Just listening to my (active) system, and changing the gain of the mid driver by 1dB I hear a distinct difference. Not just an audible difference, but 'wrong' vs. 'right' and, dare I say it, the difference between fatiguing and non-fatiguing.
The tone of some of this thread is that the odd dB or two, here and there, doesn't matter. In the world of passive speakers, maybe it isn't possible to get better than within a dB or two, hence the dismissal of its importance. If that were the case, and my observation anywhere near correct, it would probably result in speaker designs being a lottery, with only the occasional one getting it right.
I could imagine the possibility that it really is quite important to refine a multi-way speaker's settings to quite a high precision in order to get the non-fatiguing, rewarding sound. Yes, the room is going to have a large effect that might appear to swamp such precision, but the room's effect is 'natural' whereas the output of a multi-way speaker is a very artificial construction. I suggest we can hear through the room's effects whereas our ears have difficulty with even small level (and phase) discrepancies between the drivers.
It would explain why my DSP active speakers are the only ones I've ever had that don't make my ears sore after a long listening session.
The tone of some of this thread is that the odd dB or two, here and there, doesn't matter. In the world of passive speakers, maybe it isn't possible to get better than within a dB or two, hence the dismissal of its importance. If that were the case, and my observation anywhere near correct, it would probably result in speaker designs being a lottery, with only the occasional one getting it right.
I could imagine the possibility that it really is quite important to refine a multi-way speaker's settings to quite a high precision in order to get the non-fatiguing, rewarding sound. Yes, the room is going to have a large effect that might appear to swamp such precision, but the room's effect is 'natural' whereas the output of a multi-way speaker is a very artificial construction. I suggest we can hear through the room's effects whereas our ears have difficulty with even small level (and phase) discrepancies between the drivers.
It would explain why my DSP active speakers are the only ones I've ever had that don't make my ears sore after a long listening session.
So you are saying that 1 dB more is fatiguing and 1 dB less is fatiguing too 😕. I can't see that such a finicky system would be anything I could be proud of. 🙄
Rudolf
Having owned several active systems, I have to say that I agree with CopperTop. If the frequency response - or balance between the different "bands" gets skewed - it simply sounds wrong. And I agree that 1 dB (or even less) can offset the tonal balance, especially in the midrange.
... and it would make the difference between non- fatiguing and fatiguing?
Could it be that the use of an exquisite system like yours over a longer period raises the tolerance level for tonal deviations considerably?
I'm just trying to understand. I have no doubt that 1 dB difference would be audible - but separating excellent from fatiguing?
Rudolf
Well... the word "fatiguing" is maybe a bit strong, but 1 dB the wrong way sure makes it less enjoyable and I end up wanting to adjust EQ instead of listening to music. When everything is "right" I don't get that feeling....
If I go to an audio store that carries mostly $1,000+ per pair speakers I would expect most to at least be fairly pleasant to listen to. But, at least 9 out of 10 of these (and other) speakers I've heard do not draw me into the music, do not soothe me when I hear them, and, more often than not, are so poor sounding to me that I usually want to turn them off in a mater of minutes.
I don't know if something in me has changed now that I'm old compared to when I was 20-something and before, I loved listening to all kinds of music even on my cheap-o bookshelf speakers. Now, each time I try, it's not pleasant, I end up giving up quickly and turning it off.
I still enjoy the sound of live instruments though, and I like watching movies (and listening to the soundtracks while I watch them). I love the sound of a good home theater audio setup and am consistantly impressed by good DTS (or DD) 5.1 sound tracks playbed back through my Onkyo TX-DS787 reciever - it's simply awesome for DVD playback. But, other than being able to play loud and clear, I always feel like something is missing (besides my hearing) when listening to music using it.
Surely, some of the displeasure is because my hearing isn't as good as it used to be, but that's not the only thing.
What do you guys think usually causes "listening fatigue"?This is a term that I never heard being used 20 years ago, but, I think I've seen it tossed about frequently for the past several years. It seems that speakers have become more fatiguing over recent years, perhaps? Almost as if a flat FR doesn't make our ears happy, it seems, however senseless that may sound...
I just want to say AHHHH..., sit down, relax, and be drawn into music again, for it to be soothing, and pleasant. Will I have to get a crappy pair of two-way paper cone bookshelf speakers and rumage around garage sales to find another old 2 channel tube amp before my ears can be at peace again?
On this and other forums, I read all kinds of gushing and praising of this and that (DIY) speaker - I have got to go to some DIY-fest type event and hear some of these speakers for myself...
ok, I'm sorry your actually hearing the junk they pass off as premium sound. I am pretty disappointed of the choices of speakers out there and I ended up buying an old set of JBL 4312's for my audio reviewing after I mix something.
human hearing is non-linear. and pinking a room to flat leaves things dull sounding.
the differences between music and the DVD's is the cd's are lower sampling rate ( a small decrease in band width) and delivery specs are different. the movie would have 100-110 db of dynamic range and the music has less than 20 db (modern mastering is usually 12 db on classical and 6db on pop and dance music) because it sounds consistent (but people say better) on the cheap consumer devices.
so yes, digital recording still sucks and its a cat and mouse game people play in the studio between the analog processing and mixing then its stored digital. Because the rule states "its still digital if the end storage device is digital".
the superior media to listen to audio is the record. get a good record player with a nice cart and you'll enjoy your music.
I wouldn't per say that your suffering from listen fatigue. In my line of work, yes, because I sit there and mix and mix and mix for a long time to get the results your listening. In live sound, I have to sit behind the mixing board for the show. I wear special ear plugs because I have to have the linear attenuation wile protecting myself from being exposed to above 120 db. I still have to watch my exposure because its my trade.
Now if you are listening on headphones it might be a different story. There is a study right now of the effects of the low dynamic range content vs listen fatigue on listeners wearing headphones.
The 4312 would be my definition of a very non-flat and fatiguing speaker. And I'm a JBL fan.
And who protects the poor customers? I hope you really aren't puttiing out 120dB at the back of the audience.
Anyhow, thats why I don't go to amplified music. I'd like to keep some of my hearing too.
David S.
Completely agree on both counts- the 4311 and 4312 had some very nice drivers, the classic white coned JBL woofers have a special place in my heart (particularly the 123A and 2213/123A-3), but as a system, they were pretty badly colored.
And I skip most amplified shows for the same reasons. I went to see DJ Quik a couple years ago, and I was sure glad for my linear earplugs. The sound was terrible anyway. I did get to be the goofy white guy, wearing earplugs, at a rap show, so that was an experience.
Spent a week testing a mockup of my latest creation and while sounding fairly nice, was not correct. Would take a break for a couple hours between sessions and resume testing. After each "break" your brain resets everything, time for another tweak. Every other day of tweaking that balance, would take some measurements. This went on for a week (6 days). Now after the first measurements all sounded good, but would stress you after an hour or so. Issue ended up being a slight mismatch in the 500-4k range, nothing more than a half dB here and one there. Nothing major but did totally throw the balance for a loop. Once done could listen all day. In fact the problem then became "but mommy I don't wanna go to bed" after getting odd looks from the wife at 4am (she gets up for work at 5 😉
I won't go to a live concert without ear plugs. Even then they tend to sound bad. I am dismayed by the lack of concern the house mixers have for sound quality. Its like it doesn't matter or they don't care. All that matters is maximum SPL, especially in the bass.
I have seen Phil Collins live a half dozen times and have all his records. The recordings are always well done and except for the last concert they too were well done. But the last time I saw him the mix was simply inexcusable. I don't know what happened, he used to care about what his audience heard, but even he has gone to the dark side.
I have seen Phil Collins live a half dozen times and have all his records. The recordings are always well done and except for the last concert they too were well done. But the last time I saw him the mix was simply inexcusable. I don't know what happened, he used to care about what his audience heard, but even he has gone to the dark side.
I have to think that the guys at the console are serious and dedicated and know what they want. They just want something really different than most of us HiFi fans want.
I went with my wife to Paul Simon, thinking it might be more mellow. Still too loud and this odd, thump you in the chest, midbass. I kept thinking "I'd rather be home listening to this on my stereo". Of course most of the audience is up and grooving to the music and would probably would feel cheated if it was played to only 105.
I've spent some time in big recording studios also and it is always a foreign experience. I stand in the back of the room with my fingers in my ears! One of the studio managers did once explain that they don't listen for enjoyment but to hear faults. High level may help that. I think over time they just get used to working at very high levels. It does seem far removed from the listener experience (at least in my house), so you would think their work product would be better if they were mixing at more moderate in levels.
David
While they mastered to high levels, that high energy intensity was probably masking the delicate nuances that we listen for.
Its been many decades since I was a house mixing engineer, but back then the really competent guy was few and far between. And listening to what they did completely correlated with what they seem to know about what they were doing. It wasn't that we wanted different things they just didn't know how to identify and correct the problems.
I don't know if things are still the same, but I have to think that they haven't changed that much.
I've often felt that knowing what good sound is is the crucial starting point. Then some technical competency and diligence will eventually get you there.
This applies to any part of our industry (the hardware) or any of the creative content creators, or the people involved in playback or public performance, or radio or whatever. Without knowing what good sound is, you will never get there.
David
This applies to any part of our industry (the hardware) or any of the creative content creators, or the people involved in playback or public performance, or radio or whatever. Without knowing what good sound is, you will never get there.
David
May I guess what song that is... Radioactive by Imagine Dragons?
How they utterly destroyed the song with that distortion shattering everything. They should have mixed it in before the vocal track was laid down at least.
Classic example of how badly they can get it WRONG
Then by that definition, can we infer that sound can be quantitatively defined. Follows a scientific and mathematical formula that should be able to be replicated by engineer A and engineer B? I doubt anyone would agree. So, once a particular sound has been deemed 'good sound', no one could argue that it sounds bad. Correct? 😀 Unless of course, good sound is relative and thus sounds different to different folk? Operative word - different.
Back to the OP.... I think sound today is much more open, expansive, full of detail, rich mids and clear highs than was possible in, say, the 50s and 60s. At least with equipment I could afford at the time! We had no digital source back then, nor anything close to resembling the stereo separation, signal-to-noise ratio, or dynamic range specs that are enjoyed today by even the most modest receiver/amp setup. Fast forward 40 years and you have much better material for speaker building, affording designers much more latitude in what can be produced and the various types of material used for cones and tweeters. All of these factors - for good or bad - enhance the musicality of what we listen to, but often at the expense of some fatigue. And this coming from someone who still has a pair of HPM-100 in his vintage rig. 🙂
Yes, I know that tosses in subjectivity (and this from one who is always arguing on the side of objectivity). But I'm thinking in terms of the very broad range of reproduced sound quality we hear day in and day out. Much like going to a hotel HiFi show. You walk between 100 rooms in a day and maybe 5 of them strike you as a special experience: good recording of good music, played at the right level, good hardware, nice room acoutsics, etc. As opposed to the many that sound instantly colored, too loud, too soft, over processed, ruined by bad acoustics....
That recognition of audio right and wrong is crucial to improvement.
David
Is it the detail, rich mids and clear highs that cause the fatigue per se? Or just that they aren't done right? In an earlier post, it was Pano, I think, who said that he can listen all day to some big old speakers that really aren't hi fi, which agrees with what you are saying. I've got some similar old speakers somewhere.
But there are some (not many) DSP-based active multi-way speakers and they aim to get the balance clinically correct. Martin Colloms reviews a pair here:
http://www.hificritic.com/downloads/digital/HIFICRITIC_MeridianDSP7200.pdf
His description is interesting I think:
... which suggests that he thinks it noteworthy to listen to speakers that caress the ears rather than assault them when playing loud. They sound rich and comfortable, and are addictive, demanding hour after hour of listening. Not what most people imagine for systems based on DSP that are 'clinically' correct.
Natural sound doesn't like to sharp and "bumpy" ears do not like sharp "bumpy" Better restriction of bandwidth smoothly rolling off than full range washboard. Better still full range smooth and undistorted think nature.