I don't understand, isn't that what Linkwitz is saying here?:
Around 3 kHz our hearing is less sensitive to diffuse fields. Recording microphones, though, are usually flat in frequency response even under diffuse field conditions. When such recordings are played back over loudspeakers, there is more energy in the 3 kHz region than we would have perceived if present at the recording venue and a degree of unnaturalness is introduced.
This applies primarily to recordings of large orchestral pieces in concert halls where the microphones are much closer to the instruments than any listener. At most listening positions in the hall the sound field has strong diffuse components
Around 3 kHz our hearing is less sensitive to diffuse fields. Recording microphones, though, are usually flat in frequency response even under diffuse field conditions. When such recordings are played back over loudspeakers, there is more energy in the 3 kHz region than we would have perceived if present at the recording venue and a degree of unnaturalness is introduced.
This applies primarily to recordings of large orchestral pieces in concert halls where the microphones are much closer to the instruments than any listener. At most listening positions in the hall the sound field has strong diffuse components
I have a pair of self build loudspeakers.
The frequency response is not flat at all due to the frequency response of the driver units.
The sound in concert halls is very different - also depends on where you are sitting.
Very good sound: Staatsoper unter den Linden, Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt, Komische Oper.
The sound of a recording is made by a sound engineer and his knowledge/experinence.
He uses electronics and loudspeakers, which produce their own sound.
The frequency response is not flat at all due to the frequency response of the driver units.
The sound in concert halls is very different - also depends on where you are sitting.
Very good sound: Staatsoper unter den Linden, Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt, Komische Oper.
The sound of a recording is made by a sound engineer and his knowledge/experinence.
He uses electronics and loudspeakers, which produce their own sound.
Yes, yes, I know. I hear this over and over and over.
So what? Even if it's all made up in the studio or on a computer, a system that sounds realistic with good acoustic recordings will also sound great with "engineered" music.There are some reasonable exceptions to this, for example Reggae where the sound system is part of the music instrument. A lot of Rock may also fall into the same category. Realism is not the goal.
wesayso, to keep focus on the the OP, the topic was equing on playback using an irrversible filter for a pschoacoustic effect where mics/recording process may not capture the correct tonal balance due to diffuse sound. Linkwitz offers a "solution" to presumably create an illusion closer to the live experience. However his idea is bad because (just a few reasons):
- A competent recording process will already address this
- Many recordings are studio based and playback eq with his tweak will render those recordings farther from the recording's intent.
- Classical recordings are taken in many different venues with different mics. One size fits all eq won't work that well, if at all
- this 3kHz "issue" is just one of many psychoacoutic differences between listening live vs stereo. Why not correct the others in the stereo playback? Just one other example is per Pano's thread link. Reason: because they're addressed on the recording side
- Most classical recordings are made without audience. Humans are great sound absorbers and hall reverberation is tuned assuming an audience. Why not
fix that error in the speakers somehow? Reason: because they're addressed on the recording side
So it comes down to: do you really want to make your speakers hard wired for one effect of many that will be addressed in most if not the vast majority of recordings? If you run across some that aren't, do it in the digital domain with a vst filter plug in or the equivalent.
My read on Linkwitz is that sometimes he doesn't think the psycho-acoustic aspects through that well. My guess is that this eq works consistently in his system because he's compensating for a different effect. eg: tweeter wider dispersion at 3 kHz, which his favored LR xovers don't address; or maybe his room (does he have allot of glass?)
I do 100% agree with you to eq for taste on playback to heart's content, our goal here should be enjoyment. That's a different topic than this thread.
- A competent recording process will already address this
- Many recordings are studio based and playback eq with his tweak will render those recordings farther from the recording's intent.
- Classical recordings are taken in many different venues with different mics. One size fits all eq won't work that well, if at all
- this 3kHz "issue" is just one of many psychoacoutic differences between listening live vs stereo. Why not correct the others in the stereo playback? Just one other example is per Pano's thread link. Reason: because they're addressed on the recording side
- Most classical recordings are made without audience. Humans are great sound absorbers and hall reverberation is tuned assuming an audience. Why not
fix that error in the speakers somehow? Reason: because they're addressed on the recording side
So it comes down to: do you really want to make your speakers hard wired for one effect of many that will be addressed in most if not the vast majority of recordings? If you run across some that aren't, do it in the digital domain with a vst filter plug in or the equivalent.
My read on Linkwitz is that sometimes he doesn't think the psycho-acoustic aspects through that well. My guess is that this eq works consistently in his system because he's compensating for a different effect. eg: tweeter wider dispersion at 3 kHz, which his favored LR xovers don't address; or maybe his room (does he have allot of glass?)
I do 100% agree with you to eq for taste on playback to heart's content, our goal here should be enjoyment. That's a different topic than this thread.
Probably why he doesn't participate here...so embarassing to be caught drooling amongst your betters!
I got the impression people were relying on name brand recognition to believe in an argument, its the only reason I pointed this out. And you can second guess me but don't know me or my professional qualifications in this area from squat. It is what it is, please read the arguments and please refrain from insults.
I just found your's to be an entirely off point comment considering that the crux of Linkwitz's work has been fundamentally about psychoacoustics. Also if there was an insult in my comment or even any reference to you direct or indirect, I'd appreciate it if you would point it out to me, please.
Yes, yes, I know. I hear this over and over and over.
There are some reasonable exceptions to this, for example Reggae where the sound system is part of the music instrument. A lot of Rock may also fall into the same category. Realism is not the goal.
My aim is to convert the electrical waveform into an acoustic one as accurately as possible. If the result sounds 'realistic' or not is a secondary concern and depends largely on factors beyond my control.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.