OK to disagree. A gentle couple 2dB there is fine. Most speakers are all over the map - a lot more than a db or two. It would be better made right by the recording process, mic choices instead. For example many favored mics have a 'presence' bump there.
There are recordings made with minimal omni-mic'ing with flat response. They sound wonderful on flat speakers. They sound right and balanced. Not too bright or dull. A lot of recordings were with mics which have rolled off high end and those get boosted in mastering to sound right. A flat playback speaker will sound then bright and not fun at all. But over-all an accurate speaker is best. Especially appreciated with 'well' recorded music.
Take a look at a Very popular mic -- the Sennheiser MD421 for example of where the problem lies. Same with Shure and others. Old favorites are hard to die. There are more accurate mics now.
THx-RNMarsh
Listening to Joe Bonamassa.... Live at the Greek Theater... 'Going Down'. Crank up the piano opening and get ready to be blown out of your chair at 0:28 🙂
Last edited:
It's true, there's a lot of speakers that are all over the place. But I agree with John, flat SPL is not that important. But I must add, so long as there are no peaks anywhere and especially no peaks in 2-5kHz region. Dips and general unevenness is okay IMO.
Time alignment and overall time coherency is very important for recorded music to sound real (define it however you want) to the human brain.
I have an old 1980s pair of time aligned Goldmund Dialogue speakers which also use Cauer elliptical crossover. These things can still compete (but not overall better) with even the best offerings today. And they have the best midrange I have ever heard at any price.
Last edited:
Well, you are talking about Likes again. i am not. Also the best speakers, in careful DBLT from F.Toole etal, indicated flat was preferred. It is one of many parameters I listed. In no particular order BTW. Time alignment is also listed.
If your speaker system can do the 'in your room live voice' (or sounds) vs your playback is identical... it is accurate. Flat on and off axis to 90 or so degrees are a few of the parameters which will get you to that level of reproduction. To get there you need to have all those parameters listed well developed.
Today, there is No good reason you can not have flat AND time aligned.... not so unusual.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi ridikas,
A flat response is important as total radiated response is. You need everything to work together. I use speakers that were designed at Canada's NRC under Mr. Toole, the PSB Stratus Gold (originals). They may not be the best, but they are respectable.
-Chris
I can't imagine the time alignment survives those vicious filters. But, to each his own. The steeper the slope of a filter, the more ringing and phase disturbance you're going to have. There is no escaping that.
A flat response is important as total radiated response is. You need everything to work together. I use speakers that were designed at Canada's NRC under Mr. Toole, the PSB Stratus Gold (originals). They may not be the best, but they are respectable.
-Chris
If I really told you what I think about the Toole DBLT test at the Harman room, I will be banned from this forum. The whole entire thing is rigged, staged, manipulated, potential listeners are combed and dictated what to listen for ahead of time, marketing ploy, EQed music samples to sound good with Harman products, etc. Pure and utter horse crap BS. And I will refrain to comment on it further.
Hi ridikas,
Well, you've made yourself known early at least. You're off into the weeds as far as your beliefs are concerned. But you look happy there. Enjoy!
I think you've commented enough anyway. How about Mr. Toole's efforts in the field before Harmon hired him away?
-Chris
Well, you've made yourself known early at least. You're off into the weeds as far as your beliefs are concerned. But you look happy there. Enjoy!
I think you've commented enough anyway. How about Mr. Toole's efforts in the field before Harmon hired him away?
-Chris
Earl Geddes says most of them are minimum phase, I've not been able to find much information on this and am not able to test it myself
From the past
For the case of achievable matching of Q and Fo between a resonance and an equalizing network, I had asked SY some years back if there is any technical criterion in such a case by which one can be guided to equalize one resonance but not try to electronically equalize another.
Discrete Opamp Open Design
Discrete Opamp Open Design
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
George
For the case of achievable matching of Q and Fo between a resonance and an equalizing network, I had asked SY some years back if there is any technical criterion in such a case by which one can be guided to equalize one resonance but not try to electronically equalize another.
Discrete Opamp Open Design
Discrete Opamp Open Design
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
George
Thanks for taking the time to give me those links, very interesting 🙂
Regards EQing the room, is it best to use linear filters, since they aren't resonances as such, not in the same way as speaker resonances?
Regards EQing the room, is it best to use linear filters, since they aren't resonances as such, not in the same way as speaker resonances?
Last edited:
Aren't you the same guy blaming others of being overly critical with respect to some of Johns ideas, even of insulting him (something I have not seen happen in this thread, we all respect John greatly afaik, even if we don't share all of his beliefs)?
So you divide highly regarded professionals in two groups. One you can worship, and another you can vilify at will? All depending on your own preconceptions? Great way to accumulate knowledge.
What this have to do with audio?
You don't have to defend John Curl, he can defend him self.
While we are the subject of speakers, the acoustic output we measure does not generally lie, this is the end result of what the speaker does. But this does no apply to the speaker terminals, whether they be the individual driver or that of the whole speaker system - with a crossover in the way. With the whole speaker system, insert a 0R1 series resistor, output a 1KHz square wave from the amplifier (a voltage source) and the scope there should reveal a perfect square wave. The put the scope across the 0R1 resistor, look whether you are getting a square wave there - and you won't. Question: Which is the drive signal, the voltage and that nice square wave the amplifier produces, or it the voltage across the 0R1 that is representative of the current. Which is the drive 'signal' for the speaker?
The effect of speaker cables on measurements is being discussed here Speaker cables don't influence harmonic distortion!
Is-it not exactly what we want ? To feel to be in a music-hall, closing our eyes, while we sit, comfortably, in our living rooms ?
How can-you fuse, in your mind, the size of your room and the long reverberation the sound engineer added to he instrument in order to create a Big hall illusion ?
Makes sens, yes.
Unfortunately, no. It is the same. If you have access to software which does 'water-fall' plots, you will see the longer decay time at the corner freqs of the filter.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The problem with resonances IMO is the decay time. The longer decay time.
Decay Time is Q Periods
Is it possible to EQ that decay time out?
THx-RNMarsh
I thought if you can assume a perfect minimum phase system the EQ should do that.
Depends on the materials and construction. Stiffer materials are more likely to have issues. Waterfall plots are your friend here. If the decay looks like the initial response it is quite fixable with eq. If there are ridges that pop out in the decay then you are in trouble.
If one EQs out a frequency then there can be no energy at that frequency to excite a linear resonance. With audio, filters narrower than 1/3 or 1/6 octave have often been associated with objectionable group delay and filter ringing. Maybe one can do better with DSP.
Sometimes there are a number of resonances involved such as with, say, multiple room modes. People who have tried it say that RT60 at problematic frequencies, using available filters, is not corrected, but frequencies are reduced in loudness.
Sometimes there are a number of resonances involved such as with, say, multiple room modes. People who have tried it say that RT60 at problematic frequencies, using available filters, is not corrected, but frequencies are reduced in loudness.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.