True, he mentioned that the same client measured before and after he'd set up the speakers and was surprised that the response was smoother. The focus does seem to be on a smooth bass response primarily so it's not too surprising. What I still take issue with though is the effect of the asymmetry above the bass region, I can't see how that can work well. Sterling offered to contact his client to see if he will share his measurements. Impulse response measurements at different positions could be interesting?
T, you are absolutely right! A simple microphone measurement will NOT give you much, except when things are WAY OFF. How could it? An anechoic measurement of a speaker (usually done by gating techniques today will give you a good deal of info about the speaker's innate ability to cover the frequency range without holes in the response, and even how 'resonant' the individual drivers are that might detract from the 'accuracy' of the listening response, but it is not enough. However, directly measuring a room, while perhaps useful to seriously reveal some major eigentones that the room might make, will still not be enough. That is why you can not just buy a 1/3 octave equalizer and use it to get 'perfect sound forever' with just about any loudspeaker. It generally doesn't do enough, but there is hope, and that is that the human ear-brain system goes beyond mere frequency drop outs and resonances and listens for MORE info, as you, T, pointed out.
Why people are so FIXED in their beliefs is beyond me!
Why people are so FIXED in their beliefs is beyond me!
Thank you. I found couple clips from Bob's Axpona seminars:
YouTube
YouTube
and the story on Stirling approach:
Audio Systems Optimized System Setup - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com
YouTube
YouTube
and the story on Stirling approach:
Audio Systems Optimized System Setup - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com
Learning and getting experience with years in our jobs helps us create our own rules (the only ones that can have some real value) on what "works" (as you use to say) and what does not or less ... until a new experience challenges them. The more we learn, the more experience we have, the less we are self confident, fixed, and definitive. Mostly because the things are more complex than those taught at school.
Simplistic people like simple things. It reassures them ;-)
And this time is to simplification, we can see the effects everywhere, including in politic etc.
Last edited:
And for those who want to spend money and buy a box and do lots of measuring there is Home - DEQX
Deqx is fantastic.
Deqx is fantastic.
That's why the importance of resume when looking for job out of school. Unless you don't believe in the difference between academia and professional experiences.
What about sound replaying electronics?
Simple microphone measurement will give you simple result.
Did someone do that? Who and where?
Listening well is a crucial point when trying to get "good" or "the best" sound from a given system in a given room.
And of course it is a matter of experience too; measurements are fine,but as different room acoustic treatments can lead to nearly the same measured responses it needs the experience and listening skills to choose the right ones.
I agree. It is fully automated to provide inverse correction. I used it to EQ my headphones with me wearing them. I was able to purchase a PRO version used by licensed installers
But, I still prefer near-field listening. Corrected near-field works very well.
THx-RNMarsh
Just for the record, the answers to your questions are NO and NO.
What I do is related to what Stirling does, as he was the original developer of the Sumiko method.
Are they measureable?
Or does it only require a good sales technique or something else? Are they measureable?
As I´ve mentioned that different treatments could lead to very similar measured results and therefore experience and listening skills are needed to choose the right ones, I don´t understand what specific measureability you are asking for?!
As said before, the reproduction system is given (mainly) and the room is given.
And we know that in most cases there aren´t enough measurements available that completely describe the behaviour of the loudspeakers, i.e. like complete polar graphs (or even balloon ones).
See for example something like the directivity index; let´s take two extreme cases, a loudspeaker only delivering a 360 degree soundfield in the vertikal plane and another loudspeaker only delivering a 360 degree soundfield in the horizontal plane, due to the definition of the DI, both wil have the same DI, but what to do with these speakers (although going to be used in the same room) will be quite different. I know, it´s a crude example just to illustrate the point.
We need a lot of measurements but our listening skills offer the advantage of a holistic approach, while the measurements usually only address certain parts of the "picture".
I see, thank you. That could explain why your didn't understand my questions, all along I was referring to the Sumiko method.
A lot of control rooms of big recording studios are designed by specialists acousticiens, as near everybody knows.
They all had made the same kind of studies, use the same methods and the same measurements. Very few are able to achieve "magic rooms", that is a fragile balance between dump and live. The material of the reflective surfaces plays an important role (The wood or the brick, for example) ad well as the form of their surfaces.
In a surprising way, looking at this page: Bob Hodas - Acoustic Analysis we can see that the speakers in this mastering room, called by Jim Hannon (The Absolute Sound) "The Best System I’ve Ever Heard in a Studio" are siting... in the corners.
While lot of people think it is the worse place to put them ;-)
In France, the "Theatre d'Orange" is famous for being one of the outdoor theaters with one of the best acoustics in the world (I confirm and even for P.A.). However, it seems to me the Romans, who built it, did not have instruments of electro acoustic measurement.
Talking with one of the reputed acousticiens, specialists of studio acoustic design, he told me in confidence that, when he was hired to achieve the acoustic réalisation of an existing studio, he used measurements mainly to reassure its customers about the scientific seriousness of his work. But he could quite do without it. Experience and feelings.
Of course, that do not mean that, for us, less experienced people in this very difficult art, measurements are not of a great help.
Thanks T, some info for those who don't get it, especially about 31 Band EQ being inadequate.
Optimizing the Studio Listening Environment
Dan.
Optimizing the Studio Listening Environment
Dan.
Ah, i see; at first i thought the "are they measureable" was related to the "choose the right ones" .
It is not only about "tricky" but that there simply is no measurement for the overall experience. Not to mention the (as often said in other threads) intersubject differences.
Difficult to say what constitutes the "expert status" but I´d say it´s a combination of predictable results and satisfaction/happiness of customers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.