Just gotta have some "want to" 😂
I don't want to change the subject. I think Dr. Geddes gave us enough to chew on about Clarity vs the room, at least for the moment.
This video, just bothers me and I dont know why. In my opinion hes selling preference as cold hard facts and I don't like that lol. I think that Flat in-room response is fine, and I think that most people do not know to properly judge a voicing. In my opinion a system voicing will settle into the realm of normalcy only after a period of time has passed. I think that if you listen to just about any voicing long enough, it will sound normal, and that it is relatable to light, were after a period of time, whatever light level the environment you are in, has, your eyes eventually adjust... of course, with extremes even after adjustment, certain characteristics stand out... Like "I can't see" lol..... I think that a flat response is no where near an extreme, other than being different from most other radios you might hear.... The exaggerated bass decay typical of rooms leans towards higher bass perception, and a flat FR given enough time for the user to adjust will sound fine. I believe that a flat response is a vulnerable response, thus, a system with poor LF, will be the first to not be enjoyed, voiced as such... Poor LF being, not able to play high spl low distortion down to at least 30hz or so.
I don't want to change the subject. I think Dr. Geddes gave us enough to chew on about Clarity vs the room, at least for the moment.
This video, just bothers me and I dont know why. In my opinion hes selling preference as cold hard facts and I don't like that lol. I think that Flat in-room response is fine, and I think that most people do not know to properly judge a voicing. In my opinion a system voicing will settle into the realm of normalcy only after a period of time has passed. I think that if you listen to just about any voicing long enough, it will sound normal, and that it is relatable to light, were after a period of time, whatever light level the environment you are in, has, your eyes eventually adjust... of course, with extremes even after adjustment, certain characteristics stand out... Like "I can't see" lol..... I think that a flat response is no where near an extreme, other than being different from most other radios you might hear.... The exaggerated bass decay typical of rooms leans towards higher bass perception, and a flat FR given enough time for the user to adjust will sound fine. I believe that a flat response is a vulnerable response, thus, a system with poor LF, will be the first to not be enjoyed, voiced as such... Poor LF being, not able to play high spl low distortion down to at least 30hz or so.
To clarify, you mean uniform by Milliseconds, or uniform in the eyes of Burst Decay. I forgot to bring up those two points of view, in the original question. I see what you mean about the modal versus the non modal region so maybe if we focus on just the non modal region, the philosophy will show itself.
You are talking on axis not power response? I don't know why anyone would attempt to adjust EQ the power response by altering the on axis. Doesn't work.
Rob 🙂
Last edited:
Don't worry Rob, I still own several diffraction horns myself 😉
I've always assumed the 1400 horn is identical to the S9800, but vertically mounted.
The throat section of the S9900's mid horn is 'more open' (less contricted). For a reason I'd think.
I've only listened to the Array 1400 in a Synthesis setup, which sounded quite impressive.
I've always assumed the 1400 horn is identical to the S9800, but vertically mounted.
The throat section of the S9900's mid horn is 'more open' (less contricted). For a reason I'd think.
I've only listened to the Array 1400 in a Synthesis setup, which sounded quite impressive.
Last edited:
Hello
No they are different the Array is 70x70 vs 60x30 for 9800/9900. Greg used modified 9800 vertical with 045Be mounted in it that morphed into the Array horn. Take a look at the photo.
Not sure unless you have them at the same height it's hard to tell. The contour looks different and as a later horn maybe an improvement? Hard to tell when part of the horn is the veneered side of the enclosure.
Here is a shot of the Array horn.
Rob 🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
"Research tells us that people in general prefer a speaker that is more flat on axis than not.
If you think of it in simple terms of signal in versus signal out then it makes sense.
If you record an instrument and play that instrument back over the speakers and if your goal is accuracy and high fidelity you don't want that speaker impart any tonal characteristic of its own into what it's playing back. If I record myself talking I want to hear myself the same way out of that speaker as the signal that is on that recording."
This evokes associations with 'the cult of measurement forum', where hordes of disciples are sincerely convinced that if they buy a DAC + amp from the SINAD top 10 to use it with a set of KEF Meta LS50s, they'll have a 'transparent' & sota audio chain. After all, measurements don't lie.
Assuming this statement only serves the simplified example, because if this is a serious premise, you might as well ignore the rest.
If you think of it in simple terms of signal in versus signal out then it makes sense.
If you record an instrument and play that instrument back over the speakers and if your goal is accuracy and high fidelity you don't want that speaker impart any tonal characteristic of its own into what it's playing back. If I record myself talking I want to hear myself the same way out of that speaker as the signal that is on that recording."
This evokes associations with 'the cult of measurement forum', where hordes of disciples are sincerely convinced that if they buy a DAC + amp from the SINAD top 10 to use it with a set of KEF Meta LS50s, they'll have a 'transparent' & sota audio chain. After all, measurements don't lie.
Assuming this statement only serves the simplified example, because if this is a serious premise, you might as well ignore the rest.
This is not the part that I find is disagreeable.. The part that I feel is flawed is suggesting later in the video that making a loudspeaker measure flat on axis sounds Anemic, Shrill, Sharp, Bright, Fatiguing, Painful, and bass-less...
Prefer a speaker that is close to flat
Prefer a speaker that is close to flat on axis
Contextually, these two statements can describe very different concepts. Although I haven't seen the surrounding context, the above quote seems to address the "other" one so I guess I wouldn't try to read much into it.
Prefer a speaker that is close to flat on axis
Contextually, these two statements can describe very different concepts. Although I haven't seen the surrounding context, the above quote seems to address the "other" one so I guess I wouldn't try to read much into it.
Later in the video hes says that if you have a loudspeaker that measures flat in anechoic conditions to not fix the tone after putting it into the room, outside of peaks in the response. That I disagree. He suggest that if you adjust the response back to Flat, while in the room, it will sound Anemic, Shrill, Sharp, Bright, Fatiguing, Painful, and bass-less. That just isn't true even if there is a grain of truth to it...
Those adjectives come from average people. In studio monitoring Flat or at least near flat, is a standard... In my 27 measurements of studio listening measurements, all you say are near flat measurements.
To a person who is used to listening to bass boosted FR, of course a near flat response sounds off... Its like a person coming from a dark room, no light, eyes adjusted... then walking outside into a full Sunlit day... Their eyes will be in pain... but is it too bright outside? No... Our ears work similar, it takes time to adjust... and even then it takes time for expectation of the sound coming out of the loudspeaker system to change.
Those adjectives come from average people. In studio monitoring Flat or at least near flat, is a standard... In my 27 measurements of studio listening measurements, all you say are near flat measurements.
To a person who is used to listening to bass boosted FR, of course a near flat response sounds off... Its like a person coming from a dark room, no light, eyes adjusted... then walking outside into a full Sunlit day... Their eyes will be in pain... but is it too bright outside? No... Our ears work similar, it takes time to adjust... and even then it takes time for expectation of the sound coming out of the loudspeaker system to change.
Last edited:
Erin said that if you take a speaker that measures flat on axis in an anechoic environment, then put it in a typical (reverberant) room you will then measure a rising low frequency response.
That is true.
If you then reduce it's rising low frequency in room response below ~400Hz to flat on axis, it will sound like it has less bass- because it produces less bass.
Also true.
A system may measure flat in room in the near field (typically under a meter for low frequencies) but will have a rising low frequency in the far field. The near field for high frequencies extends much further than low frequencies, as does the critical distance.
Show your in room measurements of your system with your preferred "house curve" at various listening distances, and see if you then understand the truth in what Erin is saying.
Art
Last edited:
Those adjectives are the ones he used in the video, Not "If you then reduce it's rising low frequency in room response below ~400Hz to flat on axis, it will sound like it has less bass- because it produces less bass." - which is obviously true.... "Anemic, Shrill, Sharp, Bright, Fatiguing, Painful, and bass-less..." - not true. "Speakers sound crappy in my room when they measure flat" - Completely preference. He says if you correct the voicing to be flat in the room you are creating a voicing the loud speaker isn't designed to create- That doesn't even make sense. "Do not flatten that response artificially, because then you're wrecking that tonal characteristic of an otherwise perfectly good speaker" - Not true and rather situational. I agree with the things you describe, and non of it is anything he says in the video, in particular in the way you articulate it. Then he goes on to say that fully omnidirectional speakers are already flat in the room so they need no eq... that doesn't even make sense.
Except he said what I said he said above.... You are saying things that are true.... This is what he said that was actually true in the video
""Research tells us that people in general prefer a speaker that is more flat on axis than not." - True....
"If your goal is accuracy and high fidelity you don't want that speaker impart any tonal characteristic of its own into what it's playing back." -True
The other things about not literally voicing flat in the room, make no sense. You talk about measuring the response at multiple positions but why? I personally am concerned with on axis at the listening position. Then you say that in the far field the bass will begin to rise again... that means if the bass is boosted in the near field its going to be even higher in the far field... Thats what hes suggesting, so how is that the way to go?
Last edited:
Yeah that's what I thought. I am a bit confused here, I thought he said that taking a speaker that measures flat anechoic should not be EQ'd to measure flat in room. A flat anechoic will yield a falling power response. Well yeah. Part of what I don't get is don't DSP target curves in say Dirac target an in room with a sloping response attenuated in the High End? What would be the reason someone would try to go flat?
Rob 🙂
Last edited:
Why is this statement contradictory and therefore nonsensical?
Because each individual loudspeaker (type) imparts its own tonal characteristic(s), by defintion.
Suppose we have 2 identical speakers, only the cabinet material is different > MDF versus plywood.
We can (theoretically) fine-tune both speakers in such a way that both measure (almost) exactly the same
In an ABX test (double-blind randomised controlled trials) both speakers may not be distinguishable from each other. Nevertheless, the tonal signature is different, since the acoustic properties of the cabinet materials are different. Even though these differences maybe barely measurable or audible, they do exist.
This is an extreme (hypothetical) example. In Erin's daily measurement practice, the differences between speakers are usually much greater.
For example, the (inherent) tonal characteristics of the aforementioned KEF Meta LS50 are different from those of BBC's long time broadcast 'tool' (for speech), the LS3/5A.
That is what he is saying. He says if you do so, it will sound "Anemic, Shrill, Sharp, Bright, Fatiguing, Painful, and bass-less"
Someone interested in a completely neutral response. I mean we are speaking preference. If you prefer a highly analytical sound a very neutral response is where its at. If the system can play down to 30hz or lower, when voiced flat it isn't going to sound bass-less at all.
If you take a speaker that measures flat on axis in an anechoic environment then put it in the a room, it will change the FR and bass will be bloated/exaggerated...
If you then reduce the bass and create a neutral FR on axis... it will sound.... Neutral
I would use ms. since I don't know what you mean by "burst decay".
Hi Art
I have to take exception to this. Having done my PhD on the LF modal characteristics of small rooms, I do not find that there is a rising LF response relative to anechoic. It certainly becomes modal and yes the peaks increase dramatically, as well as nulls appearing. This will lead to a perception of increased bass, albeit highly colored, but the mean power response across frequency does not increase. The idea of "LF room gain" is a misnomer IMO. I know of no technical reason why the mean response would increase at LFs. The modal nature really makes the entire concept of "rising/falling response" rather inaccurate.
If one were to use enough damping in a room to lower the peaks in the response, then the mean level would be falling and the rooms bass would sound anemic. My room is heavily damped at LFs and few discrete modes are evident. Without some bass boost, the sound is anemic and this is due to the low reverberation due to the damping which results in a lower perception of bass. It takes time for our brains to recognize and respond to signal and as they get shorter we detect them as being lower in perceived loudness. This is why bass in a large room sounds so good - its because of the long RT thus increasing our psychoacoustic perception of bass.
PS. I did not watch the linked posting so I am not talking about anything that Erin might have said.
This is not true, it depends on the source directivity. A piston will have a falling power response but a CD waveguide will not. This is a critical reason why they will sound different.
There is so much ambiguous discussions here that it is hard to sort out. Are we talking about "perception" which is highly complex and FR does not tell the whole story. And when we talk about "measurements" are they steady state in-room? In which case one has to look at them statistically or more direct field (listening axis) response. The two can and usually are quite different. When talking about perception one cannot exclude the rooms effect and the source directivity - it's simply impossible.
By Burst Decay I guess I should have said Period? One could judge decay by MS or by Periods. I think that because of short cycle time of HF, a balanced spectral decay MS wise, will lend to higher perception of the HF vs the LF. Any truth to this?
Last edited: