Can I just check that I understand some of the key points relating to what frequency response I should be aiming for in a speaker build?
Music will be recorded and produced on systems which have a fairly flat frequency response (within reason). Therefore to reproduce it like the original I will also want a flat response at the listening position. The equal loudness curves (in an absolute sense) are not something that I should be looking to reproduce for normal listening, because I would not have heard the original music at equal loudness either - it will be subject to my imperfect human hearing response whether live or recorded.
However, the equal loudness levels change with volume. So if my intended playback levels deviate from the original music's volume, then I may need to adjust the relative loudness of low and high frequencies to bring them back into step with the rest of the frequency range 'in my perception' at the playback volume. This adjustment would be indicated by the 'difference' between the equal loudness curves at original and playback volumes.
Room gain comes into play at low frequencies, so a flat response (even if already compensated for loudness) from the speakers may not be desirable. To be flat at my listening position the speakers should roll off gently to oppose room gain - in a typical room say 'very' roughly around 2db/octave below 100-200hz.
Have I understood the basics of these things?
Thanks
Kev
Music will be recorded and produced on systems which have a fairly flat frequency response (within reason). Therefore to reproduce it like the original I will also want a flat response at the listening position. The equal loudness curves (in an absolute sense) are not something that I should be looking to reproduce for normal listening, because I would not have heard the original music at equal loudness either - it will be subject to my imperfect human hearing response whether live or recorded.
However, the equal loudness levels change with volume. So if my intended playback levels deviate from the original music's volume, then I may need to adjust the relative loudness of low and high frequencies to bring them back into step with the rest of the frequency range 'in my perception' at the playback volume. This adjustment would be indicated by the 'difference' between the equal loudness curves at original and playback volumes.
Room gain comes into play at low frequencies, so a flat response (even if already compensated for loudness) from the speakers may not be desirable. To be flat at my listening position the speakers should roll off gently to oppose room gain - in a typical room say 'very' roughly around 2db/octave below 100-200hz.
Have I understood the basics of these things?
Thanks
Kev
I'd say yes, with some caveats depending on taste. I don't like a flat response at the listening position, I prefer the old B&K downward curve. Flat up to about 400Hz, then gently sloping down to -6dB at 20KHz.
You do need to take room gain into account, usually it's your friend and helps the bass where the speaker is sagging.
Equal loudness is what tone controls or the "Loudness" button are for. Trouble is, there is no reference level for music mastering. You don't know how loud it was in the mastering suite when the engineer found the tonal balance he liked. Tho generally that going to be in the low 80s SPL. Below that you might like some equal loudness correction.
That's my 2 cents. I'm sure you'll get plenty of other opinions.
You do need to take room gain into account, usually it's your friend and helps the bass where the speaker is sagging.
Equal loudness is what tone controls or the "Loudness" button are for. Trouble is, there is no reference level for music mastering. You don't know how loud it was in the mastering suite when the engineer found the tonal balance he liked. Tho generally that going to be in the low 80s SPL. Below that you might like some equal loudness correction.
That's my 2 cents. I'm sure you'll get plenty of other opinions.
Pano: I agree that opinion is the correct word.
One can never debate: "It sounds good to me."
I find some songs need more bass, some less.
I am not going to re-equalize my entire library.
If I walk to another room the sound changes.
Sometimes you have to put up with some of your music content not sounding perfect.
Design for flat and adjust for your taste.
My $0.02
One can never debate: "It sounds good to me."
I find some songs need more bass, some less.
I am not going to re-equalize my entire library.
If I walk to another room the sound changes.
Sometimes you have to put up with some of your music content not sounding perfect.
Design for flat and adjust for your taste.
My $0.02
Several studio active monitors have built-in equalization with a calibrated microphone whereby one merely locates said microphone at the desired listening location & equalizes by the feedback of the microphone, setting the response "flat" right away.
Now, the quality of the sound will be up to the sound engineer at that moment. Any tweaking or un-acceptable modifications of frequency bands to your DISLIKE will not be your fault.
Now, if we really want to extend the technology....why shouldn't there be a wearable microphone where we walk around the room & the system actively & immediately re-equalizes for our location????
Building a loudspeaker system, I believe, should aim for a flat response with modifications for any one listening room.
__________________________________________________Rick......
Now, the quality of the sound will be up to the sound engineer at that moment. Any tweaking or un-acceptable modifications of frequency bands to your DISLIKE will not be your fault.
Now, if we really want to extend the technology....why shouldn't there be a wearable microphone where we walk around the room & the system actively & immediately re-equalizes for our location????
Building a loudspeaker system, I believe, should aim for a flat response with modifications for any one listening room.
__________________________________________________Rick......
I'll just add another 2 cents.
Think of it this way. Each individual instrument (whether acoustic or electrical) is already designed or EQ'd so that its FR sounds correct to our perceptual systems. (For eg, what do you think all those differently shaped and sized boxes on acoustic stringed instruments are for? Besides adding volume and richness, they're boosting the bass). Likewise, all the instruments and voices get mixed together (ie. their real SPL levels get adjusted) so that again they sound correct to our human measuring system. Thus correct reproduction is thru a system that makes no further changes to what is already considered by our hearing to be correctly equally loud across the FR - in other words, you want a flat set of speakers.
However, consider what happens when the mixing is also done in a room. The mixing engineer adjusts the bass so that it again sounds right to his or her ears, room gain included. (Headphones obviously is the wrench in this process.) So in other words, room gain and room acoustics in general are also already included in the recording process. They also occur at both ends of the chain when you are listening in a room.
Still, your room is unlikely to be an exact match to the studio's, nor do you know if the LF roll-off of the studio monitors was -12dB or -24dB or (as has been mentioned) at what volume it was mixed at so the key I think is that you still might want to make EQ and room treatment adjustments to suit your own preferences.
Think of it this way. Each individual instrument (whether acoustic or electrical) is already designed or EQ'd so that its FR sounds correct to our perceptual systems. (For eg, what do you think all those differently shaped and sized boxes on acoustic stringed instruments are for? Besides adding volume and richness, they're boosting the bass). Likewise, all the instruments and voices get mixed together (ie. their real SPL levels get adjusted) so that again they sound correct to our human measuring system. Thus correct reproduction is thru a system that makes no further changes to what is already considered by our hearing to be correctly equally loud across the FR - in other words, you want a flat set of speakers.
However, consider what happens when the mixing is also done in a room. The mixing engineer adjusts the bass so that it again sounds right to his or her ears, room gain included. (Headphones obviously is the wrench in this process.) So in other words, room gain and room acoustics in general are also already included in the recording process. They also occur at both ends of the chain when you are listening in a room.
Still, your room is unlikely to be an exact match to the studio's, nor do you know if the LF roll-off of the studio monitors was -12dB or -24dB or (as has been mentioned) at what volume it was mixed at so the key I think is that you still might want to make EQ and room treatment adjustments to suit your own preferences.
Interesting stuff - thanks!
Some of this seems beyond the scope of any single system response. With these 'out of my hands' deviations, the best approach would presumably be to design speakers (etc) that assume the original recording is faithful in an open field, and deliver that as close as possible 'in my room, at my listening position, at my volume'.
Then if its been recorded or mixed in a small room, or had the sound engineer's/producer's own eq stamped on it, I'll manually use a graphic or parametric equaliser to adjust things to my own taste. I can't really see how I could reproduce an original (if indeed one ever existed in the real/acoustic/audible world) which is biased in some way without information I won't have, so my preference will have to rule.
Cheers
Kev
Some of this seems beyond the scope of any single system response. With these 'out of my hands' deviations, the best approach would presumably be to design speakers (etc) that assume the original recording is faithful in an open field, and deliver that as close as possible 'in my room, at my listening position, at my volume'.
Then if its been recorded or mixed in a small room, or had the sound engineer's/producer's own eq stamped on it, I'll manually use a graphic or parametric equaliser to adjust things to my own taste. I can't really see how I could reproduce an original (if indeed one ever existed in the real/acoustic/audible world) which is biased in some way without information I won't have, so my preference will have to rule.
Cheers
Kev
I'd second Pano's suggestion of the B&K curve at the listening position. But to get that, assuming normal furnishings, it mostly requires a flat, anechoic response. At least that's what I've found. When you get it flat anechoic, it naturally results in the B&K response at the listening position. Flat above 500 or 600 Hz is easy to get. Below that, you will have to juggle the room response with the speaker response, and understand how to measure what you are hearing.
Let me add by saying that flat anechoic is not as important as a smooth response. Ups and downs in the response is something the ear really does not like.
You will get a 100 different opinions here. The most important thing is to learn to relate what you are hearing to measurements. If you can get good measurements, the result will more than likely be to your liking.
Let me add by saying that flat anechoic is not as important as a smooth response. Ups and downs in the response is something the ear really does not like.
You will get a 100 different opinions here. The most important thing is to learn to relate what you are hearing to measurements. If you can get good measurements, the result will more than likely be to your liking.
Last edited:
If you can't adjust it to your likes, compensating for room and position how good will it really sound to YOU?
That's the bottom line.
I remember (I think) when the whole disapproval of tone controls started. IIRC, it was for good reasons. A lot of what was being put into amps and record players of the time was junky. Ditto all the switches and selectors and options. When guys started pulling them out, they found certain improvements in the sound. Less junk in the signal path = less junk in the sound. And so a movement was born.
A well designed, well built tone control is a handy tool. My player software has one built in, if I choose to use it. I can set a certain level as flat (e.g. 90% volume) and then everything below that will have a loudness curve add progressively to it. Not perfect, but much better than the old days.
A well designed, well built tone control is a handy tool. My player software has one built in, if I choose to use it. I can set a certain level as flat (e.g. 90% volume) and then everything below that will have a loudness curve add progressively to it. Not perfect, but much better than the old days.
I think it was 1990. By that time the market was completely dominated by silver painted plastic boxes. With 100% junk inside. Removing some junk was leaving less junk inside, but whatever was left was still junk.
So the answer from "the industry" was to remove the junk that you would have removed anyway. Pretty lucrative, as this reduced their costs. Of course, you didn't get any better product but hey it was now "pure" with no tone controls to stay in the way of your aural zen. Time to increase the markup a little bit.
And these days they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.
So the answer from "the industry" was to remove the junk that you would have removed anyway. Pretty lucrative, as this reduced their costs. Of course, you didn't get any better product but hey it was now "pure" with no tone controls to stay in the way of your aural zen. Time to increase the markup a little bit.
And these days they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.
Could be it hit the mass market in 1990. I remember it in the fringe from the late 70s, early 80s. It may predate that. I was thinking back in the days of aging tube gear that young guys could pull part and tinker with to make improvements. Sorry for the O.T.
Kev, if you have a way to measure, that will help greatly to tune your system and your ear.
Kev, if you have a way to measure, that will help greatly to tune your system and your ear.
A slight improvement on the B&K curve (which I have used for years in recording/mixing studios and home listening) can be found here, which yields a perceptually flat frequency response: Acourate Digital Room and Loudspeaker Correction Software Walkthrough
Best regards, Mitch
Best regards, Mitch
More interesting stuff; perhaps I'll look in more detail at adjustable EQ. Initially I was wanting to check what sort of inherent response to design for; that will give me the base line but clearly its not going to be necessarily one fixed or simple response for all music (or all people). Perhaps I'll build in some eq to keep things reasonably flat at the low end. I'm also thinking of a tri-amped active setup so would have the opportunity to tweak the low/mid/high responses and crossover points separately. But perhaps the easiest thing to begin with would be to play with the graphic equaliser and compare measurements with my preferences.
Mitch, thanks for the link; I'd heard of the BK curve (and suspect it may be something I'd like), but that link looks a lot more bespoke.
Yes I've currently got an amp without tone controls. To be honest I think the philosphy is flawed because (as mentioned in this thread) for the natural response to be the best you would need standardisation during the recording/production stages and to be listening at identical volumes in an identical room with speakers that also have a suitable response. As thats not the case, I find some form of adjustment advantageous, and I also don't like the manufacturer prescribing to me what my personal taste should be. Though frankly having had tone controls in the past they can make a hash of those too, so it may be better to forgo them anyway and use something a bit better.
Cheers
kev
Mitch, thanks for the link; I'd heard of the BK curve (and suspect it may be something I'd like), but that link looks a lot more bespoke.
Yes I've currently got an amp without tone controls. To be honest I think the philosphy is flawed because (as mentioned in this thread) for the natural response to be the best you would need standardisation during the recording/production stages and to be listening at identical volumes in an identical room with speakers that also have a suitable response. As thats not the case, I find some form of adjustment advantageous, and I also don't like the manufacturer prescribing to me what my personal taste should be. Though frankly having had tone controls in the past they can make a hash of those too, so it may be better to forgo them anyway and use something a bit better.
Cheers
kev
Last edited:
Thanks, could be useful. Its now looking like I'll probably be using eq of some sort to tweak things, so I guess that I could plan for it to be used fairly seriously (with decent reserves of power/excursion etc) - should let me concentrate on getting a mechanically smooth response and roll off fromn the speakers, knowing the eq will be able to correct it.
Cheers
kev
Cheers
kev
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.