smellygas, we don't need to equalize to conform to one of the curves because this is a filter that is part of our hearing. We can't switch it off.
The equal-loudness contours are very important if you want to hear a recording in exact the same tonal balance no matter what volume level you're listening to. The differences below 1000Hz are NOT minor.
The problem is that you would need to know what reference level a recording was mixed at. But there's no standardized reference level in music mixing or mastering.
Another problem is that the equal-loudness contours are the mean of a lot of ears—your personal equal-loudness contour could be different. See http://www.nedo.go.jp/itd/grant-e/report/00pdf/is-01e.pdf
Best, Markus
The equal-loudness contours are very important if you want to hear a recording in exact the same tonal balance no matter what volume level you're listening to. The differences below 1000Hz are NOT minor.
The problem is that you would need to know what reference level a recording was mixed at. But there's no standardized reference level in music mixing or mastering.
Another problem is that the equal-loudness contours are the mean of a lot of ears—your personal equal-loudness contour could be different. See http://www.nedo.go.jp/itd/grant-e/report/00pdf/is-01e.pdf
Best, Markus
Recordings are mixed and mastered at a cetain SPL. Alas, we don't know what that is - tho we can guess.
So if you are listening at a much lower level, a little F/M boost can help restore the tonal balance to where the mastering engineer liked it. As has been mentioned above.
One thing not often mentioned is that the equal loudness curves were measured with pure tones. With multiple tones, such as noise or music, the curves are not the same. Or so they say....
So if you are listening at a much lower level, a little F/M boost can help restore the tonal balance to where the mastering engineer liked it. As has been mentioned above.
One thing not often mentioned is that the equal loudness curves were measured with pure tones. With multiple tones, such as noise or music, the curves are not the same. Or so they say....
on axis anachoic flat response
2 articles is simply is not proof to me, even the streophile author points to others dissent of this within his article. In my mind flatness is probably number 6 on the list of things not even mentioned.
1) We don't listen in an anachoic chamber. So room interaction varies with each design type differently, better or worse. ie offaxis dispersion and integration thereof between drivers is key.
2) Is one type more pleasing if it has a wider response and/or rolloff character but not as flat.
3) Power compression can limit the useful dynamic range.
4) Inband distortion from many sources of nonlinearities.
5) I would agree that smoothness is more important than tighter tolerance to flatness of on-axis anachoic response .
2 articles is simply is not proof to me, even the streophile author points to others dissent of this within his article. In my mind flatness is probably number 6 on the list of things not even mentioned.
1) We don't listen in an anachoic chamber. So room interaction varies with each design type differently, better or worse. ie offaxis dispersion and integration thereof between drivers is key.
2) Is one type more pleasing if it has a wider response and/or rolloff character but not as flat.
3) Power compression can limit the useful dynamic range.
4) Inband distortion from many sources of nonlinearities.
5) I would agree that smoothness is more important than tighter tolerance to flatness of on-axis anachoic response .
First, what do the Fletcher-Munson curves tell us about human hearing, only that at low levels we don't hear high and low notes as well.
At higher levels, we perceive more bass and more treble. Our hearing response come closer to flat as loudness increases.
Which in turn means, that you can't reproduce concert sound at low levels unless you add bass and treble boost. I have a switch on the front of my amp labeled 'Loudness' that attempts to do just that; give a bass and treble boost at low SPL levels.
Beyond what I have already described, should you try and compensate for it in your speaker design or in system equalization? Well, no, because it reflects our normal natural hearing. You have heard everything from the day you were born colored by these curves. If you alter the curve or try to counteract it, it will sound unnatural because it is unnatural.
Further, if you did try to equalize your response to counter the F-M curve, that curve is volume (SPL) dependent. At high sound levels our perceived frequency response flattens out, at low level, the midrange is emphasized. I suspect this is related to some genetic survival adaptation.
To get this so-called equalization right, any bass and treble boost at low levels would have to gradually fade out or flatten out as the sound level rose. Can you do that in standard speaker and/or passive crossover design? I don't think so.
Now I'm sure we've all experienced the sensation that such-and-such a speaker really doesn't get moving aesthetically until you have the amp turned up to a certain level. What we are probably experience is the effects illustrated by the Fletcher-Munson curves. That we really don't hear the bass and treble clearly until we have our amps up to a certain level.
Though likely that threshold is also related to being able to feel the music as well as hear it.
So, everyday in every way, the Fletcher-Munson Equal Volume Curves do influence and effect your life. But there is really nothing you can do about it, because that is natural normal hearing.
Further, any method you attempt, like a 'loudness switch' has to be variable, high boost at low volume, and gradually fading to low boost at high volume. That is difficult to implement in a speaker or passive crossover design. Though much easier in amplifier electronics.
Though in DIY speaker design, if you are aware of the range of loudness levels your speakers are likely to be listened to, you could build that bass and treble boost in to accommodate those listening volumes. Again, though, unless it is self-adjusting, it is not likely to sound right at all loudness levels. It's trick business.
For the most part, you really can't and shouldn't do anything about the F-M curves. It is worthwhile information to know, but it is like how we perceive light. The spectrum we see does not match a dogs or a snakes, but it is, none the less, perfectly natural for a human, and is how we have perceived sound since we were born. To fool with it, or counter act it, is like putting on rose colored glassed to correct you light perception. You can do it, but it won't look natural because that is not how human see. And you can try to counter act the F-M curves, beyond the standard 'loudness button', but that is not how humans naturally hear.
My advice, file it away and forget about it.
As to speaker optimized in an anechoic chamber, all the really mean is the speaker have been tested in an environment that doesn't have any outside interference. If they tried to test them in a standard room or office, or optimized them for a standard room or office, they would probably sound terrible in your room.
There is nothing magical about an anechoic chamber beyond that you can test speakers there without interference. If they are flat there, then they are truly flat. But the minute you put them in any room, that room throws the flatness completely off. So, you try an tweak and correct the room to get the best fit between 'flat' speaker and a not flat room.
Many DIY speaker designer, don't optimize speakers to be perfectly flat in the neutral environment of an anechoic chamber. They specifically design them with their specific room in mind. They design them to be flat in the room they know they will be listening to them in.
I alway thought that was a bad idea. It ties the speakers and room together too tightly. Sure it will sound fine until the wife decides to redecorate or move the furniture around. Then it is back to the drawing board.
Speaker manufacturers can't possibly know the details of your specific room, so they do their best to design speakers that are independently flat, and from that point on, making them work in your room is up to you.
Just a bunch of rambling.
Steve/bluewizard
At higher levels, we perceive more bass and more treble. Our hearing response come closer to flat as loudness increases.
Which in turn means, that you can't reproduce concert sound at low levels unless you add bass and treble boost. I have a switch on the front of my amp labeled 'Loudness' that attempts to do just that; give a bass and treble boost at low SPL levels.
Beyond what I have already described, should you try and compensate for it in your speaker design or in system equalization? Well, no, because it reflects our normal natural hearing. You have heard everything from the day you were born colored by these curves. If you alter the curve or try to counteract it, it will sound unnatural because it is unnatural.
Further, if you did try to equalize your response to counter the F-M curve, that curve is volume (SPL) dependent. At high sound levels our perceived frequency response flattens out, at low level, the midrange is emphasized. I suspect this is related to some genetic survival adaptation.
To get this so-called equalization right, any bass and treble boost at low levels would have to gradually fade out or flatten out as the sound level rose. Can you do that in standard speaker and/or passive crossover design? I don't think so.
Now I'm sure we've all experienced the sensation that such-and-such a speaker really doesn't get moving aesthetically until you have the amp turned up to a certain level. What we are probably experience is the effects illustrated by the Fletcher-Munson curves. That we really don't hear the bass and treble clearly until we have our amps up to a certain level.
Though likely that threshold is also related to being able to feel the music as well as hear it.
So, everyday in every way, the Fletcher-Munson Equal Volume Curves do influence and effect your life. But there is really nothing you can do about it, because that is natural normal hearing.
Further, any method you attempt, like a 'loudness switch' has to be variable, high boost at low volume, and gradually fading to low boost at high volume. That is difficult to implement in a speaker or passive crossover design. Though much easier in amplifier electronics.
Though in DIY speaker design, if you are aware of the range of loudness levels your speakers are likely to be listened to, you could build that bass and treble boost in to accommodate those listening volumes. Again, though, unless it is self-adjusting, it is not likely to sound right at all loudness levels. It's trick business.
For the most part, you really can't and shouldn't do anything about the F-M curves. It is worthwhile information to know, but it is like how we perceive light. The spectrum we see does not match a dogs or a snakes, but it is, none the less, perfectly natural for a human, and is how we have perceived sound since we were born. To fool with it, or counter act it, is like putting on rose colored glassed to correct you light perception. You can do it, but it won't look natural because that is not how human see. And you can try to counter act the F-M curves, beyond the standard 'loudness button', but that is not how humans naturally hear.
My advice, file it away and forget about it.
As to speaker optimized in an anechoic chamber, all the really mean is the speaker have been tested in an environment that doesn't have any outside interference. If they tried to test them in a standard room or office, or optimized them for a standard room or office, they would probably sound terrible in your room.
There is nothing magical about an anechoic chamber beyond that you can test speakers there without interference. If they are flat there, then they are truly flat. But the minute you put them in any room, that room throws the flatness completely off. So, you try an tweak and correct the room to get the best fit between 'flat' speaker and a not flat room.
Many DIY speaker designer, don't optimize speakers to be perfectly flat in the neutral environment of an anechoic chamber. They specifically design them with their specific room in mind. They design them to be flat in the room they know they will be listening to them in.
I alway thought that was a bad idea. It ties the speakers and room together too tightly. Sure it will sound fine until the wife decides to redecorate or move the furniture around. Then it is back to the drawing board.
Speaker manufacturers can't possibly know the details of your specific room, so they do their best to design speakers that are independently flat, and from that point on, making them work in your room is up to you.
Just a bunch of rambling.
Steve/bluewizard
Hello,
If a record has been mixed in order to have a given equilibrium at 85dB SPL (which is the most used mean level by sound engineers) and we want to listen to it at a lower mean SPL level, we experiment during audition a change in the tonal equilibrium (noticeably the inetnsity of the frequency seems to lower).
If we want the to obtain the same tonal equilibrium between we need to compensate for the lost of intensity and we have to use -not the ISO226 curves- but the differential loudness curves.
Such differential data is often presented as a 3D graph "Human Auditory Differential Threshold for sound intensity " see by example:
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~hill/papers/conc/images/dh20.jpg
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
If a record has been mixed in order to have a given equilibrium at 85dB SPL (which is the most used mean level by sound engineers) and we want to listen to it at a lower mean SPL level, we experiment during audition a change in the tonal equilibrium (noticeably the inetnsity of the frequency seems to lower).
If we want the to obtain the same tonal equilibrium between we need to compensate for the lost of intensity and we have to use -not the ISO226 curves- but the differential loudness curves.
Such differential data is often presented as a 3D graph "Human Auditory Differential Threshold for sound intensity " see by example:
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~hill/papers/conc/images/dh20.jpg
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
smellygas said:
smellygas said:
If you look at this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Lindos1.svg you see a line at the bottom, which is labeled threshold. This is the frequency dependant absolute hearing threshold. Signals below cant be heard. If you look at 20hz for example, the threshold is slightly above 70db. If you design a speaker, which is flat to 20hz but limited to less than 70db max spl at this frequency (which usually happens with small drivers or too little xmax), then this doesnt make sense, as it cant reproduce a 20hz wave loud enough for it to be heard. Instead, you should tune the speaker higher, lets say flat to 40hz, which should also give you a max spl rise.
A speaker should be able to be significantly louder than the hearing threshold. If you add about 30db, you end up with 100db maxspl requirement at 20hz, which puts alot of woofers to shame.
smellygas said:
Hi,
The short version is (as Gedlee suggested) speakers should be flat.
But its almost a truism, understanding it means understanding
when it is not true, this then defines when it is actually true.
You cannot understand something by assuming it is always true.
(Unless of course it is, which you seem to be implying is the case.)
Another example :
Monitoring for programme distortion at artificially high SPL levels :
These system often use inverse FM, bass and treble cut, to allow
a more natural apparent tonal balance that matches the monitors
that are actually used for tonal balance, prespectives etc that are
run at lower "typical" SPL levels.
/sreten.Re: on axis anachoic flat response
Hey, I do appreciate your opinion. However, when someone has conducted a well-designed empirical study that is published in a reputable scientific journal, and the results are very clear, I tend to believe it. When these types of experiments are repeated by other independent groups, and also published, and similar results are obtained, then I tend to believe the shared conclusion is true. This is called science.
If you would like to challenge the methodology or conclusions of the Toole study (2nd link) specifically, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. The paper is very elegant. You take a large selection of loudspeakers, measure their anechoic response, and you take a bunch of listeners, blind them, and ask them to rate the speakers. There is a very clear rank order of speakers that listeners preferred. There is also a very clear trend in the frequency response curves that show that flat and smooth is preferable. The author already accounted for the effect of low frequency cutoff (your #2). Furthermore, they also looked at the response of speakers a) in a room and b) off-axis with various weights. It's a classic paper. You should actually read it.
SG
infinia said:
Hey, I do appreciate your opinion. However, when someone has conducted a well-designed empirical study that is published in a reputable scientific journal, and the results are very clear, I tend to believe it. When these types of experiments are repeated by other independent groups, and also published, and similar results are obtained, then I tend to believe the shared conclusion is true. This is called science.
If you would like to challenge the methodology or conclusions of the Toole study (2nd link) specifically, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. The paper is very elegant. You take a large selection of loudspeakers, measure their anechoic response, and you take a bunch of listeners, blind them, and ask them to rate the speakers. There is a very clear rank order of speakers that listeners preferred. There is also a very clear trend in the frequency response curves that show that flat and smooth is preferable. The author already accounted for the effect of low frequency cutoff (your #2). Furthermore, they also looked at the response of speakers a) in a room and b) off-axis with various weights. It's a classic paper. You should actually read it.
SG
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.