For Soundbloke
But you mean then a well-designed recording and playback chain by a sound engineer who monitored the final result to be heard with headphones?
I think it moves away from the subject, the thread is about whether it is important or not (and in what proportion it helps) to use EQ for the rooms.
Let us not forget that this sitting man of the omnipotent console is a human being with his own individual ways of listening to and interpreting music, his own monitors, and his own recording room.
It is useless to try to transfer all that to our own reality.
I have been listening to music for many years now and I concluded that it is impossible to 100% emulate what we hear in a concert.
Precisely because we move all that sound to a completely different environment, the room. For many years I listened to music that was nice, but there was still a lot to get close to the real live sound of the instruments. A classical guitar concert, ok, a chamber concert, hummm, not so much, and a symphony orchestra concert, forget it! Electronic sounds excepted here. All my theoretical / technological efforts did not change the result too much, beyond the perceptible sound difference when exchanging different system components.
Back in 2002 I moved to a house that has an atypical living room, it is not very large, but with a very irregular distribution of the refractive surfaces of the sound. Solid brick walls of 30 cm. Enough furniture built with various materials and carpets achieved the expected result. And at that point someone mentioned to me here in the forum that I was just beginning the long road, because I did not know the miraculous advances of the correction of the rooms, and that I had an outdated look on the subject, therefore my whole sound arsenal was superfluous . Luckily I ignored him, I saved some money and enough headaches. As soon as I finish my corner subwoofers, the subject for me is sold out. I didn't find the Holy Grail, but this to my ears sounds great. Let those who come behind remain in the search.
Regards.
PS: At the beginning of the stereo sound, I bought a classic valve turntable with two small cabinets to hang on the walls. A classmate from my school came to listen to me and said: I am left with my father's monophonic system ..... One day he took me to his house to listen to him, it was a huge Karlson cabinet located inside a closet full of clothes Natural skin. (the father was a furrier) and on a top shelf a rather impressive valve amplifier. Then I understood the difference, as someone mentioned here, the monophonic sound can overcome the stereo in the sensation of realism, it's all about not comparing pears with apples. Let's put the same system in the same room, a well-recorded stereophonic vinyl, let's listen with the two separate speakers and us at the apex of the triangle (sweet spot). Now let's switch the switch to monophonic and balance all the sound to a single channel (any) then placing one of the two speakers in the center (any again) ....
I seriously believe that we cannot maintain that the stereo is not superior.
But you mean then a well-designed recording and playback chain by a sound engineer who monitored the final result to be heard with headphones?
I think it moves away from the subject, the thread is about whether it is important or not (and in what proportion it helps) to use EQ for the rooms.
Let us not forget that this sitting man of the omnipotent console is a human being with his own individual ways of listening to and interpreting music, his own monitors, and his own recording room.
It is useless to try to transfer all that to our own reality.
I have been listening to music for many years now and I concluded that it is impossible to 100% emulate what we hear in a concert.
Precisely because we move all that sound to a completely different environment, the room. For many years I listened to music that was nice, but there was still a lot to get close to the real live sound of the instruments. A classical guitar concert, ok, a chamber concert, hummm, not so much, and a symphony orchestra concert, forget it! Electronic sounds excepted here. All my theoretical / technological efforts did not change the result too much, beyond the perceptible sound difference when exchanging different system components.
Back in 2002 I moved to a house that has an atypical living room, it is not very large, but with a very irregular distribution of the refractive surfaces of the sound. Solid brick walls of 30 cm. Enough furniture built with various materials and carpets achieved the expected result. And at that point someone mentioned to me here in the forum that I was just beginning the long road, because I did not know the miraculous advances of the correction of the rooms, and that I had an outdated look on the subject, therefore my whole sound arsenal was superfluous . Luckily I ignored him, I saved some money and enough headaches. As soon as I finish my corner subwoofers, the subject for me is sold out. I didn't find the Holy Grail, but this to my ears sounds great. Let those who come behind remain in the search.
Regards.
PS: At the beginning of the stereo sound, I bought a classic valve turntable with two small cabinets to hang on the walls. A classmate from my school came to listen to me and said: I am left with my father's monophonic system ..... One day he took me to his house to listen to him, it was a huge Karlson cabinet located inside a closet full of clothes Natural skin. (the father was a furrier) and on a top shelf a rather impressive valve amplifier. Then I understood the difference, as someone mentioned here, the monophonic sound can overcome the stereo in the sensation of realism, it's all about not comparing pears with apples. Let's put the same system in the same room, a well-recorded stereophonic vinyl, let's listen with the two separate speakers and us at the apex of the triangle (sweet spot). Now let's switch the switch to monophonic and balance all the sound to a single channel (any) then placing one of the two speakers in the center (any again) ....
I seriously believe that we cannot maintain that the stereo is not superior.
I never meant to infer that stereo was not superior - at least when well recorded and suitably replayed. But it remains that well-recorded mono recordings contain substantial "depth" cues, many of which are often actually obscured in poorly recorded and typically reproduced stereo.
And yes, possibly off subject, but not unrelated as my previous posts regarding stereo on this forum hopefully make clearer.
Do you have any links so you can inform me about that?
And it is not clear to me yet if you speak of a monophonic source reproduced in two channels or in one as it originally was.
You may be right that you can perceive a sense of depth with a single acoustic cabinet, but we agree that it is more a matter of knowing the location of certain instruments, for example a timbale, well in the background on the stage and in the center, ( this in stereo is perceived the same) but there are no instruments that come from both channels and when mixed they achieve the feeling of breadth and depth .... the x, yyz axes, I think, scholars can confirm or correct me, surely. I am not a student of acoustics, just a good sound enthusiast.
Regards
PD: I think I take first place in the OT championship, there is no care for that.
It was certainly not referring to mono over two loudspeakers - that is the limits of mono with many of the disadvantages of stereo! But think of stereo as adding width not depth. It's not completely true, but why let reality spoil a convenient theory
It was certainly not referring to mono over two loudspeakers -that is the limits of mono with many of the disadvantages of stereo! But think of stereo as adding width not depth. It's not completely true, but why let reality spoil a convenient theory
You are ...
Last edited:
My previous post might be a little confusing.
What I meant is that the microphone diaphragm moves on 1 axle. This is also the 'direction' in which the microphone captures the sound as I imagine it.
Timing of your post is impecable.
From my topic:
So it does work...
Better than I thought (and heard) if made properly...
If anybody cares I can share my thoughts on it.
What I meant is that the microphone diaphragm moves on 1 axle. This is also the 'direction' in which the microphone captures the sound as I imagine it.
Timing of your post is impecable.
From my topic:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/344849-eureka-bust-stereo-experiments.html said:
So it does work...
Better than I thought (and heard) if made properly...
If anybody cares I can share my thoughts on it.
Last edited:
This is not news. Acousticians, musicians and audio engineers have known this for many decades. It's only 'audiophiles' and neophytes who don't get it.
I find that there are two extremes and of course a continuum in between. 1) Make it sound like the performers are playing in your room OR 2) Create a window into a performance captured in another room. To accomplish 1), you want a dead recording (no ambient recorded venue information) and omnidirectional or very wide dispersion speakers, placed out in the room, away from the walls a bit. This ensures the sound is bounced off all the walls and ceiling and gives your ears many clues as to the location of the sound sources and lights up all the room modes and reflections. For dual mono recordings, (Beatles) It sounds like the singer is located at the speaker, or if panned, some where on a line between the speakers. To accomplish 2) You want recordings with lots of ambient information and relatively narrow fixed dispersion speakers and a dead room. (ala recording studio setup). This hides your room acoustics and presents a window into the recorded space. Of course most setups are somewhere in between.
- Toole says a lot of room EQ is stupid -
For me it is just like make-up or vocal/DJ effects; a little can be nice. A little to much and it makes you look (sound) like a clown.
You can't fix a bad speaker setup/room with EQ.
If you don't want to hear the room, go outside or use headphones.
In live situations, EQ is needed to fix feedback; anti-feedback uses very narrow band EQ to do that for us, and can be very useful.
Treble and bass controls are most often enough for me to 'fix' the source to my liking and I don't use make up.
For me it is just like make-up or vocal/DJ effects; a little can be nice. A little to much and it makes you look (sound) like a clown.
You can't fix a bad speaker setup/room with EQ.
If you don't want to hear the room, go outside or use headphones.
In live situations, EQ is needed to fix feedback; anti-feedback uses very narrow band EQ to do that for us, and can be very useful.
Treble and bass controls are most often enough for me to 'fix' the source to my liking and I don't use make up.
I like that wording. Different systems do different things- the phrasing "They are here" implies significant room interaction, where "You are there" is more that the acoustic ambience is being transferred on- a distinct different spatial sound than that of the listening space.
It's entirely possible that listeners differ on the valuation of retaining the "sound" of the room- "Horns are unnatural" may just be that "I don't like a new acoustic space being superimposed over my room".
I agree with Toole, it's really just the same argument made for constant directivity. You can't fix a broken source or poor room with EQ, power response and axial response will never align.
Here is a post where Toole is giving a good summary about room EQ:
( An Enticing Marketing Story, Theory Without Measurement? | Page 3 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum )
"So, if one has a known neutral loudspeaker what does "room EQ" bring to the party? Above about 500 Hz, very little that is reliable - mostly general spectral trends; not detailed irregularities, for reasons mentioned in my last post.
At low frequencies equalization is almost certainly beneficial and easily measured steady-state data are all that is necessary."
So, below Schroeder frequency room EQ is a no brainer - make good measurement and crank it!
Above 500Hz he says room EQ should mostly apply "general spectral trends" - IMHO this means adjsuting the curve to your persoanl liking and/or to compensate for rooms HF absorbtion characteristic. Use verly low Q filters here (value 1-2) and low magnitude (not more than few dB).
Between Schroeder and 500-600Hz is a transition region where room still has noticeable effects on frequqency response, just not as strong as below Schroeder, so this area can be carefully corrected for dips and peaks.
This all is said under assumption you are doing a room EQ correction for a "neutral" speaker. If your speaker is not flat in anecchoic environment some of it's deficiencies certainly can be corrected as well, but this CANNOT be done based on steady state in-room measrruements - for that you need anechoic or quasi anechoic data of your speaker response.
( An Enticing Marketing Story, Theory Without Measurement? | Page 3 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum )
"So, if one has a known neutral loudspeaker what does "room EQ" bring to the party? Above about 500 Hz, very little that is reliable - mostly general spectral trends; not detailed irregularities, for reasons mentioned in my last post.
At low frequencies equalization is almost certainly beneficial and easily measured steady-state data are all that is necessary."
So, below Schroeder frequency room EQ is a no brainer - make good measurement and crank it!
Above 500Hz he says room EQ should mostly apply "general spectral trends" - IMHO this means adjsuting the curve to your persoanl liking and/or to compensate for rooms HF absorbtion characteristic. Use verly low Q filters here (value 1-2) and low magnitude (not more than few dB).
Between Schroeder and 500-600Hz is a transition region where room still has noticeable effects on frequqency response, just not as strong as below Schroeder, so this area can be carefully corrected for dips and peaks.
This all is said under assumption you are doing a room EQ correction for a "neutral" speaker. If your speaker is not flat in anecchoic environment some of it's deficiencies certainly can be corrected as well, but this CANNOT be done based on steady state in-room measrruements - for that you need anechoic or quasi anechoic data of your speaker response.
I was pretty excited to try room EQ around 15 years ago, but after some experiments and thinking I have accepted that it can't deliver what I had hoped for.
These days I would recommend EQing the speakers themselves, to correct the direct sound, and use other means to correct the reduce and improve the room sound (traps, diffusion, multiple subs, etc.)
These days I would recommend EQing the speakers themselves, to correct the direct sound, and use other means to correct the reduce and improve the room sound (traps, diffusion, multiple subs, etc.)
Nice wisdom in posts #34 and 35 and they don't really disagree, much.
So a simplified version of one thing Toole says is you don't "fix" the room when Uncle Harry is talking, so why fix the room when speakers are playing. That resembles what jamesblonde posts. In the perfect world, the speaker spews a perfect resemblance of the music and the room is just the setting where you hear it. You hear it "correctly" whatever the influence of the room, just as you hear Uncle Harry correctly indoors and out.
But the reality is that a woofer doesn't have an FR in the abstract. It only has an FR in the room and location where it is placed. So moot what to do.
(BTW, recourse to "Schroeder" as if that were a constant of physics is misleading. It is no more than a rule of thumb, not something that can be uniquely identified with a tool. But a good rule of thumb.
B.
So a simplified version of one thing Toole says is you don't "fix" the room when Uncle Harry is talking, so why fix the room when speakers are playing. That resembles what jamesblonde posts. In the perfect world, the speaker spews a perfect resemblance of the music and the room is just the setting where you hear it. You hear it "correctly" whatever the influence of the room, just as you hear Uncle Harry correctly indoors and out.
But the reality is that a woofer doesn't have an FR in the abstract. It only has an FR in the room and location where it is placed. So moot what to do.
(BTW, recourse to "Schroeder" as if that were a constant of physics is misleading. It is no more than a rule of thumb, not something that can be uniquely identified with a tool. But a good rule of thumb.
B.
Last edited:
My DSP usage is perfectly balanced, it is a kind of homeopathic use in order to adjust the sound to my taste but i don't use it to solve a problem.
A lot of EQ is not necessarily idiot, but it is tremendously easy to be idiot with it IMO.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.