Originally Posted by oatmeal769
I personally don't disagree with you - I like my stuff pretty darn close to accepted norms. What sounds "right" to me happens to be close to what THX specifies, and I prefer a flatter EQ than most folks. I like how EMO-Q sets my system, and aside from using a Db meter to fine tune the levels evenly, I've left it alone thus far and been quite happy. EMO-Q is by no means perfect, but I think it does a pretty good job. I boost the surround channels a bit when I'm done calibrating, because I like more surround than the THX ideal.
After years of listening to reference quality, and engineering live/recorded sound, I became accustomed to what "good sound" sounds like. The same may be said for my video preferences. I made a great investment of about $100 to have my display calibrated when I first bought it. I haven't changed it a bit and think professional calibration was money well spent. But, it wouldn't be "wrong" of me to enjoy more warmth or bloom in a picture than what's called for.
I feel like a lot of folks come into these various forums for advice on how to set their gear up. Someone helps them set it to a reference, they do so, and then don't like it and blame the gear. (for example, I think I've seen some posters who are blaming EMO-Q for sounding "flat" and want to return their gear) - Rather than simply accepting that they may "like" something outside of the reference and that it's perfectly okay to do so.
My point has been that just because someone doesn't like flat reference, and prefers more bass, higher contrast, whatever, that doesn't mean their equipment is bad nor that they are wrong. After all, this stuff is really just an expensive toy. Might as well do with it what makes you most happy.
+1 - beautifully put. I wish I were as diplomatic.
I've worked in broadcast since around '74 and have to deal with "reference" audio and video. Even got training as a shader back then.
Today many tv's come out of the box closer to reference then we could often get from a setup engineer's work back then (especially in the field, studio was a bit better), and whatever the engineer did come up with, it would likely change within the hour. Good 'ol NTSC.
Audio is different in every room, with every system and with every listeners' ears. No 2 people hear alike, although granted, they may share similar preferences.
Having to rely on one's own sensibilities for years allowed me to know what picture and sound I like.
And what I like is what it's all about.
For many reference has become a pie in the sky for those who have no idea what they like. And that's ok, to a point. But there's just too much obsessiveness over "reference".
No offense intended but for me trying achieving audio reference is just intellectual masturbation further hyped by those pitching the goal of "recreating what the producer intended us to hear". A marketers dream because the goal is unattainable.
Set up your system, tweak to taste and be happy.
Oooops, curmudgeon just fell off his soapbox.