Have you actually tried/experimented with this at all? Because I have. Originally my designs were flat-flat everything, but virtually everyone thought that they were too bright, so I toned down the HFs and everyone seemed pleased. JBL has found the same thing, so I just don't get your reluctance. I even explained to you why this makes sense. But I guess my arguments are not convincing. Well that's happened to me before.
Of course I have tried that - every time I designed a loudspeaker in fact. I don't deny it at all, I would only like to know WHY is that. And yes, your explanation using air absorption doesn't make any sense to me - why should a recording mixed on such flat-flat loudspeakers sound too bright? It simply doesn't make any sense. Bright will sound a recording that was made on loudspeakers that had falling power response when played on loudspeakerts that are more flat.
Others have tried the same thing, I have not, so I can't really comment. My approach has been very reverberant rooms, which enhance spaciousness and a very high DI which enhances imaging. I can see why a 10 ms delayed, none direct radiating added source would enhance spaciousness, but I am not clear on the trade-offs. (I would expect a poorer image, but perhaps 10 ms, is enough to abate this concern.) Your implying that there are none, but that just seems to me to be unlikely.
That is precisely my point. Historically monitor loudspeakers had a falling power response so historically the above issue is precisely what I encountered.
Would the same thing occur if the monitors were flat-flat and the playback was flat-flat I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it wouldn't. This is the circle-of-confusion and it won't go away until all links in the system reach the same quality level. Until then, this argument will rage.
That our world is lacking in HF signals due to air absorption is not just an idea, it is fact. Look it up sometime, this absorption is real and significant, meaning that only when one is very close to the source are there significant HFs. Farther away at typical distances it's all gone.
Last edited:
I acknowledge this fact but I don't see a connection here. The recording can always be made to sound "just fine" no matter what is the power response of loudspeakers used, IMO. That's just EQ, mixing levels - you just mix it as you hear it, compared to the real thing (all absorption included).
Last edited:
I haven't tried that but it sounds as if it could work. Unfortunately that would mean to go active - something I try to avoid, really. But maybe this would be a good reason to do so.
The connection is because a flat power response is not "natural".
But only if the monitor and playback speakers have the same axial and power response (i.e. DI.) Otherwise, as you noted before, this will not happen.
Well, is a flat response natural to a microphone? Or a CD format? It's the same. These are just technical means to preserve the natural, not natural by themselves.
Sure and that's what I'm talking about all along - how do we really know what's a "preferred" in-room response (i.e. when driven by white noise) when we're stuck in this circle.
Last edited:
Spaciousness has a recognized definition in room acoustics, but "envelopment" was coined by Dr. Greisinger (to my knowledge) and doesn't appear in any other room acoustic discussions. For example, no mention of it is made in any of Kuttruff's books on room acoustics. I understand Dr. Greisingers approach and I agree with it, but it is not clear - to me at least - how envelopment is related to spaciousness. They could be the same, but that's not how I read Greisinger.
Last edited:
Until we have standards for music mixing (like film does) we will remain in the circle and it won't get smaller. But I think that what JBL and I are trying to do is to design for a future where the circle does get smaller. In the meantime there will be arguments like this.
Let's face it, most recordings are optimized for listening in a car. That's not going to make the circle smaller anytime soon.
Thanks, yes, I've been made aware of it in this presentation linked to here https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/363994-interaural-time-difference.html#post6437533
It's hard to explain, and I could be full of it. It feels as if my ears, or brain, don't have to try as hard to listen. So if the singer is dead center, but there is a reverberant field (properly delayed) around them, it almost sounds more natural and my brain has an easier time accepting that they are there in the middle, it doesn't have to keep analyzing it...
I'm certainly no acoustician but maybe there is a degree of gross auditory cognition where the brain will fill in the details, keep that singer placed in the center because there are multiple cues that are there, and imaging actually seems better. vs a finer input that the brain keeps paying attention to and questions...
Hard to say and that was probably a crap explanation. Maybe it's just more pleasing overall and any detriment to imaging is glossed over... You would know better than most here what kind of systems are at play in the psychoacoustic realm.
Last edited:
That's about what I would think. That would also mean that the current "preferred" PIR slope, several times cited here, is really nothing more than a relic of the past. In some cases it is even necessary to intentionally compromise the desing to better adapt to the current state of the matter (to sound more "natural", that is). This all I would understand.
To the best my knowledge, the "falling" in-room frequency response was proposed as optimal by Bruel & Kjaer in the 70s.
It is stated by B&K, that the "falling" in-room FR is relevant for records made under mixed far-field and near-field condition (probably most studio records are of this type)
It is stated by B&K, that the "falling" in-room FR is relevant for records made under mixed far-field and near-field condition (probably most studio records are of this type)
So they basically suggested that, ideally, one would have different loudspeakers (with different in-room response shapes) for near-field and far-field recordings. That's a strange reasoning to me. Maybe from the spaciousness / imaging preference standpoint (different DIs), but a spectral balance? Why would they do it on the loudspeaker side and not in the recording? Well, it was 1974 - before I was born, so what do I know 
Last edited:
Such a simple solution. Supported by a life full of science, but adapted to practical reality...
Convincing enough I'd say.
Last edited: