Wife gives me those. I have to say since I found a music loving wife listening to music is far more enjoyable, even if fidelity is less of a priority.
One aspect I find quite pleasing is like real estate - location, location, location - in a "they are here" presentation.
Regarding room effects, you have to ask "Well, what would the room "do" if the guys drum kit was setup right there - huh? Huh?" It's going to do something to the sound of it...
Regarding flat / tonal; how do you know the musician's voice / instrument doesnt really sound like that? Ever hear them sing / play outdoors or in an anechoic space w/o sound reinforcement of any kind? Unless it's something acutely perceptible and your attention is always locking onto it, that persists across multiple recordings...
I'd enjoy loud volume capability w/o intermodulation distortion. For me, when the IM goes up, the volume goes back down. That's an enjoyment limiter.
I'm pretty sure I enjoy "fast" or "pace", whatever that means. I assume if there's a transient, the drivers are right on top of it, rather than getting around to handling it some, albeit short, time later.
I'd enjoy a system that somehow convincingly solves the "live vs memorex" problem. That is, tricks me into thinking "Ah, some teenager practicing his drum kit" or "that's certainly not someone's 'stereo'" as I walk past the house and down the street. This is something I can sense even from hearing the HS marching band playing a mile away! "That's real acoustic instruments - not someone's 'PA system'". For me - whatever does that - it's the most attention grabbing aspect of sound; the first discernment: real or memorex.
Regarding room effects, you have to ask "Well, what would the room "do" if the guys drum kit was setup right there - huh? Huh?" It's going to do something to the sound of it...
Regarding flat / tonal; how do you know the musician's voice / instrument doesnt really sound like that? Ever hear them sing / play outdoors or in an anechoic space w/o sound reinforcement of any kind? Unless it's something acutely perceptible and your attention is always locking onto it, that persists across multiple recordings...
I'd enjoy loud volume capability w/o intermodulation distortion. For me, when the IM goes up, the volume goes back down. That's an enjoyment limiter.
I'm pretty sure I enjoy "fast" or "pace", whatever that means. I assume if there's a transient, the drivers are right on top of it, rather than getting around to handling it some, albeit short, time later.
I'd enjoy a system that somehow convincingly solves the "live vs memorex" problem. That is, tricks me into thinking "Ah, some teenager practicing his drum kit" or "that's certainly not someone's 'stereo'" as I walk past the house and down the street. This is something I can sense even from hearing the HS marching band playing a mile away! "That's real acoustic instruments - not someone's 'PA system'". For me - whatever does that - it's the most attention grabbing aspect of sound; the first discernment: real or memorex.
Last edited:
As a kid, my parents took me to the boardwalk in NJ while visiting relatives. One establishment there - must've been a rollerskating rink as they were open in the middle of a sunny day - had music playing loudly over a PA - and a live drummer hired to "play along" with whatever was on the PA.
I noticed this and was quite curious about it. The proprietor knew I'd notice - and apparently found the difference in business between getting noticed like that was worth the drummer's employ. I recall staring for a long time at this guy playing, as if noting how the sound of the drums just blew away the relatively cheesy sound of the speakers.
I noticed this and was quite curious about it. The proprietor knew I'd notice - and apparently found the difference in business between getting noticed like that was worth the drummer's employ. I recall staring for a long time at this guy playing, as if noting how the sound of the drums just blew away the relatively cheesy sound of the speakers.
Last edited:
What worked for me is to begin with a pair of speakers that can work with the room, to ensure a good room response, using only a couple of absorptive panels for first reflections. Working to create a good balance between the first wave front and the following room response. With that in place I was able to find an in-room balance that worked on most of the music I play, without having to adjust balance on a song to song base.
So tonal balance was key to my enjoyment, balance as a package of room + speaker working together. While it works wonders for imaging at the sweet spot, the in room balance also works throughout the room.
I figured: if I do not feel I have to change the tonal balance while listening to headphones, why should I have to change it with speakers in the room? A little work on the room itself was necessary to achieve that, plus DSP was used to top it off.
I made it a sort of continuous experimental setup, trying to optimise the speakers I have build within my room and have them work together as much as possible within my restrictions. Trying to find progress over time. This did pay off for me, while learning a lot during that journey of what worked and what didn't.
I've added more things over time to enhance my 'enjoyment factor' and indeed, I do measure its success with the goosebump factor (and chills down my spine) among other things. I have added mid/side processing as a way to combat some of stereo's inherited properties, one of the most successful projects that further enhanced the subjective presentation.
I've also added Haas kickers, in a virtual way, by having speakers fake late room responses of a space (a lot) better than what I have. Also a big enjoyment factor to be had there if you ask me. Working to refine what I have instead of building various speakers and rinse/repeat have brought me a system that has been very entertaining so far.
I'm never truly done and will continue to try and improve on what I have. And hopefully learn some valuable lessons during that journey. I've documented most of the journey so far in my (huge) thread over in the full range forums.
The enjoyment of (listening to) music has been the goal, treating what I have as an experimental tool to learn from and play with. So far it has been a fun ride! 😀
So tonal balance was key to my enjoyment, balance as a package of room + speaker working together. While it works wonders for imaging at the sweet spot, the in room balance also works throughout the room.
I figured: if I do not feel I have to change the tonal balance while listening to headphones, why should I have to change it with speakers in the room? A little work on the room itself was necessary to achieve that, plus DSP was used to top it off.
I made it a sort of continuous experimental setup, trying to optimise the speakers I have build within my room and have them work together as much as possible within my restrictions. Trying to find progress over time. This did pay off for me, while learning a lot during that journey of what worked and what didn't.
I've added more things over time to enhance my 'enjoyment factor' and indeed, I do measure its success with the goosebump factor (and chills down my spine) among other things. I have added mid/side processing as a way to combat some of stereo's inherited properties, one of the most successful projects that further enhanced the subjective presentation.
I've also added Haas kickers, in a virtual way, by having speakers fake late room responses of a space (a lot) better than what I have. Also a big enjoyment factor to be had there if you ask me. Working to refine what I have instead of building various speakers and rinse/repeat have brought me a system that has been very entertaining so far.
I'm never truly done and will continue to try and improve on what I have. And hopefully learn some valuable lessons during that journey. I've documented most of the journey so far in my (huge) thread over in the full range forums.
The enjoyment of (listening to) music has been the goal, treating what I have as an experimental tool to learn from and play with. So far it has been a fun ride! 😀
Last edited:
Regardless the reason, goosebumps are the biggest factor in my enjoyment. Like many, I have more than one.
I have a choice of sounds in my living room.
1/ 1980 Fane 12"-50W W bin
2/ Fane 15"-600W in W bin (bass speaker)
3/ Pair of Fane 12"-250TC's in a sealed box.
4/ 4 off Fane 10"-60W in a sealed box.
A change is as good as a rest.
1/ 1980 Fane 12"-50W W bin
2/ Fane 15"-600W in W bin (bass speaker)
3/ Pair of Fane 12"-250TC's in a sealed box.
4/ 4 off Fane 10"-60W in a sealed box.
A change is as good as a rest.
for me it's a good detailed punchy warm sound, a bit bass heavy, preferable point source (fullrange or waw setup) with no fatiguing factors (non-harmonic distortion, resonance or too bright sound). I know from experience that means a good response untill at least below 50Hz, preferable untill 30Hz, and with a very slow slope down from bass to treble of about 3dB over the full spectrum and sealed (or other low group delay) cabinets. This is hard to do i know, but i'm close with my actual waw setup of this Utopia so i'm very happy...
But this is a very subjective question, so the answers will be by definition also subjective.
But this is a very subjective question, so the answers will be by definition also subjective.
Most of my votes have already been said...
I'm not saying such is the only way to get these effects, but I've had a lot of systems over the years. I've very briefly auditioned famous speakers in stores etc. but that tells you nothing. You have to listen in your own space long-term.
I too vote for controlled directivity. I'm partial to Danley. I have Yorkville Unity, which is close enough for now. This is the only horn/waveguide I've ever had. Quite likely, "normal" horns would have much of this: soundstage unlike I've ever heard on any of my systems. Width, depth, fixed in space.
Yes, room is very important. Other than damping early reflections, mine has no special treatments. Speakers are positioned where they sound best. Elementary stuff. Frequency response? Yes, EQ-ed because had to (active EQ) + equal level pink noise EQ to taste. This works for me. Have used REW and mic for basic set-up (EQ) but I lack the equipment to get accurate convolutions, etc. to do time corretions.
I'm not saying such is the only way to get these effects, but I've had a lot of systems over the years. I've very briefly auditioned famous speakers in stores etc. but that tells you nothing. You have to listen in your own space long-term.
I too vote for controlled directivity. I'm partial to Danley. I have Yorkville Unity, which is close enough for now. This is the only horn/waveguide I've ever had. Quite likely, "normal" horns would have much of this: soundstage unlike I've ever heard on any of my systems. Width, depth, fixed in space.
Yes, room is very important. Other than damping early reflections, mine has no special treatments. Speakers are positioned where they sound best. Elementary stuff. Frequency response? Yes, EQ-ed because had to (active EQ) + equal level pink noise EQ to taste. This works for me. Have used REW and mic for basic set-up (EQ) but I lack the equipment to get accurate convolutions, etc. to do time corretions.
I find there is this confusion between flat on axis measured and flat as you listened.
Flat on axis does not result in flat as you listen. As the dispersion of tweeters reduce at high frequencies the overall balance for high frequencies for listening. After all if you have that instrument playing in your room, it would be omni directional.
Even when measuring on axis, there are variations on how it is done. Stereophile implements a average of 30 degree window. I believe most diyers would just take single measurement on axis and try and adjust for it to be flat.
Then it depends on whether you are listening toed in or facing front. Makes a world of difference.
Then there I'd the Harman target curve.
Do what I mean is when mentioned flat frequency response what does it really mean? It really depends on how you are trying to measure it. I would think that power tonal response in room would be the one. If not possible the closest would be an average over a wide angle maybe +/- 30 degrees. Which means it generally means a treble boost on axis.
Oon
Flat on axis does not result in flat as you listen. As the dispersion of tweeters reduce at high frequencies the overall balance for high frequencies for listening. After all if you have that instrument playing in your room, it would be omni directional.
Even when measuring on axis, there are variations on how it is done. Stereophile implements a average of 30 degree window. I believe most diyers would just take single measurement on axis and try and adjust for it to be flat.
Then it depends on whether you are listening toed in or facing front. Makes a world of difference.
Then there I'd the Harman target curve.
Do what I mean is when mentioned flat frequency response what does it really mean? It really depends on how you are trying to measure it. I would think that power tonal response in room would be the one. If not possible the closest would be an average over a wide angle maybe +/- 30 degrees. Which means it generally means a treble boost on axis.
Oon
Probably because you only really need bass and treble controls and the "loudness" contour is individual and system dependent.
Well, I don't really fancy having to adjust the tone control everytime I listen to music. Just wanted to keep it hassle free..
Oon
Oon
You could make a loudness control which automatically adjusts according to the volume and is tailored to your hearing, room and system.
It is off topic, but I believe and experienced you do not need loudness or tonal treble and bass knobs when your source is voiced to the sound you like and room. Since my dacs are setuped in house I just need a balance pot...with 99% of the recordings whatever the music style.
Bass in the room is something you do not want to loose. Too much it is bad, not enough it is bad. Sealed bass do often the things fine due to the smooth low end....
Bass in the room is something you do not want to loose. Too much it is bad, not enough it is bad. Sealed bass do often the things fine due to the smooth low end....
I use a media player (JRiver) that controls the average loudness on a song to song (or on album) base. I would go nuts having to adjust volume when playing tracks from different albums if I didn't. That way everything sounds as loud independent from it's DR number. The media player is using the R128 algorithm and all songs are analyzed before playback.
Its part of the trick to have one 'in-room' tonal balance/room curve setting and be able to live with it. Along with using a more or less "standard" average volume level.
If I (want to) play back at lower volume, I'll engage the build in loudness control.
Its part of the trick to have one 'in-room' tonal balance/room curve setting and be able to live with it. Along with using a more or less "standard" average volume level.
If I (want to) play back at lower volume, I'll engage the build in loudness control.
Thanks again to everyone for their comments....it's very nice to gain appreciation for the differences in subjective preferences. 🙂
Particularly enjoying the various takes on tone control.
In post #24 i showed my method for tone control and i know it probably looks overcomplicated.
But for my listening practices, i can't say enough positive things about it.
I listen at greatly varying SPL levels.
Imo, some music was 'made loud to be played loud' and some music loses its soul if not played relatively quietly.
It often seems like each track has it's own 'sweet-volume level' where it's tonality sounds right.
There's also the big question, do our rooms keep the same RT60 curves at increased SPL levels...i'm pretty convinced they don't.
So anyway, the first use of my tone control setup is for Loudness compensation, for which it appears many folks also see a need.
(Like Wesayso, I also use the JRiver volume leveling, so my loudness compensation is on top of a relatively constant starting listening level.)
I totally think further tonal control is needed beyond loudness compensation.
Imo, the tonal balance of tracks varies greatly, crazily really....
as much as the tracks' average loudness does.
(I hear this with headphones too, so i'm convinced it's the track that varies.)
If anything, i've come to value the ability to adjust track-by-track tonal balance at least as much as the loudness compensation ability.
Like said, I know all the sliders i use look overly complicated, but they quickly became as easy to use as turning a single volume knob.
I guess a little time mixing live sound has made them feel pretty trivial..... and it's alot of fun making a song sound awesomely good/better.
Much of the time the only control used is the single master volume slider. But when wanting to crank it up, or fix a messed up tonal balance, the 4-section controls are priceless.
I find small adjustments between driver sections can make a song sound so good at whatever volume.
I wish i knew a way to save relative levels for each track, and apply them automatically. Along with automatic loudness compensation 😀
Particularly enjoying the various takes on tone control.
In post #24 i showed my method for tone control and i know it probably looks overcomplicated.
But for my listening practices, i can't say enough positive things about it.
I listen at greatly varying SPL levels.
Imo, some music was 'made loud to be played loud' and some music loses its soul if not played relatively quietly.
It often seems like each track has it's own 'sweet-volume level' where it's tonality sounds right.
There's also the big question, do our rooms keep the same RT60 curves at increased SPL levels...i'm pretty convinced they don't.
So anyway, the first use of my tone control setup is for Loudness compensation, for which it appears many folks also see a need.
(Like Wesayso, I also use the JRiver volume leveling, so my loudness compensation is on top of a relatively constant starting listening level.)
I totally think further tonal control is needed beyond loudness compensation.
Imo, the tonal balance of tracks varies greatly, crazily really....
as much as the tracks' average loudness does.
(I hear this with headphones too, so i'm convinced it's the track that varies.)
If anything, i've come to value the ability to adjust track-by-track tonal balance at least as much as the loudness compensation ability.
Like said, I know all the sliders i use look overly complicated, but they quickly became as easy to use as turning a single volume knob.
I guess a little time mixing live sound has made them feel pretty trivial..... and it's alot of fun making a song sound awesomely good/better.
Much of the time the only control used is the single master volume slider. But when wanting to crank it up, or fix a messed up tonal balance, the 4-section controls are priceless.
I find small adjustments between driver sections can make a song sound so good at whatever volume.
I wish i knew a way to save relative levels for each track, and apply them automatically. Along with automatic loudness compensation 😀