IMO there is no domestic system that can really reproduce the actual dynamics of a live performance using acoustic or electric instruments.
I guess the mediums we use (Tapes, Vinyl, CD, SACD, Uncompressed File music) can not support all the information needed.
So the pros use Eq and compressors.
Compressors are even used during live performances to reduce dynamics so instruments might sound better to the direct listener.
There is also the issue related with CDP and CD media marketing that needs to produce loud sounds even in a car system (Loudness war) so dynamics are further reduced.
Fortunately there are some recording pros (artists) that can come up with outstanding recordings, suitable for Home listening.
I guess we can not correct the home system´s discrepancies by using an Equalizer. It might mask some dull or bright presentations but at a very high cost (Detail, speed, image size and depth)
I guess the mediums we use (Tapes, Vinyl, CD, SACD, Uncompressed File music) can not support all the information needed.
So the pros use Eq and compressors.
Compressors are even used during live performances to reduce dynamics so instruments might sound better to the direct listener.
There is also the issue related with CDP and CD media marketing that needs to produce loud sounds even in a car system (Loudness war) so dynamics are further reduced.
Fortunately there are some recording pros (artists) that can come up with outstanding recordings, suitable for Home listening.
I guess we can not correct the home system´s discrepancies by using an Equalizer. It might mask some dull or bright presentations but at a very high cost (Detail, speed, image size and depth)
I think the discussion around EQing and trying to correct content isn't all that important since everyone has 100% choice on what they want content to sound like. Just choose the curve you like, no one else's opinion matters on this point!
What the real dicussion should be about is if people want accurate play back in their rooms. The room can cause a lot of issues and to have accuracy it pretty much comes down to requiring room room correction software which is EQing.
If someone has never measured their system in room then they have no clue about what accuracy actually means.
What the real dicussion should be about is if people want accurate play back in their rooms. The room can cause a lot of issues and to have accuracy it pretty much comes down to requiring room room correction software which is EQing.
If someone has never measured their system in room then they have no clue about what accuracy actually means.
not to sound harsh either but I do not give a crap about recording studios (what they do or do not do). They have very little to do with the discussion of EQs in our specific rooms.
if you think you should build a setup like a studio setup be my guest but its not the logical way to build a home system. I guess I live in a world with larger living space.
Again, you seem to not understand what high end room correction products can do. Im never posted they are perfect but they do tame the peaks that will always exist (gain measure your room). Im definitely aware of what other products are required and someone can easily follow all the information that Toole or Geddes has posted on smoothing out bass response in room.
btw, nothing cost a lot of $$ if you are smart enough and skilled enough to do the right thing.
equaliser for limeys.
As for the other word, who knows what Andy was actually referring to : Audiofile Home Page
Personally, i'd label folks strictly into music servers, like you, an audiofile(r)
Even if DSP's were the affordable ticket, it does nothing for the analog at heart.
Eeh, what's the market value 5 years later ?
(prettiest one in my alley is currently for sale at $5.5M, at this week's 1.40 $/€, a lot more than the supermarket owner guy had it built for 5 years ago)
lmao....Thanks. I didnt know the difference existed for the English.
btw, OT: it didn't drop that sort of percentage but its been a tough 5 years in the US.
I've measured my system in room, and the result was a horrible looking mess 😀 However it didn't sound THAT horrible...
The thing that strikes me is that the acoustics of any given room are what they are. When you are trying for accuracy what does that actually mean? Accurate WRT to the original space? How do you know what room modes were present there? Were the artists performing in an anechoic chamber? How close were the mic's?
What if we are conditioned to how things sound in our room because we are in it all the time? If we EQ so that we have a flat frequency, power or whatever response will that actually sound "right" for that particular room?
I don't really know, just thinking out loud 🙂
Tony.
Probably correct, some come pretty close.
It depends on how the format is used, a 24 bit recording should have enough room if all the dynamic range is used. 16 bit and vinyl comes close enough for most practical purposes. The issue many times is the recording and compression used.
So the pros use Eq and compressors.
Compressors are even used during live performances to reduce dynamics so instruments might sound better to the direct listener.
Agree.
You can't correct compression (In the past I had seen some dynamic range expanders) never used I am told they didn't sound good.
dbx 3BX Dynamic Range Expander with Rack Mount & Manual | eBay
An Acoustically treated room can normally solve most problems even below 300hz (in the area of the room modes for most home rooms) with the use of multiple subwoofers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/134568-multiple-small-subs-geddes-approach.html
A tone control can do wonders to adjust the sound of recordings on your system. For Digital files doing this in software is the best way to go now in my opinion.
I've only ever measured mine in room and I really cannot complain at all.
Dynamics are fine too (source material allowing) but I kinda expected that with 95dB/w/m and just over 900w on tap.
However they are active so I can adjust the level of the drivers relative to each other and a parametric eq on the treble because the Tannoy tweeter needs eqing to get a flat response.
AS for compressor use in live performances there is almost always one on vocals and electric bass as there are very, very few artists who can play/sing at a steady level without one.
Dynamics are fine too (source material allowing) but I kinda expected that with 95dB/w/m and just over 900w on tap.
However they are active so I can adjust the level of the drivers relative to each other and a parametric eq on the treble because the Tannoy tweeter needs eqing to get a flat response.
AS for compressor use in live performances there is almost always one on vocals and electric bass as there are very, very few artists who can play/sing at a steady level without one.
That's why a "break-in" is required. To condition us to new equipment.
In general humans can be conditioned to any kind of living environment, food, concepts......
Correcting room using EQ is to ensure what falls on our ears matches recorded information.
Doug20,
You don't sound harsh to me and you're welcome to do that. But don't make wrong affirmation about habits in that field (nearfield monitoring/small room post 69). My answer was about that and fact that analog/digital opposition in high end professionnal products is a non sense, nothing more.
I don't think building a studio in your home is a good 'logical' way to do (and for many reasons) if it's not your job.
But i know too that a studio is build as an entity, where you build a room around a chosen system which is a good thing.
My point is that many problems 'audiophile' are facing is not about the system they use but the fact that the room is acoustically untreated.
Eqing can bring huge improvement or just the opposite, it depends on what you do and why...
Again an assertion you can't verify.
In fact you talked about Trinov system, and in my work i had opportunity to hear a broadcast control room (in one of the biggest broadcast network in France) which use it. I must admit i was impressed by the result, but after talking with some of the technician working here i was concerned about the fact that it seems to me that only budget consideration have governed this choice ( costing less than a good acoustic room treatment). Not all engineers like to work in this room and it seems it can make your work not always repeatable in other locations.
As you said peaks always exist in room (you can't go against physical law for now... maybe in the future) and even if a system like Trinov or other can 'correct it', i prefer to be used to the acoustic of the room and do with it for my pleasure and my work.
And as audio engineering is my job i am lucky enough to have a 30m2 room dedicated to listening and work (essentialy mixing/mastering) in my house. It is treated and analysed too (using Earthwork and B&K mic and analyser) and it's a total mess...😀
But it seems my mastering works are ok for the majority of clients i work with and most of all i like and enjoy the sound i have there! Which is what matter in final!
And i think you like and enjoy your system too! So
You don't sound harsh to me and you're welcome to do that. But don't make wrong affirmation about habits in that field (nearfield monitoring/small room post 69). My answer was about that and fact that analog/digital opposition in high end professionnal products is a non sense, nothing more.
I don't think building a studio in your home is a good 'logical' way to do (and for many reasons) if it's not your job.
But i know too that a studio is build as an entity, where you build a room around a chosen system which is a good thing.
My point is that many problems 'audiophile' are facing is not about the system they use but the fact that the room is acoustically untreated.
Eqing can bring huge improvement or just the opposite, it depends on what you do and why...
Again an assertion you can't verify.
In fact you talked about Trinov system, and in my work i had opportunity to hear a broadcast control room (in one of the biggest broadcast network in France) which use it. I must admit i was impressed by the result, but after talking with some of the technician working here i was concerned about the fact that it seems to me that only budget consideration have governed this choice ( costing less than a good acoustic room treatment). Not all engineers like to work in this room and it seems it can make your work not always repeatable in other locations.
As you said peaks always exist in room (you can't go against physical law for now... maybe in the future) and even if a system like Trinov or other can 'correct it', i prefer to be used to the acoustic of the room and do with it for my pleasure and my work.
And as audio engineering is my job i am lucky enough to have a 30m2 room dedicated to listening and work (essentialy mixing/mastering) in my house. It is treated and analysed too (using Earthwork and B&K mic and analyser) and it's a total mess...😀
But it seems my mastering works are ok for the majority of clients i work with and most of all i like and enjoy the sound i have there! Which is what matter in final!
And i think you like and enjoy your system too! So
After sleeping on it, I realised that this is what is meant by accuracy. Accuracy WRT the actual recorded signal. But what is that?
Say you have a singer singing live in *your* room. You record this singer with a close microphone, with very good recording equipment. You now play back this recording on your system which has been EQ'd to give the flattest response at your listening position (the same place you were sitting when listening to the original live performance).
Is what you hear going to be an accurate representation of the original performance? Would turning off the EQ make it more or less accurate?
I don't actually know the answer to these questions but my guess would be that the non-eq'ed would sound more faithful to the original performance.
That is why I asked accurate with respect to what 🙂
Tony.
hi 😉 I READ JUST THE TITLE OF THIS WONDER S , AND MY ANSWER IS SIMPLE : HOW MANY OF U HERE ARE SOUND REC . ENGINEERS ?
@
#
#
#
*
Zoran Mikeski PEOBABLI NO ONE
3 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS PLAYING A GAME ON SERIUZ SITEM.. OWN RISKI 😉
2 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS FOR CORRECTING...WHAT U CORRECT WHEN U PAYED THOUSANDS
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS FOR DISCO TOO
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski AND FINALLY EQ IS FOR POOR RECORDINGS
2 seconds ago · Like
@
#
#
#
*
Zoran Mikeski PEOBABLI NO ONE
3 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS PLAYING A GAME ON SERIUZ SITEM.. OWN RISKI 😉
2 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS FOR CORRECTING...WHAT U CORRECT WHEN U PAYED THOUSANDS
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski EQ IS FOR DISCO TOO
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike
*
Zoran Mikeski AND FINALLY EQ IS FOR POOR RECORDINGS
2 seconds ago · Like
Last edited:
I'm an effete audiophile snob and I do not hate EQs. OK, maybe I did 30 years ago but I use one now. So not all audiophile hate EQs.
This is a very bad analogy. When you buy a CD or LP you are not buying a painting, you are buying a mass produced print. I ought to know, I used to make those prints. Even the painters don't want it to look exactly like the original, they usually want it to look "better." There is always something lost in the recording process, so we like to "pump it up" in the reproduction so that it carries the same emotional impact, or as near as we can get.
I, for one, do not care what the artist intended. Which artist? The bass player, the trombonist, the engineer or producer, the mastering house? Who's vision is it? And on what day? I want it to sound as much like the "real thing" as my imagination allows. That's my goal. Other folks have other goals.
I had an audiophile friend who would set somewhat drastic EQ levels to "remix" recordings for playback. His intent was clear but I never really understood doing it. I think the answer to the thread topic is the same as why they'd hate broccoli and lima beans... they just do.
I liked the LED's in the sliders, and the dancing LED's on the display. Audiosource EQ1!! Like in Ferris Buellers Day Off. I was also saddened when Audio Control stopped making EQ's as well. I was really bummed when Mackie Designs was bought by Loud Tech and then shipped off to Asia for manufacture. The linear sliders are not liked they used to be. Rane Corp does make some very fantastic EQ's still as well. But as discussed, there is much sound mixing, sweetning, and pulling done at time of recording, hence the development of THX. THX does not want you meddling how the director envisioned how it should sound. When I listen to a DVD in Dolby I hear the movie one way, when I watch it again in DTS(Digital Theater Sound) it sounds a different way, and then you have Sony Dynamic Digital Sound, albeit nothing produced in SDDS anymore. If you like them use them, if you don't, don't. As the Cranberries sang "No Need To Argue"
MY EQ ONCE IN LIFE USED TO HAVE, SOLD OUT WAS GRAPHIC JVC 10 CHANNELS OR SO... , SINCE IMPROOVED SPEAKERS ..NEVER 90% FELT A NEED USING SIMILAR DEVICES..INVOLVING ME JUST A % OF THD
PS: THIS HEADING IS A BIT WRONG WRITTEN AT LEAST FOR ME, I'TS NOT ABOUT EQ'S HATE BUT SIMPLY IN 90% OF CASES NO NEED
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1661067204661&set=t.1176600216&type=1
PS: THIS HEADING IS A BIT WRONG WRITTEN AT LEAST FOR ME, I'TS NOT ABOUT EQ'S HATE BUT SIMPLY IN 90% OF CASES NO NEED
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1661067204661&set=t.1176600216&type=1
Last edited:
The room resonance problem I have mentioned in two-fold.
First part is me finding some frequencies being boosted too much and reflections from side walls.
Second is my family - I typically sit at a designated sweet spot, which near my living room's center. Most of our sofas are along walls. If any of them sit in in the sofas, they complain about unreasonably high bass. I also tried sitting along the walls of our living room and found their complaints to be valid.
While I haven't experimented yet, I have a strong belief that general SPL around the room can be corrected under 300Hz using EQ.
First part is me finding some frequencies being boosted too much and reflections from side walls.
Second is my family - I typically sit at a designated sweet spot, which near my living room's center. Most of our sofas are along walls. If any of them sit in in the sofas, they complain about unreasonably high bass. I also tried sitting along the walls of our living room and found their complaints to be valid.
While I haven't experimented yet, I have a strong belief that general SPL around the room can be corrected under 300Hz using EQ.
seating in corner of room is not the right thing in case i like hear the best... ..if u like seat n listen in average room than seat center triangle as most commoN...EVERY FACTORY RECOMMEND WHATS BEST POSITION IN ROOM OF OWN BRANDS IN AVERAGE LIVING ROOMS 😉
PS: eq will change all 😉
PS: eq will change all 😉
Last edited:
You can experiment with speaker positioning. Leave some space behind the speakers and keep them away from the corners.
That will surelly tame the excess bass.
Also, if you use ported speakers, you can experiment by partially close the ports with light wool.