I took this from
http://www.usaarl.army.mil/publicat...tory Perception and Cognitive Performance.pdf
It should remind us that accuracy is only one of the goals that are wishable and achieveable. None of the three is excluding all aspects of the other two, but you can't have all of them 100 % at the same time.
Me for instance is pleasantly in the third camp.
You keep saying "accurate" and "accuracy" as if it means something . . . and I have to suppose that in your imagination it does. But there is nothing "accurate" about phantom images ("accuracy" would mean locating the real source of the sound), and nothing "accurate" about the sound of an orchestra coming from two small boxes (that's clearly not the way it happens in a real concert hall).
In fact (in the real world, unless we're outdoors) sound comes to us by reflection from multiple directions . . . which means that there is nothing "inaccurate" about reproducing that effect in our listening environment. Just the opposite, in fact . . . it is more accurate (in the sense of being more like the original) to have the sound in our listening rooms come, by reflection, from multiple directions rather than in totally unnatural beams from two point sources.
And this is especially true if you consider how the sound was captured/mixed in the first place . . .
What about the term "accurate reproduction". This has a defined meaning, it's "what the mixing/mastering engineer heard". The implications of that notion has been discussed numerous times and as long as there are no strict standards for control rooms "accurate reproduction" is a moving target.
Even if there was a standard - we still are at the mercy of the mixing/mastering engineers taste/subjectivity (what he "heard"). So much for real "accuracy". It's a mirage.
Rudolf
Our modern society is divided into musicians and listeners, so yes, we "are at the mercy of the mixing/mastering engineers". Nothing wrong with that. We're "at the mercy of" any artist. They create the art, we just look at it.
While this can be regarded as a goal to aim for
You have abandoned the above by attempting this
You no longer want to hear what the recording engineer intended ?
You have abandoned the above by attempting this
I ended up doing the opposite: create a strong side wall reflection by toeing-out speakers. Haas kicker revival
You no longer want to hear what the recording engineer intended ?
I do but it's a moving target. Currently I'm simply exploring the limitations of 2-channel stereo.
I want to be prepared when they ask me what the standard for control rooms and speakers should look like
I ended up doing the opposite: create a strong side wall reflection by toeing-out speakers. Haas kicker revival
a very smart move - when one has some directional speakers - like Geddes speakers - such a move results in both lowering of the IACC and low passing of the first floor reflection
There is where music and film diverges profoundly. While music control rooms have no standards, in film we have standards all over the place(SMPTE and THX). There is almost nothing unregulated except the creative process. Even after the sound editors, recordists, re-recording mixers have finished the soundtrack, the director still makes the decision on how he wants his film soundtrack to sound like.
This is incorrect, at least on the film side of things. We don't get the last word on how the soundtrack will sound, the Director does.
One of the great benefits of HT is we have standards for the playback system, the room and its design, the system's calibration, and room equalization. All we have to do is follow those standards, and you will hear pretty much the same thing we mixers heard in the dubbing stage. This ensures the mix translates well from the dubbing stage, to the professional theater, to home theaters. It may not sound exactly like the dubbing stage or theater(different speakers or amps), but all of the spatial information will be properly translated.
That was what I understood from Don Keele, but maybe I misunderstood him. It really would make no sense to just change the LF drivers.
I find that this is obvious in film soundtracks. The quality is almost always head and shoulders better than with CDs. The same songs that I know on CDs often sound so much better when used in a films sound track. In HT accuracy is definable and makes eminent sense because of this situation.
I think that people here take "accuracy" much too literally. As Toole shows (and Omholt thanks for that Toole note. He is much more to my liking in this than when I had this exact same discussion with him some years ago. He has apparently changed his position quite a bit since then.) people "prefer" a smooth frequency response - accuracy and a smooth power response - again accuracy. One cannot however take accuracy to mean a precise point to point, phase to phase duplication as that extreme is impossible to achieve. But looking at "accuracy" from such an extreme standpoint leads to absurd arguments - just as there are here. But when one is trying to decide on a 10 dB dip in the frequency response or not, it is not unreasonable to say that a 10 dB dip is not "accurate" and should not be there - even if it was preferred by some. Its is far easier to define what is not accurate than to define what is. That's more of the way that I look at it.
And to say that "preference" is all that matters ignores the fact that people "prefer" what they are "used to". In that environment, sound quality will never evolve, it just stays right where it has always been. Set "accuracy" as you benchmark and you will find that your "preference" changes. I can no longer even tolerate most speakers that I hear at shows, but it is clear that some "prefer" the highly colored and "in your face" sound. They are used to it, it is what they expect, and they are drawn to this sound. Then they can't seem to figure out why they get listener fatigue.
This is another issue that benefits HT. You cannot stand to watch a long movie if your speakers are not of a high quality because the listener fatigue will drive you away. I cannot stomach any commercial theaters that I have been in for the last several years. I can't wait to get out of them the sound is so fatiguing.
And to say that "preference" is all that matters ignores the fact that people "prefer" what they are "used to". In that environment, sound quality will never evolve, it just stays right where it has always been. Set "accuracy" as you benchmark and you will find that your "preference" changes. I can no longer even tolerate most speakers that I hear at shows, but it is clear that some "prefer" the highly colored and "in your face" sound. They are used to it, it is what they expect, and they are drawn to this sound. Then they can't seem to figure out why they get listener fatigue.
This is another issue that benefits HT. You cannot stand to watch a long movie if your speakers are not of a high quality because the listener fatigue will drive you away. I cannot stomach any commercial theaters that I have been in for the last several years. I can't wait to get out of them the sound is so fatiguing.
That's interesting I never really noticed, last night I noticed they used "I Wanna be Your Dog" in Transporter 2 and I liked the sound but I only have the LP to compare.
Earl,
You kind of lost me here for a moment. In one post you are talking about how much better the control and sound of the HT systems are then with a CD or other digital formats and then say you can't stand to be in a commercial theater that uses those standards. Yes I know that there really isn't so much a standard for the sound quality of the speakers as much as there seems to be with just the placement of those speakers. I see every iteration in each theater, the only real standard is one on the recording and distribution side and this is really just a lock that Dolby has placed on the industry. It has never been about the best sound, but about a distribution standard. So what is it about the HT experience that you seem to want to have emulated in the audio side of music reproduction? I see little difference between the two systems in the final results, and your wanting to flee the movie theater just points right back to that.
You kind of lost me here for a moment. In one post you are talking about how much better the control and sound of the HT systems are then with a CD or other digital formats and then say you can't stand to be in a commercial theater that uses those standards. Yes I know that there really isn't so much a standard for the sound quality of the speakers as much as there seems to be with just the placement of those speakers. I see every iteration in each theater, the only real standard is one on the recording and distribution side and this is really just a lock that Dolby has placed on the industry. It has never been about the best sound, but about a distribution standard. So what is it about the HT experience that you seem to want to have emulated in the audio side of music reproduction? I see little difference between the two systems in the final results, and your wanting to flee the movie theater just points right back to that.
Really, for all the millions of living rooms
No, these standards only apply to dedicated rooms. There is far too much variablity and necessary compromises with living rooms.
Based on your opinion.....okay
I am sure both SMPTE and THX would profoundly disagree with you.
Last edited: