Check out this thread: Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center
Yes, I do have experience with this. And many thoughts 🙂. However I wanted to use that dip in my phantom center only, as the material panned hard left or hard right did not suffer from this excess of energy. I moved on to a mid/side EQ scheme that worked pretty good for me. Actually fixing more than just that perceived excess of energy at ~3 kHz.
Lot's of info about that in my own thread. (the link is just the start of quite a long journey, one that I do not regret)
Yes, I do have experience with this. And many thoughts 🙂. However I wanted to use that dip in my phantom center only, as the material panned hard left or hard right did not suffer from this excess of energy. I moved on to a mid/side EQ scheme that worked pretty good for me. Actually fixing more than just that perceived excess of energy at ~3 kHz.
Lot's of info about that in my own thread. (the link is just the start of quite a long journey, one that I do not regret)
Last edited:
Yes, it was advocated in a technical sense by Harwood in a 1976 Wireless World article. He was head of that part of the BBC Research Department at the time, & it was clearly derived from some of their earlier research on acoustical scaling, but he was writing in a semi-private capacity, albeit with the permission of his employers, as was customary for the period when you were using work-related / owned / gathered data and speaking on a subject that might affect them. This is what is often called the 'BBC dip' although the BBC themselves didn't often use it per se & that term is sometimes applied elsewhere.
Many use it for various reasons, either to compensate for recording technique, enhance a subjective sense of depth perspective, mask midband resonances in drivers, provide a generally 'softer' or more forgiving midband balance, increase apparent LF & HF output etc. For narrow baffle speakers with wide dispersion, a flat on-axis midband response can result in a subjectively over-bright presentation due to the large amount of energy immediately off-axis, so pulling the on-axis response down in this band can be necessary to achieve a subjectively flat sound -to use one well-known example, Lynn Olson did this with his Ariels.
Many use it for various reasons, either to compensate for recording technique, enhance a subjective sense of depth perspective, mask midband resonances in drivers, provide a generally 'softer' or more forgiving midband balance, increase apparent LF & HF output etc. For narrow baffle speakers with wide dispersion, a flat on-axis midband response can result in a subjectively over-bright presentation due to the large amount of energy immediately off-axis, so pulling the on-axis response down in this band can be necessary to achieve a subjectively flat sound -to use one well-known example, Lynn Olson did this with his Ariels.
Last edited:
If you ask me it's all related to Stereo cross talk, at least that's my conviction after spending a lot of time on that subject.
It will be way more apparent in the absence of early reflections. You can even notice a change when moving side to side in the sweet spot under those circumstances.
Even today (..euhh sorry, yesterday) I've written down what I do to battle these effects. Actually making for a wider sweet spot without gross tonal differences when moving side to side a little.
It will be way more apparent in the absence of early reflections. You can even notice a change when moving side to side in the sweet spot under those circumstances.
Even today (..euhh sorry, yesterday) I've written down what I do to battle these effects. Actually making for a wider sweet spot without gross tonal differences when moving side to side a little.
Last edited:
I've played around with a parametric eq and that 'BBC' dip makes everything sound smooth and nice.
Even if the source material is supposed to be rough and edgy.
Even if the source material is supposed to be rough and edgy.
Thanks all, I shall do some reading and get back. In the meantime, Linkwitz suggests a level but not a Q, any ideas to start with? You mention 2.5 wesayso?
I use a bit different values as I have more EQ in there. Try something between 2.7 to 3. It will depend on the source material and a 4 dB dip won't work on all Stereo recordings (I use less for Stereo, but about that 4 dB dip for material mixed for a real center). Try it with a gentle 2.5 dB dip first.
I'd advise using this with mid/side EQ, though that would probably need some form of DSP.
It also depends on the level of (early, say 0-7 ms) reflections you have at the listening spot. More early reflections often means less of a perceived difference, it might even sound less real.
You run OB right? If they are placed right you should be able to perceive the difference I guess. Here's a complete list of what I use, though this is mixed in with my target curve.
This is a picture of all the mid and side action compared to a JBL house curve:
Just remember, peoples preferences do differ 🙂.
P.S. before I forget, I use linear phase EQ for these tweaks.
I'd advise using this with mid/side EQ, though that would probably need some form of DSP.
It also depends on the level of (early, say 0-7 ms) reflections you have at the listening spot. More early reflections often means less of a perceived difference, it might even sound less real.
You run OB right? If they are placed right you should be able to perceive the difference I guess. Here's a complete list of what I use, though this is mixed in with my target curve.
This is a picture of all the mid and side action compared to a JBL house curve:
Just remember, peoples preferences do differ 🙂.
P.S. before I forget, I use linear phase EQ for these tweaks.
Last edited:
Thanks, yes from my understanding it would depend of the nature of the recording venue and whether there was one 😉
I've recently acquired a DCX2496 so can do some simple EQing easily, I'm not sure what you mean by mid/side EQ?
Yes, OB WAW 🙂 I'm pretty sure they are placed right, I enjoy the benefits they bring so am willing for them to dictate my room 😀
Mid/side EQ is where the Stereo signal first gets split into a mid and side stream. The mid is all the stuff in common in the left and right channel and the side is representing the difference of left and right.
A lot of equalizer plugins have the option to do mid/side EQ, for instance Fabfilter Pro Q2.
I use a free Voxengo plugin called MSED to do my splitting of that Stereo signal into mid/side. It can be run in encode or decode mode and lets me use any equaliser plugin I want.
A lot of equalizer plugins have the option to do mid/side EQ, for instance Fabfilter Pro Q2.
I use a free Voxengo plugin called MSED to do my splitting of that Stereo signal into mid/side. It can be run in encode or decode mode and lets me use any equaliser plugin I want.
Last edited:
its a bad idea. It suggests those making the recordings dont know how to eq or set up mics for proper tonal balance. Linkwitz supports the need by stating it helps his recordings made without the eq. Right place to address this if needed is on the recording.
This is all about the "circle of confusion"
This is all about the "circle of confusion"
Typically there will be NO eq applied during recording.
EQ'ing is in most cases done in the mixing stage.
Not sure what mid/side eq'ing is supposed to achieve but it seems to require a fair bit of processing.
M/S recording is an interesting way to record stereo and especially handy if one does not have a matched pair of mics but it does not need any specific eq.
EQ'ing is in most cases done in the mixing stage.
Not sure what mid/side eq'ing is supposed to achieve but it seems to require a fair bit of processing.
M/S recording is an interesting way to record stereo and especially handy if one does not have a matched pair of mics but it does not need any specific eq.
You may call it a bad idea, and talking about a single 3 kHz dip I'd probably agree.
However, if it enhances my listening pleasure to use mid/side EQ, and it's side effects are increased intelligibility and holographic imaging, more sensed realism, I don't see any harm in it. I compared it on a lot of tracks, and a lot of genre's. I am sure I prefer my trickery (cause that's what it is) on all of them. I see no problem in keeping what I enjoy most.
After all, I'm the one I do this for, I do not need to make decisions on how tracks should sound. I'm here for the listening pleasure,
not for making mastering decisions. Perceived tonal balance improved between center and sides, as that's where it all started.
In my book, I'm merely correcting for the difference, out in my room, between the Stereo cross talk of a nearfield setup compared to my own.
Anyone curious enough could try it for themselves. No one was ever harmed during these tests 😀.
Chances are, if I had a more normal setup with more or a higher level of early reflections present, I would not need this trickery.
I do realise my level of DSP is not for all, having an almost perfect band-pass minimum phase behaviour at the listening position
with the help of FIR correction. A setup that requires EQ, as listening without EQ would not work at all.
Meanwhile this trickery has been repeated by two other line array owners who seemed pleased with it too.
I do not think it's line array specific though, but there may be differences for different speaker/room setups or combinations.
I see no harm in pleasing myself, I won't call it HiFi, this is MyFi 🙂.
It seemed to work for other forum members too that dropped in for a listen. Just read the reviews.
However, if it enhances my listening pleasure to use mid/side EQ, and it's side effects are increased intelligibility and holographic imaging, more sensed realism, I don't see any harm in it. I compared it on a lot of tracks, and a lot of genre's. I am sure I prefer my trickery (cause that's what it is) on all of them. I see no problem in keeping what I enjoy most.
After all, I'm the one I do this for, I do not need to make decisions on how tracks should sound. I'm here for the listening pleasure,
not for making mastering decisions. Perceived tonal balance improved between center and sides, as that's where it all started.
In my book, I'm merely correcting for the difference, out in my room, between the Stereo cross talk of a nearfield setup compared to my own.
Anyone curious enough could try it for themselves. No one was ever harmed during these tests 😀.
Chances are, if I had a more normal setup with more or a higher level of early reflections present, I would not need this trickery.
I do realise my level of DSP is not for all, having an almost perfect band-pass minimum phase behaviour at the listening position
with the help of FIR correction. A setup that requires EQ, as listening without EQ would not work at all.
Meanwhile this trickery has been repeated by two other line array owners who seemed pleased with it too.
I do not think it's line array specific though, but there may be differences for different speaker/room setups or combinations.
I see no harm in pleasing myself, I won't call it HiFi, this is MyFi 🙂.
It seemed to work for other forum members too that dropped in for a listen. Just read the reviews.
Last edited:
The idea is to correct what on certain recordings (usually live ones where the venue had a diffuse sound field) we perceive to have a boost around this frequency because our listening room and speakers achieve a more directional response, that is my understanding
Absolutely, it's just another tool that might or might not help, audio reproduction is just that, a fudge, thankfully our brains are very receptive to being fooled or this whole audio thing would be a waste of time
Not my understanding at all. If you want to find out the why, measure a sound source coming from the front, at the ears. Next measure that same sound coming from a position of a speaker in a Stereo triangle, again at the ears.
It is that difference Linkwitz is compensating for. As he uses his own 2 ear position to record his favourite shows.
He can do better than that 3 kHz dip, all it takes is looking at what actually happens at the ears. The ambiophonic lovers are no fools, nor is Prof. Edgar Choueiri. These curves are also registered by Dr. Floyd Toole.
Now we cannot assume our mastering engineers are deaf to this phenomenon. So my dips in mid/side are less deep for Stereo content. I only use more aggressive numbers for material mixed for an actual center channel.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.