person doing the mastering, and I think that matters more than anything else. All things being equal, I would prefer lossless when possible, but it's not a deal-killer for me when it's an old movie -- say, one made prior to about 1975 or so.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #11 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 12:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
"I don't like classical"

I used to find it generally uninvolving, but the improvements in my playback gear has made it a quite enjoyable listen.

I've had WSMR running all weekend on the lossy HD Radio feeding digits to the DAC which cleans things up real nicely.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #12 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 12:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 118
I dunno. Most of the HD Radio out there is only 128bps -- it's just not enough bits for me. I think in an ideal situation, you need to listen to lossless material for best results. Though I gotta say, the 256kbps AAC bitrate on iTunes Radio is not too hateful.

You want real crap sound quality, check out Sirius/XM, which I think was clocked at about 48kbps on a good day. Not good, plus they compress the living crap out of the dynamic range. In a car, it's not horrible, but it's not very good either.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #13 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 01:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
"a lot of the sound quality hinges on the ability of the person doing the mastering"

That's very true too, but it's not something we have much control over here at the homestead.

There's plenty we do have control over, so, I concentrate on that.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #14 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 01:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
"Most of the HD Radio out there is only 128bps -- it's just not enough bits for me."

I think that's the rate, I've emailed the station engineer to answer some questions.

It's enough for me (tonally good) for off-axis or otherwise casual listening like right now, if I sit in the sweet spot it's not as transparent as it could be with higher resolution.

A Phillip Glass I don't know is playing...

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #15 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 06:16 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
NightScreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post
, be aware that things can sound great on first listen but lose their appeal after extended listening.
I think you hit a nail on the head there. I always seem to lose appeal after a while, that's why I always change to EQ presets or alter them myself all the time, usually boosting more than anything. And once again I have lost all appeal of my new audio system in my car...this is probably the 4th system or variation I've had over the last several years.
I've also gone through a number of headphones but the audiophile ones seem to immediately disinterest me.

So perhaps this is why I'm on this little quest to discover why I don't like what some audiophiles say I should or shouldn't. But yeah I understand that audio is subjective. I just yet have heard anything that makes me say "wow". Unfortunatly that Bose system playing a star wars movie at BB was probably the closest wow moment, I really liked how the swords sounded, it seemed like a very nice system while the larger and more expensive towers didn't grab my attention other than to say the subwoofer had some oomph.. So far none of the other small HT class systems have impressed me and is why I ditched my last one. But am getting tired of going after new equipment all the time.
NightScreams is offline  
post #16 of 33 Old 07-14-2014, 06:49 PM
Senior Member
 
bizwiz41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightScreams View Post
I think you hit a nail on the head there. I always seem to lose appeal after a while, that's why I always change to EQ presets or alter them myself all the time, usually boosting more than anything. And once again I have lost all appeal of my new audio system in my car...this is probably the 4th system or variation I've had over the last several years.
I've also gone through a number of headphones but the audiophile ones seem to immediately disinterest me.

So perhaps this is why I'm on this little quest to discover why I don't like what some audiophiles say I should or shouldn't. But yeah I understand that audio is subjective. I just yet have heard anything that makes me say "wow". Unfortunatly that Bose system playing a star wars movie at BB was probably the closest wow moment, I really liked how the swords sounded, it seemed like a very nice system while the larger and more expensive towers didn't grab my attention other than to say the subwoofer had some oomph.. So far none of the other small HT class systems have impressed me and is why I ditched my last one. But am getting tired of going after new equipment all the time.
The short answer to your question about "what is sound quality?" is how closely does the system reproduce the sound if you heard it live, or in person. In the old days we called this "high fidelity" for quality reproduction of sound.

So, the question becomes does your system sound like the "live" version of the music you like? Most modern music is mostly bass, and hence what you're used to hearing. Bass notes are easier to reproduce than higher notes. So, a higher end system is needed to better reproduce say classical music.

Further, in the "live music model", in person you could probably easily distinguish individual instruments and/or vocals. Again, can you do this with your system?

So, I think if you look at it in terms of "if I were there listening live, would it sound like this? approach will help you. But, in the end it is all about what sounds good to you. It's your money, and your ears.

Sometimes I have to remind myself that I bought all this "stuff" to enjoy it!
bizwiz41 is offline  
post #17 of 33 Old 07-15-2014, 04:02 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
NightScreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwiz41 View Post
The short answer to your question about "what is sound quality?" is how closely does the system reproduce the sound if you heard it live, or in person. In the old days we called this "high fidelity" for quality reproduction of sound.

So, the question becomes does your system sound like the "live" version of the music you like? Most modern music is mostly bass, and hence what you're used to hearing. Bass notes are easier to reproduce than higher notes. So, a higher end system is needed to better reproduce say classical music.

Further, in the "live music model", in person you could probably easily distinguish individual instruments and/or vocals. Again, can you do this with your system?

So, I think if you look at it in terms of "if I were there listening live, would it sound like this? approach will help you. But, in the end it is all about what sounds good to you. It's your money, and your ears.
I hope by "live" you don't mean a rock concert. Those sound atrocious imo. But no I don't really know how my music is truly supposed to sound. I have little to nothing to compare it to. Much of the rock/metal music I listen to is likely not recorded that well to begin with. The music I buy nowadays is compressed plus most all my music listening is done in the car. Once in a while I use a cell phone and HP's.
NightScreams is offline  
post #18 of 33 Old 07-15-2014, 06:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Gaugster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
It is a fact of life that we adjust and form a preference to a particular sound system.

I rent cars all the time and the stereos always sound very very different for the first 20 minutes or so. Then my brain adjusts and I hear more pleasing music etc.... It's really a miracal when you stop to think about it.

I read about etymotic headphones as being very 'correct' as to not color the sound in any way. Probably the other brand the OP was referring too. I bought a pair but not the $$$$ ones. They do sound different and more detailed the other random ones I have.

www.etymotic.com

Normal systems don't have flat frequency response. The bass is boosted and the very high frequency roll off. This is normal hearing based in humans.

Look up room curve or house curve.

"Smiley face" EQ settings are a thing of the past due to having easy access to room measurement software.

Last edited by Gaugster; 07-15-2014 at 06:23 PM.
Gaugster is offline  
post #19 of 33 Old 07-15-2014, 07:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaugster View Post
Normal systems don't have flat frequency response. The bass is boosted and the very high frequency roll off. This is normal hearing based in humans.
Mine is pretty flat - preamp pink noise output (ideal) versus room response (jaggedy line)

Unequalized (that's the normal condition) and un-room-treated and un-smoothed at the listening position:



I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #20 of 33 Old 07-16-2014, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Gaugster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Mine is pretty flat - preamp pink noise output (ideal) versus room response (jaggedy line)

Unequalized (that's the normal condition) and un-room-treated and un-smoothed at the listening position:


Thanks for tHe graph. Kind of what I was eluding too. Bass is higher level than highs. More of a house tilt then House curve.
Gaugster is offline  
post #21 of 33 Old 07-16-2014, 06:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
No, that's a PINK noise test signal.

Pink noise is "all frequencies" with a tilt downward at -3db per octave, an attempt to provide equal energy per octave.

White noise would be a flat line equal amplitide at all frequencies.

My point is that the system does not editorialize upon the input by changing the curve of what goes in to something else coming out, within the limits of its reproductive capability and the problems a non anechoic room contribute. It is "flat".

The dip at 20hz - below the range of the speakers
The dip at 55hz - the room is causing that

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #22 of 33 Old 07-17-2014, 10:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BassThatHz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East side of NW Cascades
Posts: 2,931
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightScreams View Post
I'm interested in trying to retrain my hearing so to speak.
Complete these 3 tests listed in this thread.
Tone Deafness Test
Get back to us when you are finished, should take you a few days and the second and third one are very long (but good).

"If Bad Sound Were Fatal, Audio Would Be the Leading Cause of Death."


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.


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.

Last edited by BassThatHz; 07-18-2014 at 01:27 AM.
BassThatHz is offline  
post #23 of 33 Old 07-19-2014, 12:32 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
NightScreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassThatHz View Post
Complete these 3 tests listed in this thread.
Tone Deafness Test
Get back to us when you are finished, should take you a few days and the second and third one are very long (but good).
Thanks. Happy to report I got 100%
NightScreams is offline  
post #24 of 33 Old 07-20-2014, 05:42 AM
Newbie
 
pviljaka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaugster View Post
Thanks for tHe graph. Kind of what I was eluding too. Bass is higher level than highs. More of a house tilt then House curve.
So true! EQ should not be flat. True flat EQ sounds too sterile. Here's my current "house curve" i use.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IK arc2 house curve.png
Views:	24
Size:	349.1 KB
ID:	171442  
pviljaka is online now  
post #25 of 33 Old 07-20-2014, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,394
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Mine is pretty flat - preamp pink noise output (ideal) versus room response (jaggedy line)

Unequalized (that's the normal condition) and un-room-treated and un-smoothed at the listening position:


While I agree that most tilt, from 100hz to 10khz ive seen 5-10db being typical. Your graph is excessive in its tilt (25-30db).


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.

Last edited by jim19611961; 07-20-2014 at 08:43 AM.
jim19611961 is offline  
post #26 of 33 Old 07-20-2014, 11:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 920
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Tilt? I see no tilt. I see a relatively flat reproduction of a pink noise signal.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
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.
>
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.
and
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.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #27 of 33 Old 07-20-2014, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 1,739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
I'd say you have to listen to a lot of live unamplified acoustic music,..
Who does that? Especially in the iPod era.

99.5% of music that people listen to these days was created in bits and pieces electronically and then reassembled in a studio. It NEVER EXISTED as a cohesive live performance, so who knows how it's "supposed" to sound? Even a "live" concert is electronically processed and amplified through what is basically an overgrown stereo system. Most tastes tend towards voice (heavily processed) and bass lines (hence the subwoofer fanatics far and wide).

An infamous cartoon from the 70s in HiFi Magazine showed a couple of guys sitting in the front row at an orchestral concert. The one guy turns to his friend and says, "Not enough bass."

My point is not that everyone should seek out chamber music to discover how things are "supposed" to sound. The point is that, for the vast majority of us, acoustical re-creation as a reference standard is an obsolete concept in this age. That standard hearkens back to the days when the goal was reproduction of music that would be "true to life." The modern standard, which can certainly be deduced from reading about some of the more outlandish builds around here, is to produce sound "larger than life." You can probably thank the evolution of videogame-themed movies for a lot of that. And also the guy who figured out how to hook up a guitar to the 110-volt outlet.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #28 of 33 Old 07-20-2014, 04:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
My point is not that everyone should seek out chamber music to discover how things are "supposed" to sound. The point is that, for the vast majority of us, acoustical re-creation as a reference standard is an obsolete concept in this age.
That's only your opinion. What I said is still true: if you only use amplified music -- which is what I listen to 99% of the time -- you'll never know that your playback sounds accurate unless you were in the studio at the time. And not a lot of people have that advantage.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #29 of 33 Old 07-22-2014, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 1,739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 33
What exactly is "accuracy" in a studio?

Is it what the performers are hearing? They're isolated in a separate room, usually wearing headphones.

Is it what the recording engineer is hearing? He's listening to some playback monitor speakers with a million transistors, several transducers and a wall between him and the source. Often the monitors themselves are dumbed-down during mastering to approximate what the "typical listener" would be expected to use.

And in any case, the whole concept of "accuracy" as you describe it, presumes that the captured audio encoded on the disk is itself a verbatim analog of the actual acoustical source -- if there even was one.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #30 of 33 Old 07-22-2014, 12:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
What exactly is "accuracy" in a studio?

Is it what the performers are hearing? They're isolated in a separate room, usually wearing headphones.

Is it what the recording engineer is hearing? He's listening to some playback monitor speakers with a million transistors, several transducers and a wall between him and the source. Often the monitors themselves are dumbed-down during mastering to approximate what the "typical listener" would be expected to use.

And in any case, the whole concept of "accuracy" as you describe it, presumes that the captured audio encoded on the disk is itself a verbatim analog of the actual acoustical source -- if there even was one.
I think that it is generally agreed that the reference for studio recordings, or live recordings where sound reinforcement of any kind is used exists only in the minds of the people doing the production. The guy with the most faders in his hands wins. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
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