New Linkwitz "LX521" speakers.. - Page 9 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th November 2012, 05:34 PM   #81
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
No one is saying that it's that's simple, that's what tone controls are for. But if the recording/mastering/mixing has been done well, then you shouldn't need to touch them, providing your loudspeakers don't have any inherent flaws.
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 05:39 PM   #82
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5th element View Post
No one is saying that it's that's simple, that's what tone controls are for. But if the recording/mastering/mixing has been done well, then you shouldn't need to touch them,
Arguably true, if your speakers at home already have the necessary correction/equalization built in . . .

Which still doesn't address the inherent problems of microphone placement and subsequent mixing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 05:44 PM   #83
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
The problems with non-flat-frequency-response monitors is self-perpetuating.

Most active monitors are active, and have various tone controls.

What better way to set them up than to play some music (mastered on monitors that may or may not have been flat).
Oh look, they sound harsh and forward (previous monitors weren't flat), so lets turn the treble down.
Now our monitors aren't flat either, but we'll master tracks according to them, as they sounded flat with other material played through them.


I found this when setting up some Behringer B2030As. Measurements were enclosed, and showed a flat response from ~50Hz to ~18kHz.
Played some music, and (even after breaking in the drivers) had to back the treble off as far as it'd go (-4dB IIRC) to get a balanced sound.

My hypothesis is that, each time we get some new studio monitors, they're set up to emulate the previous generation.
Breaking free of this would be difficult.

Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 05:52 PM   #84
Toaster is offline Toaster  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South East England
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
Which still doesn't address the inherent problems of microphone placement and subsequent mixing.
A solution to recording technique errors can't be built into the speaker design because departures at the recording stage from some imaginary or defined ideal will vary from recording to recording. One thing that can be done is to reduce variations in the power response of the speaker to limit additional errors. In practice the effectiveness of this will depend on room acoustics. After that, as 5th says, it's on to tone controls/ EQ. John was clearly ahead of the game with the Notes- at least in terms of dipole speakers. Earl Geddes was there with boxed speakers before that. That SL has joined the party is not a criticism, it's just chronology. These are all very bright guys and very capable designers- approaches taken are converging because the approach makes sense.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 05:56 PM   #85
puppet is offline puppet  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Dells, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661 View Post
I found this when setting up some Behringer B2030As. Measurements were enclosed, and showed a flat response from ~50Hz to ~18kHz.
Played some music, and (even after breaking in the drivers) had to back the treble off as far as it'd go (-4dB IIRC) to get a balanced sound.



Chris
Chris .. I have to ask why one would do that? If the monitors playback is indeed flat ... and they are being used to master a recording ... what need/gain is there to compare their output using "commercial" recordings? They are a tool that isn't being used for it's designed intent. I'd think that if they're to be used in a mastering environment .. they should be set up for flat response and not touched, period.

Looking at it another way .. what's mastered on those monitors, as set-up now, will be 4dB too hot ... right?

Last edited by puppet; 14th November 2012 at 06:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 06:29 PM   #86
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661 View Post
I found this when setting up some Behringer B2030As. Measurements were enclosed, and showed a flat response from ~50Hz to ~18kHz.
Played some music, and (even after breaking in the drivers) had to back the treble off as far as it'd go (-4dB IIRC) to get a balanced sound.
Yep . . . have the same speakers, hear the same thing (including with direct feed from the microphones). They sound much more "natural" with the treble cut . . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 06:49 PM   #87
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppet View Post
Chris .. I have to ask why one would do that? If the monitors playback is indeed flat ... and they are being used to master a recording ... what need/gain is there to compare their output using "commercial" recordings? They are a tool that isn't being used for it's designed intent. I'd think that if they're to be used in a mastering environment .. they should be set up for flat response and not touched, period.

Looking at it another way .. what's mastered on those monitors, as set-up now, will be 4dB too hot ... right?
They've been pressed into use as telly speakers, with a passive volume control and switch box - it was those, or go for the full 5.1 AV receiver, play around with upscaling/downscaling images - the telly is not HD, as we found the scaling adversely affect the image, and not in a small way.
All in all, easier to get some decent active speakers and have done with it.

I put some music through them (this, amongst others), and found them unlistenable without dropping the treble.

My point is that, somewhere way back, the monitors were ~4dB not-bright-enough.
Everyone has now calibrated their playback systems (and thus recording) to that.

Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 07:09 PM   #88
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaster View Post
John was clearly ahead of the game with the Notes- at least in terms of dipole speakers. Earl Geddes was there with boxed speakers before that. That SL has joined the party is not a criticism, it's just chronology. These are all very bright guys and very capable designers- approaches taken are converging because the approach makes sense.
if you are talking about CD only, maybe yes. Otherwise SL has played with various unpublished designs a while before that, the L-07 had rear tweeters and small mids to keep a good directivity back in the 80'.
The Audio Artistry line was dipole only til 1.5k, that was..15 years ago.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 09:06 PM   #89
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: philadelphia
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo View Post
there is now enough scientific evidence that lateral reflexions are actually good, as long as they are spectrally close to the direct sound, which rules out 99% box speakers.
check this for example:

White Papers - Sausalito Audio

Dipoles do image very well because they have a stronger D/R ratio (3 over 1) and potentially better CD than standard speakers.
How would you compare dipoles to bipoles as regards imaging vs ambience ?

From my own experiments comparing monopole-dipole-bipole, I have observed that dipole sounds more pinpoint than a bipole and less than monopole. However, very strangely, dipole sounds more ambient than both bipole and monopole and perhaps more "natural' if I may say.

The only way I could explain to myself about the more naturalness of the dipole compared to the bipole, is that the sideward cancellation of the dipole prevents early reflections from sidewalls but still allows the late rear wall reflections to add to the ambience effect. OTOH, the bipole too has the rear wall reflections, but the sidewall reflections smears the direct sound also, thus reducing spatial localisation.

Despite the good qualities of the dipole mentioned above, I find that it still cannot rival an omnipolar radiation from a pipe mounted 2" FR like in the Pluto. A spherical wavefront can play a unique trick on the human brain..it just can't localise the source, just the direction of sound source remains known !! almost surreal

Last edited by soundaatma; 14th November 2012 at 09:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2012, 09:30 PM   #90
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Look, my point was that the direct sound should not be altered from the mix. This can only happen if the monitors and home system have the same axial response. It's not wrong in theory or practice. If they speaker have different direct response then the home system needs to be corrected to match the monitors. You may not like what the recording engineer did, but that isn't the point. The rest is the reverberant contribution and that is a matter of polar response and room acoustics, and the associated room delays, etc. The idea that shelving down the top end if the correct thing to do for every recording in every room is nonsense.

If the idea is correct, then it should be applied at the mixing level and embedded int he recording.

As an analogy, it's like looking at a paint. Regardless of the room in which the painting is hung, regardless of the color of the back ground, the colors of the painting don't change. But the perception of the painting can change due to the way light is reflected off wall, etc. So if an artist paints a painting in a studio with white walls does that mean we have to change the color of the painting if it is hung in a room with blue or yellow walls?

I spend enough time on this when it was first proposed it. It's not worth rehashing again.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Reverse" Linkwitz Transform Relaxin Analog Line Level 9 23rd August 2012 03:19 PM
What makes an amplifier "bright", "warm", or "neutral"? JohnS Solid State 51 13th December 2009 07:42 PM
70cm tall, 3 way, diy speakers based on 10"/4"/1" japanese ken brown drivers. facundonu Multi-Way 34 9th March 2009 05:59 AM
Linkwitz "Transform" Circuit Help Shike Solid State 10 6th April 2008 12:44 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2