My main tests are, how often people react on sounds subconsciously before even realizing that sounds were reproduced. Such tests are hard to plan and perform, because they are more than double blind tests of conscious recognition. Thresholds of conscious recognition of vast majority of errors of standard audio tracts were studied well long time ago. But masses just start paying attention to thresholds of subconscious perception.
dnewma04^^
taken put of context my friend and the smiley tells the tale....... rhetorical .
In regards to Toole:
"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
- Michael Crichton
"
I was just pointing out what I expect caused the comment. I wasn't trying to make any commentary towards your statement that was obviously written in jest.
Are you saying the room has no effect on the sound? It doesn't matter how good the speakers are if the room is deficient. Improving the room response with physical changes and EQ certainly will make the speakers sound better. That's all Vacuphile was saying. Seems reasonable to me.
Absolutely right. I've designed very clean PA system for voices and acoustic instruments. It sounds almost like performers are closer to listeners, so low are distortions in all tract from large diaphragm mikes to phased arrays of speakers, and performers can stay 3-4 feet from microphones, with no audible feedback except longer reverberation. But it by necessity includes 1/3 octave stereo parametric equalizer that have to be adjusted in all different environments: home concert, theater, campground, everywhere reflections, diffraction, absorptions, are frequency dependent, and they are different, even when obvious resonances are well damped. I set all bands on zero, then gradually increase sensitivity of microphones until feedback causes oscillation. Then attenuate the band depending on the frequency, increase sensitivity and adjust another band, and so on, until it stops oscillating on certain frequencies. After that I bring down sensitivity to desired level.
Such a way it sounds flat. As if performers are in front of you, with no amplification (well, it is possible to tell that they are amplified, but not so badly sounding like in all cases I hear around). And positions of sliders on EQ are very different in different environments.
Last edited:
FrankWW:
No, never said such, of course the room will affect the sound in away eq-ing will never correct without sonic degradation.
If you voice the speaker in the rooom via location and room treatment the results will be vastly superior to eq-ing the setup...
FWIW most of the abberations are from faulty speaker design and or application ( wrong speaker size room ratios)
regards,
No, never said such, of course the room will affect the sound in away eq-ing will never correct without sonic degradation.
If you voice the speaker in the rooom via location and room treatment the results will be vastly superior to eq-ing the setup...
FWIW most of the abberations are from faulty speaker design and or application ( wrong speaker size room ratios)
regards,
Last edited:
My conversation is in relation to domestic environments , not PA setups which has a different criteria. May i suggest play back of those intruments thru those same speakers in a domestic environment ..
Not so good now huh !!!...
PS: you have not answered my previous question ...
Last edited:
Actually, when I design high-end PA systems I test them on myself, and exactly listening to records I made myself, and from other media. You have absolutely no right to say that my listening environment is bad: I already posted for you personally the curve taken in my living room, without EQ applied. But with proper EQ it sounds even better. The main difference between PA and home environment is, for chamber-style PA that I design latency is absolutely unacceptable. But for home environment I use with great pleasure Audissey by Denon.
Huh,
I'm not sure what you have posted, I'm using my ipod and must have missed it ........
Wavebourn posted this for you
Define your boundaries of goodness, please.
How good is this one? It shows in-wall line arrays and concrete woofers in my living room.
It is explainable. But if you want to be really involved in this discussion you should consider another option that helps you to participate reading answers, questions, seeing attachments with examples... It was frequency response curve attached. And my question was regarding your criteria of "bad" speakers. Which speakers are bad: dynamic, electrostatic, ribbon, piezo, point-sources, dipoles, closed boxes, horns, full-range, multi-ways, line arrays, omni-directional? Are crossovers allowed, and how to make a full-range speaker without any equalization?
Can you describe an aberation that would be attributed to faulty speaker design? Are there any commercial products that you've encountered with solid speaker design?
Huh, so you are now chastizing me for missing your post ...
and my statement was directed at bad speakers not topology..As per your curve, while not a bad curve, one curve can't tell me good or bad, i would need to see more curves at different degrees and phase along with impedance magnitude and phase would help .
In regards to the topologies listed all have positives and negatives...
How is your question relevant..? so now mine ..... lol.... Your scatter shot approach is welll..... are we discussing xovers or electronic eq-ing in the signal path as per the OP..?
Hey , think of EQ-ing as applying negative feedback .................
Last edited:
all I could manage was an indulgent smile
and the thought that children are allowed childish remarks
If he finds some curves for real speakers I would celebrate a victory: big learning starts from small findings.
I don't believe it is so hard to use ipod to find and post some real speaker curve.
Yes, thank you for posting real data!!
Im also a big fan of Audyssey (pro version on the Onkyo 885). I just bought the Marantz AV7005 to try out. Im going to miss the pro curve settings and the AV7005 only has MultEQ XT ( I wanted XT32).
This of course is all below audiophile grade according to Wayne.A and Im okay with that because my *** is bigger anyways
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.