To be honest Robbo, thanks for the effort, but if the standard you propose is as easy to reach as what you describe in post 713. I can already tell you that 99%+ of the serious mastering studios (when the final results get approve as per Amir's demand) already comply to that. The practice of using neutral speakers with good directivity and fixing room modes is outrageously dominant. The fact will still remain that people listen to music on BT speaker more than on good ones.
This thread is incredibly long, it may be somewhere but do you have the link to the paper in question?
You keep repeating this over and over while ignoring the fact that >80% of music is now consumed on some form of headphone. If you truly want to mitigate for the circle of confusion, this fact has to be at the center of your proposed standard.
If we want to speak specifically about that issue, then ok. The frequency response of headphones probably differs more than that of speakers, if you're talking about speakers meaning bookshelf's & up, and then you're combining that with the unpredictable effects of HRTF and headphone coupling that conspire to influence what the end consumer hears - so it's a total real mess if you assume everyone leaves their headphones at stock - so you just can't create tracks to be optimised to headphones in the sense of frequency response, not unless you say: well which are the most common headphones, how much market share do they have, can we make a mix for a specific headphone (or can we create an EQ'able ecosystem based on metadata that EQ's the main master track at the consumer level to be applicable to their specific device - a big ask in overall development of the whole ecosystem). Headphones when used at stock are such an unmitigated mess that it's impossible to create a mix that from a tonality perspective is suitable for all headphones, it just can't be done. Instead, I see it as the job of the headphone manufacturer to produce headphones that most closely mimic studio monitors in terms of their tonality and smoothness of frequency response - and given the current research that would be headphone manufacturers trying to target the Harman Headphone Curve. So I don't see it as the job of the music creator to produce music that sounds good (or is optimised) for all headphones as that is impossible - therefore as a music creator you can't attempt to do that currently - therefore the best thing a music creator can currently do is optimise their track for Anechoic Flat Speakers whilst perhaps taking into account the slightly different imaging of headphones in the creation of their final product......but I see it as the job of the headphone manufacturers to mimic Anechoic Flat Speakers as best they can, not the job of the music creator to account for that (which is impossible like I've described).
Well if 99% of studios really do target what I described in post 713 then that's very good news - albeit it would still be good to have a standard written in stone that could be adhered to, because of course we're talking about allowed tolerances and what tolerance for directivity, etc. To be honest, if people are gonna be listening on small bluetooth speakers then they need to be aware that it's not high fidelity and they just go with it - and similar to the post above (reply to @acbarn ) it'll be down to the manufacturers of these smaller/compromised listening solutions to match the standard (if it were created) as best they can - it's better to put the onus on the speaker manufacturer I think. And if the music creator wanted to make sure their stuff doesn't sound empty when played on a limited range speaker they can just wack in some Low Shelfs & High Shelfs (or High Passes & Low Passes) on their flat studio monitors to simulate what it would sound like on limited frequency range speakers.
The speakers part is easy. That's the whole point of this discussion, the Room part is hard.
Personalization is likely where we’re headed. Sonarworks is working on it, Apple is moving in this direction with their Personalized Spatial Audio, and Sean Olive has touched on it in recent interviews/presentations.
RoomEQ is simple if you're doing it for one listening position. Inasmuch as you treat your room and speaker position (whilst retaining equilateral triangle of course) vs walls, etc until you have your best baseline frequency response, with least amount of dips*, then you RoomEQ to take down the peaks below transition zone and maybe boost some of the small (hopefully) dips a little. In terms of what slope you target in the transition zone is up for debate, but Harman would say Harman hump in the bass. In terms of what's happening above transition you don't do anything if your speakers are perfectly Anechoic Flat, but if you know they're not Anechoic Flat up there then you apply Anechoic EQ up there based on measurements provided by Klippel (eg Amir & some others).The speakers part is easy. That's the whole point of this discussion, the Room part is hard.
These recommendation from Dr Toole go much much farther than what you are describing and he mentioned that in 2015 it was already generally common practice for stereo music:
AES E-Library » The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems
For decades, it has been widely accepted that a steady-state amplitude response measured with an omnidirectional microphone at the listening location in a room is an important indicator of how an audio system will sound. This paper examines both small and large venues, home theaters to cinemas...www.aes.org
This recommendation paper also goes much much farther than what you describe:
What you describe don't solve what the core of the discussion is about the fact that even with very tightly controlled speakers like genelec, 20 years ago there was still some inconsistency, at least for multi Channel
A LOT have been done since these researches emerged. The question is, is it enough? I don't think the question is should we simply "dumb it down" No I am not calling you dumb, it's just the expression for over simplifying a complex problem.
Now of course, What I a talking about is the industry as we used to know it. Large corporations, large budget, etc.
Sure home producers don't all work in ideal conditions and it's a huge part of the pie. We have solutions for them too, Like a room calibration suite like SonarWorx is not outrageously expensive If you are serious about producing. But then it comes down to a whole other debates wich is the democratization of music distribution, wich I am generally in favor with but it will obviously be the source of inconsistencies in term of production quality.
(fine but we're talking about in the context of music creation in relation to Circle of Confusion, so let's try to keep posts tightly on topic of that, or link your post into that)
Personalization needs to happen on both the creation and delivery side. SW is specifically working on the creation side.
That's alright, Toole back in 2015 was pointing out that EQing for a single seat just based on frequency response is not the proper way to do it but hey if you can convince a whole panel of Standard approval that this simple method should be the standard, by all means.
This is not "research" and that statement is clearly misstated. What you are reading there is marketing collateral for their engineering to sell more product. A proper research paper would be completely different. It would for example demonstrate the qualifications of their "expert listeners" with respect to hearing acuity of frequency response errors much like Harman has done. And speaking of Harman, it would compare and contrast their results with theirs.
Maybe, but you are asking for the industry to propose standards, they try to do that. May or may not be flawed, you seam to dismiss the whole thing. OK then. Still feels heavyly Biased you can't deny that. For me it's all the same industry, but if you are waiting for record producer guys to propose standards I mean come on Amir. They will adopt them they believe in science, but of course the researchers, the scientists will always be linked to the technology development sector, it's easy to understand as 1+1=2. Do you expect Floyd Toole to start making records?
Do you have any scientific studies that show bad mix rooms equal bad mixes? You keep spouting theory any facts?
Not as well received as as his seminal psychedelic opus, "Circle of Confusion"
Thanks for bringing a little levity to a thread that has gotten too contentious, like so many here tend to do. You’d think we’re discussing MQA, vinyl, or the sound of DACs!
Part 1
