Arbitrary in this context means that it actually defines the preference, not the other way around. These two will always correlate because they are really the same thing. It just doesn't matter what particular curve is (universally) chosen - as the result all loudspeakers with the same attributes will be regarded as "preferred" and highly rated, it's as simple as that. The downward tilt is IMHO nothing more than a result of technology widely availabe for past decades, i.e. direct radiating transducers with inherently rising DI, although this rise can be pretty mild and smooth with the best multiway speakers. That's also about as good as it gets. That's my view as I haven't seen any other evidence.
Last edited:
Mabat = I understand your point, but I am not sure that everyone does. That the slightly falling curve may be a result of past practice is, as you say, irrelevant. How it came about does not matter. It is what it is and because it's irrelevant how we got here doesn't matter either. To me it's not worth arguing over and just accept it for what it is.
I agree that it is not really important how it came about, I was only curious if anyone had a different plausible explanation.
The only thing that still "bothers" me is the shape of the direct response (flat / downward sloped). I still don't see how you can be so sure that it can be attenuated towards high frequencies without any side effects, i.e. that a combination of flat LW with rising DI (giving the same radiated power response) wouldn't sound actually better in the end. Whatever that could mean.
- We can achieve high DI that's also rising gently, with flat ON/LW. Wouldn't this even better comply with the "preferred standard", yet preserving the imaging quality? I can't help myself but this would seem to me as the most logical choice at the moment. Most high-quality monitors are still targeted at flat direct sound response, as far as I know.
The only thing that still "bothers" me is the shape of the direct response (flat / downward sloped). I still don't see how you can be so sure that it can be attenuated towards high frequencies without any side effects, i.e. that a combination of flat LW with rising DI (giving the same radiated power response) wouldn't sound actually better in the end. Whatever that could mean.
- We can achieve high DI that's also rising gently, with flat ON/LW. Wouldn't this even better comply with the "preferred standard", yet preserving the imaging quality? I can't help myself but this would seem to me as the most logical choice at the moment. Most high-quality monitors are still targeted at flat direct sound response, as far as I know.
Last edited:
Having listened to many designs I have found that a flat DI with falling direct response sounds the most natural.
Wouldn't a flat DI be preferable in situations that don't focus on a specific listening spot,
like even-coverage PA applications ?
like even-coverage PA applications ?
Sure, that's a given in that application. I think the discussion here is more about home listening and yes, it would also be true for a larger theatre like mine - up to 9 people.
Thanks, I thought it was a given.
Personally, i like the logic of a flat DI, that fits more listening situations.... and of course falling freq response.
Personally, i like the logic of a flat DI, that fits more listening situations.... and of course falling freq response.
Too many variables....you can't make standards for home listening if there are no standards for recording and mastering. Make what you want and enjoy.
There is also the "toe-in" problem - the way I setup my speakers by toeing them in. Doesn't work unless the DI is flat.
There are standards for motion pictures and I certainly notice the difference. But I do think that your comment is a kind of cope-out to the discussion.
Does the reason behind this suggest it should roll down, or tilt?
It's common to see it done only above around 1kHz (and flat below). Is this because DI tends to kink there?.. if DI were flat to a much lower frequency would the tilt be best served over that wider band?
I think "tilt" would be the better description. I pretty much agree with Harmons position on the "house curve".
I think that holding a DI to a lower frequency is a good idea, it just gets big and/or complicated at some point and no longer worth the extra cost and effort.
As to the kink being correlated with the knee a knee in the slope is not something that I have thought about.
I think that holding a DI to a lower frequency is a good idea, it just gets big and/or complicated at some point and no longer worth the extra cost and effort.
As to the kink being correlated with the knee a knee in the slope is not something that I have thought about.
I respect your work and try to follow it for the most part, but the best slope for any given situation will depend on the balance of every track and room. It would be neat if artificial intelligence could remaster the vast catalouge of music on some kind of reference system. Until then the variables involved will change preferences slightly for one curve or the other. I can agree that it is fun to ponder the minutiae once in awhile.
It's nice that cinema has standards...wish all theaters followed them.
I mean that the mixing and mastering are all done with standards in place. So you can be assured that the playback is right for every film. No so for music.
It is.
There's not much point optimizing a system if the target you're optimizing towards is not correct.
There's not much point optimizing a system if the target you're optimizing towards is not correct.
