Flat Response

[SpacePatrolman]

Re: Flat Response

SpacePatrolman, thanks for the links.

No problem.

I actually do this: If I'm working on a project w/ a friend and I screw some little things up, I'll give him a low bitrate mp3 to use for practice and it will hide small errors of various natures even clipping.:o Shameful I know, but sometimes I figure things out too long after I recorded them to do much about it really other than hide it.

:eek: Forty lashes with some wet organic pasta. :D

Hey it's just for practice purposes, so why not.

Our brains do seem to fill in some of what's missing, but it's no substitute for the real deal.

And the reason why so many people can still enjoy their music using an AM radio with a 3" paper speaker (amplitude modulation? man does that date me! ).

I'm not going to pretend to understand everything written here but I am really surprised the room+speaker interaction issue wasn't solved a long time ago. It just seems so....basic.

But maybe the speaker manufacturers aren't in much of a hurry because even in the olden days the engineers, before all the various driver/enclosure/etc operating parameters we presently use were discovered and taken advantage of, along with basic electrical/sound concepts simply relied on their own hearing systems and trial & error to make their speakers sound "right". And as a result, many of those systems (if properly maintained or brought back up to their original specs) still sound amazingly good. I don't mean "for their time", I mean they just sound good.

Humans were putting together some pretty darn good gizmos and widgets long before computers came along, so personally I wouldn't dismiss everything that was built before those binary-based devices came along.

Concert hall realism: I also believe a multichannel format, properly configured on the recording and playback ends, is about the only way to TRULY recreate (within practical limits) what was heard at the performance venue. There is just no way for a pair of speakers in front of the listener to properly recreate reverb effects that originally emanated from behind the audience at the venue.

Though speaker systems that add front reverb(?) via rear or side-facing drivers can IMO definitely help create a sense of air and naturalness to a recording though I think with some music genres, like punk or metal, this may not always be a good match. There were many respectable companies that sold such systems in the 60s and 70s but I have a feeling a significant part of the reason for their small numbers nowadays is not so much most people felt they sounded bad, but because such speakers need to be placed so carefully in a room for all their drivers to do what they were designed to do. Extreme examples of this would be the Bose 901 and Sonab OA-116.

BTW here's one recording engineer's solution for capturing concert hall ambience in multichannel form: http://www.isomike.com/

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

I just saved money on car insurance.

This was unexpected.

[dantheman]

Re: Flat Response

---clip----
Dan: to answer your question, experience, common sense (ie you honestly don't think the same speaker will have different tonal balance in different rooms?). Secondly, even Toole agrees. Why did you ignore what I wrote where Toole says that a first reflection, if over absorbed in the treble, will make the system sound dull?----clip----

My point was you time and time again make points that are unchallenged and also unsupported. You're wanting to call many years of research 1 study. You know I have the same 2 pairs of speakers in 2 different room--one treated, one not. I know from experience that they difference is not that big. I don't care to discuss all the extremes that people go through to screw up their sound, but in a fairly normal set up, a speaker that measures well by the known "good sound" metrics will sound darned good. Yes you can probably better it with treatments and maybe changing the speaker, but I don't even care to guess at present.

I guess I just haven't seen a room problem bad enough to try and modify the speaker to fix. YMMV. No hard feelings. I think you've had some great ideas and stated them well. Sorry that hasn't come through in my posts. I did try and wasn't thinking about you or your thoughts at all in the post you totally disagreed with.

Dan

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

So fix the other angles via design.
Produce a cure, not just take aspirin for the symptoms.

E.g.:

If equalization is used to flatten the room curve, the pristine on-axis curve will be lost -- the only thing that was correct about the loudspeaker. An equalizer changes frequency response, not directivity. The cure for this room curve is a better loudspeaker, one with better directional consistency.

[Xyrium]

Re: Flat Response

Yeah...I wish this post could play the tune along with the image...

I had to, because this thread is out of control...

Re: Flat Response

I said:
"Very often, getting a nice flat line on axis requires launching a poorly balanced sound into the room at other angles.

Key words: very often.

So fix the other angles via design. Like Harman. Like Geddes. Like Genelec.....etc., etc., etc.
Produce a cure, not just take aspirin for the symptoms.


And how often can the fixed filter elixir cure all variables after the "your" room TF - like recording HF variability, moving to another space, personal taste, etc, etc, etc.
Oh yeah....not very often.
"Fixed"...not "variable". Key words .

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

I AM lazy, remember.... ;)

[DDF]

Re: Flat Response

EXACTLY!

There IS no answer short of a comprehensive analysis of the specific situation encompassing at least the major variables, with understanding of how they might interact in that particular circumstance and knowledge of what to do to produce the optimum result based upon that information.


There is a recommendable direction with a reasonable likelihood of producing a worthwhile outcome, well founded in credible research, with is compatible with the skill set and experience level of the majority of DIYers.


I am duly pleased.


We agree, but please allow that I said it first:



:p

I'm glad we seem to agree, but in my first post I said:
"Very often, getting a nice flat line on axis requires launching a poorly balanced sound into the room at other angles. The smaller and livelier your room, and the more noticeable this will be as a tonal imbalance"

Key words: very often.

We just spent the next 15 pages dancing until your reading comprehension caught up.

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

Consider what you're asking. A complete response would require a book or an entire volume that does not yet exist, since the "recommendation" would have to address specifics. How many variables exist between drivers/system/room/preferences and more to the point, what are they precisely?

EXACTLY!

There IS no answer short of a comprehensive analysis of the specific situation encompassing at least the major variables, with understanding of how they might interact in that particular circumstance and knowledge of what to do to produce the optimum result based upon that information.

It seems in your view there is only one narrowly defined set of trade offs and design direction.

There is a recommendable direction with a reasonable likelihood of producing a worthwhile outcome, well founded in credible research, which is compatible with the skill set and experience level of the majority of DIYers.

You seem to think I think that flat response with well controlled power is not a valid approach, and so exclude me from your list. Why? I've never once stated that.

I am duly pleased.

Start flat, and tune by listening and measurement from there, to sound most accurate and best in your room and listening location.

We agree, but kindly allow that I said it first:

Without that knowledge, the most rational course is designing to the established baseline reference and adjusting from there, as required or desired....

:p

[DDF]

Re: Flat Response

is This The Point Where We're All Supposed To Put Our Fingers In Our Ears And Sing "la La La La La La La La La La La "?
:d

Lol!!

[brianpowers27]

Re: Flat Response

DDF - I applaud your patience. You have brought a lot to this discussion. AJ, in a strange way you challenge us...

I think the problem with this type of philosophical discussion is the explosion of different concepts. When we attempt to address one, the subject changes ad infintium.

Perhaps it is best to create new threads to address the applied science and or specific concepts from this thread.

[auracle]

Re: Flat Response

Is this the point where we're all supposed to put our fingers in our ears and sing "la la la la la la la la la la la "?
:D

[DDF]

Re: Flat Response

Who among us is more notorious? The trick is ignoring the trivial.


There are better rooms, and not-so-good ones. They do not distinguish among designs, is the point. Nobody's saying that those which ranked highest didn't sound better in one room as opposed to in another, though that could likely be determined from the recorded data.


You said it yourself, that there are means in loudspeaker design to minimize the role of room variables. My qualifier was "a properly designed loudspeaker." There are plenty of other approaches available for those who might enjoy a lifelong endeavor of perfecting the interaction between them, the room, and their preferences.

[In this, Linkwitz, Geddes, Toole, and AJ are all on my side. :D ]


SO, your recommendation to DIYers in lieu of flat axial response and smooth power response would be what?

[Be specific, now; we're getting to the bottom line.... ]

Only because you actually are finally engaging in conversation (asking, not just stating) I'll go one last one.

"My qualifier was "a properly designed loudspeaker."

I'm glad you said this. And this is why I call it a religion discussion. It seems in your view there is only one narrowly defined set of trade offs and design direction. I raised the example of Curt/Wayne's speaker with teh dipole mid as a counter example, but like many of my points, that was ignored. I don't discuss religion.

"[In this, Linkwitz, Geddes, Toole, and AJ are all on my side. :D ]"

You seem to think I think that flat response with well controlled power is not a valid approach, and so exclude me from your list. Why? I've never once stated that. Let me say it as simply as possible:

"SO, your recommendation to DIYers in lieu of flat axial response and smooth power response would be what?"

Start flat, and tune by listening and measurement from there, to sound most accurate and best in your room and listening location. (for single driver designs, this could very well entail a LIFT in treble). However, heed my advice from my first post as a guide to voicing.

Depending on the speaker, you may very quickly want to veer from flat response to better load the room, timbrally. See my first post for examples why. I also stated I don't universally agree with adjusting the room to suit the speaker, that the listening location is a living space first, listening second. Perhaps this is where we disagree? if i wanted to have a sole dedicated listening room AND I designed for your set of trade offs, I'd agree with your Toole inspired approach. But I don't, nor do I have to.

If this isn't clear enough, you're not taking the effort to read and understand what I post.

Dan: to answer your question, experience, common sense (ie you honestly don't think the same speaker will have different tonal balance in different rooms?). Secondly, even Toole agrees. Why did you ignore what I wrote where Toole says that a first reflection, if over absorbed in the treble, will make the system sound dull?

Whose "side" does that put Toole on?

Honestly, I've repeated myself over and over and you guys aren't discussing my points, aren't listening. I honestly don't know what else i can add. So I won't.

Philosophically, if one person listens in a conversation, is it still a conversation? So long and thanks for all the fish!

[dlr]

Re: Flat Response

SO, your recommendation to DIYers in lieu of flat axial response and smooth power response would be what?

[Be specific, now; we're getting to the bottom line.... ]

Why should he try to answer that? My impression from this thread is that whatever he might say, it will be dissected and challenged no matter how he states it. Consider what you're asking. A complete response would require a book or an entire volume that does not yet exist, since the "recommendation" would have to address specifics. How many variables exist between drivers/system/room/preferences and more to the point, what are they precisely? Maybe if you answer that (be specific now, cover all possible variables that have an influence in the necessary detail), he might be able to respond in a manner that satisfies you. As it is, anything he might say would almost surely elicit more of the same.

He stated "What I said is that you're better off tuning the axial response for a room/speaker that gives you a bad timbre with a flat speaker." You morph that into a requirement for detail of specifics that no one is likely to adequately cover ever, nor will in our lifetime. It's a process that each individual must undertake in a DIY situation.

I understand his frustration and why he's dropped out.

dlr

Edit: Got to give Dave credit. He's tried to get his points across gracefully. I don't think I'd have had the patience.

[jcandy]

Re: Flat Response

I don't give a damn if it's snobbery, Lady Gaga totally sucks

+1