Embracing Simplicity in Audio: Anyone Else Skipping Room Correction, Measurement Microphones, and the Like?

[JeremyFife]

Welll...yes and no.

Of course measurements can reveal response variations that a listener may not notice or know about.

In some cases you can know something about the sound of a system from listening, and whether there are "problems" in the response.
Measurements can in such cases support what you already know from listening...but you could hear it.

Don't think I can agree;
If you measure, you know objectively. You can communicate your findings accurately. If someone else measures then they will find the same thing.
If you listen, you have a subjective opinion. You can try to communicate that, but it's open to interpretation. Someone else listening may have a completely different opinion (or not, but you can't tell).

You may be perfectly happy just listening, I have no issue with that. You may be experienced enough to tune your system by ear. I'm not.
You do not objectively know what is going on, which is the point I am making.

 

[JeffS7444]

As I see it, DRC is the simple solution. Sure, make alterations to the room, or rearrange it's contents if that's practical, but it's often not the case. And DRC makes life so much easier if you ever need to relocate your stuff to another space. Implementing it can be as simple as buying an AVR and following the on-screen instructions.

 

[Mean & Green]

In all seriousness, I think measurements are fundamental. Part of the reason the audio industry exists in such a circle of confusion is the lack of reasonable specs from manufacturers and fact-free hype from the many HiFi reviews and publications It's an echo-chamber where measurements are unwelcome. Leads to all sorts of odd pseudo-science like fancy cables, fancy feet, green pens, etc.

I think pretty much every person here agrees that measurements are fundamental. I certianly want confidence in knowing that any electronics I buy aren’t flawed and screwing up the audio signal in anyway. If the source and amplification are screwing it up there is no hope at all.

However I haven’t went down the route of measuring my living room, that doesn't mean that I believe I’m a golden ear and know better, or that I don’t accept that my acoustic environment is having the biggest impact on what I hear.

There have been a few posts within this thread which seem to be hinting that those who haven’t measured and implemented DSP somehow fit into the audiophool woo and magic category of audiophile. I’m not saying that’s directly what you’re saying, but there’s definitely an undertone in this thread in general. Making references to snake oil is not relevant here.

 

[mhardy6647]

No,

Well, it's a tightly focused response.

 

[MattHooper]

Don't think I can agree;
If you measure, you know objectively. You can communicate your findings accurately. If someone else measures then they will find the same thing.
If you listen, you have a subjective opinion. You can try to communicate that, but it's open to interpretation. Someone else listening may have a completely different opinion (or not, but you can't tell).

You may be perfectly happy just listening, I have no issue with that. You may be experienced enough to tune your system by ear. I'm not.
You do not objectively know what is going on, which is the point I am making.

I understand. I had an objection like yours in mind when I wrote that.

That can lead down a persnickety road of what it means in claiming to "know" something, which I view, in empirical terms, along scales of confidence levels.
But I won't travel far down that road.

Just to take one of many examples: My friend has for decades reviewed for an online audio mag and many of the products end up being measured. So we hear it first, then often enough see the measurements later. We've identified issues and characteristics (loudspeakers in particular) that were later confirmed with measurements. The measurements certainly add a level of objective confirmation, but I'm comfortable in saying that some of these characteristics were obvious enough what we "knew" they were there by listening. Lower confidence level than measuring, but not unreasonable.

But of course I very much agree with the utility of measuring to understand what is going on with greater confidence and precision.

 

[Sokel]

I wouldn't go as far as REW as there are tools as simple files to diagnose problems and sometimes is sad trying them to a friend's rig and finding out stuff that are fundamentally wrong.
And by "wrong" I don't mean any small deviation from some Harman curve or a little fault here and there.
And it gets even more sad when one can fix stuff but simply refuses to accept that are in fault.

Audiocheck.net or auditoryneuroscience.com and the likes are our best friends.

 

[RosalieTheDog]

Don't think I can agree;
If you measure, you know objectively. You can communicate your findings accurately. If someone else measures then they will find the same thing.
If you listen, you have a subjective opinion. You can try to communicate that, but it's open to interpretation. Someone else listening may have a completely different opinion (or not, but you can't tell).

You may be perfectly happy just listening, I have no issue with that. You may be experienced enough to tune your system by ear. I'm not.
You do not objectively know what is going on, which is the point I am making.

Very sorry to barge into this conversation.

I disagree with the way the conceptual pair subjective/objective is thrown around and even structures the whole discours in audiophilia. However you touch on a sensitive point. To measure means to ojectively approach audio in a much, much more literal sense: you see (in graphs of frequence response, impulse response etc etc) what you hear.

 

[Timcognito]

That is absolutely correct. (see below)



And this, too, is absolutely correct!

Just because a person understands advances in some-or-other technology, and just because they can appreciate the benefits of those advances, does NOT (in my mind, at least) mean that they should be castigated if they can find enjoyment and peace of mind while bypassing it, if they choose to do so.

We criticize subjectivists for coming to this forum and proclaiming that they know better, that we're missing the point, and that we should think the way they do.

But here we are, doing the same damn thing.



Jim

Agreed, I think there is a difference in saying that they can hear things, so don't need to measure and saying I like what I hear in my system. A kind of ignorance is bliss thing if you like something or the musical artistry trumps electronic/acoustic perfection thing. If they took the time to use DSP they might have a profound revelation and know that but it's not a priority.

 

[krabapple]

And people like you can't understand that some do that. But at the end it's about enjoying music, not perfect graphs and measurments. But as long as you and others can't get that preferences can differ from yours, this discussion won't end.

I would hesitate to proclaim what others can and can't understand, if I were you.

 

[krabapple]

It‘s not a religion. We don’t all need to do as Amir says and does.

You'd never know it from your selective quote, but I was using Amir as an example of someone who, AFAIK, doesn't use 'room correction' in the sense this thread proposes.

But hey, I guess it's always 'opposite day' somewhere.

If I believed something as boneheaded as 'it's a religion and we should do what Amir does', I'd recommend that you buy a Klippel.

 

[krabapple]

A USB cable and a laptop? Maybe a tripod? Presumably you have a ripped digital collection? Just doesn't seem overwhelming to me.

If you buy an AVR with room EQ DSP these days (by which I mean for well over a decade now) I'm pretty sure it comes with a mic that connects to said AVR. If your AVR is connected to a screen...a crazy idea, I know, who would ever want to watch and listen to anything at the same time?...the other things you need are a mic stand and a ruler...pricey and intimidating pieces of high tech hardware, I know.

Once you have climbed that summit, you still have to navigate to the screen that says 'begin calibration'. And then move the mic stand a few times and let the AVR do its scary beep boop robot thing.

You only have to do all this once, but I get that it can be simply too much to bear, for something as minor as objectively better performance.

 

[droid2000]

Required for whom?

Required for the best sound.

I never said anything about membership requirements. I said that now that we know what needs to be done to greatly improve the sound quality, we can't go back and unlearn it. You can choose to ignore it in exchange for simplicity. Just be aware that it's a very real tradeoff.

 

[pseudoid]

"Frankly my dear I don't give a damn!"
No, it is not a line from things that are "Gone with the Wind". That line is all mine!
Think it for a moment about that proverbial horse and the cart: Similarly does the Music drive the Equipment or the Equipment drive the Music?
Sure, I would prefer a mega-buck system that is perfectly 'tuned' for eeking out all the nuances of content (all my hardware is under $10K).
Case in point:

I no longer really care where the music comes from or how it connects to my brain cells... as long as it makes my foot beat to the music; I am blessed.
I do feel (sadness) for those who purchase mega-buck systems yet still have to further complicate 'matters' with EQ, etc.

Embracing simplicity is embracing mediocreness

Mediocrity, indeed.

 

[Mean & Green]

If you buy an AVR with room EQ DSP these days (by which I mean for well over a decade now) I'm pretty sure it comes with a mic that connects to said AVR. If your AVR is connected to a screen...a crazy idea, I know, who would ever want to watch and listen to anything at the same time?...the other things you need are a mic stand and a ruler...pricey and intimidating pieces of high tech hardware, I know.

Once you have climbed that summit, you still have to navigate to the screen that says 'begin calibration'. And then move the mic stand a few times and let the AVR do its scary beep boop robot thing.

You only have to do all this once, but I get that it can be simply too much to bear, for something as minor as objectively better performance.

The sarcasm is quite pathetic.

Not everyone has an AVR with the facilities you mention, I still have an all analog amplifier a NAD C326 BEE. I’ve owned it for at least 10 years and have zero desire to change it. It’s a very good amplifier. One of the good things about it is I could implement some form of DSP with it if I wanted to via it’s tape loop or pre out/main in sockets.

The same can be said for my NAD C350 which I’ve owned for over 20 years that resides in system number two with a Topping DAC and my iMac as a source. The iMac actually has EQ options which I prefer not to use, I don’t even use speakers much in system two it’s mainly headphones and again - shock horror they aren’t EQ‘d either.

I originally responded to the OP with my reasons for not going down the measuring and DSP route. Yes I would personally find faffing about with software a bit of pain in the backside. I prefer things that just work without software. I use my main system for network streaming, CD & vinyl playback and yes also my TV via my Pioneer N50A as a DAC. I was running TVs through audio systems as far back as 1993 if that’s of any relevance? Don’t see what differences source choices make, but there you go.

Eventually I might venture down the DSP route, but for now I’m perfectly happy with my 2.1 system as it is. I do not understand what difference it makes to you or anyone else how others use their system to consume media.

 

[MattHooper]

If you buy an AVR with room EQ DSP these days (by which I mean for well over a decade now) I'm pretty sure it comes with a mic that connects to said AVR. If your AVR is connected to a screen...a crazy idea, I know, who would ever want to watch and listen to anything at the same time?...the other things you need are a mic stand and a ruler...pricey and intimidating pieces of high tech hardware, I know.

Once you have climbed that summit, you still have to navigate to the screen that says 'begin calibration'. And then move the mic stand a few times and let the AVR do its scary beep boop robot thing.

You only have to do all this once, but I get that it can be simply too much to bear, for something as minor as objectively better performance.

Sarcasm noted.

Yes AVRs these days make the process fairly easy (I used the room correction with my home theater AVR). But there you have a product where everything is built in ready to go. Most audiophiles are not using an AVR in their stereo systems. Therefore it requires additional gear to go through that process. We are often talking about people like the OP...or me...who are not just starting off with a blank slate but who have some legacy of gear, to which we think about adding more stuff or re-configuring and whether we feel it's worth it.

After all, if you aren't using an AVR which has both the measurements and the fix built in, if you get the equipment and software to measure your room, and you actually want to fix any issues, then that's another step. And while some systems may already be practically set to go in doing so, e.g. someone may already be running their system from a computer and it could be a simple software download and integration, other systems may not be so ready. Like mine. It would take extra cost, extra equipment, and re-jigging my system in ways I'm not really interested in pursuing (e.g. I'd have to introduce a system of digitizing my turntable set up, among other things).

Since my system sounds wonderful to me, I'm not bothered to take all those steps.

One size doesn't fit all, either in terms of people's systems, goals or inclinations.

 

[Mean & Green]

Sarcasm noted.

Yes AVRs these days make the process fairly easy (I used the room correction with my home theater AVR). But there you have a product where everything is built in ready to go. Most audiophiles are not using an AVR in their stereo systems. Therefore it requires additional gear to go through that process. We are often talking about people like the OP...or me...who are not just starting off with a blank slate but who have some legacy of gear, to which we think about adding more stuff or re-configuring and whether we feel it's worth it.

After all, if you aren't using an AVR which has both the measurements and the fix built in, if you get the equipment and software to measure your room, and you actually want to fix any issues, then that's another step. And while some systems may already be practically set to go in doing so, e.g. someone may already be running their system from a computer and it could be a simple software download and integration, other systems may not be so ready. Like mine. It would take extra cost, extra equipment, and re-jigging my system in ways I'm not really interested in pursuing (e.g. I'd have to introduce a system of digitizing my turntable set up, among other things).

Since my system sounds wonderful to me, I'm not bothered to take all those steps.

One size doesn't fit all, either in terms of people's systems, goals or inclinations.

Precisely, some people just can’t seem to see past their own situations or needs and assume one size fits all when it clearly doesn’t.

 

[AdamG]

That might be because some posts have been removed or reworded, either by the users themself, or a moderator.

I just checked the Thread Log and there have been zero Moderation actions, deletions or edits to any posts in this thread. Therefore, if indeed there are any edits they are from the posters themselves.

 

[krabapple]

The sarcasm is quite pathetic.

Not everyone has an AVR with the facilities you mention, I still have an all analog amplifier a NAD C326 BEE. I’ve owned it for at least 10 years and have zero desire to change it.

Sarcasm noted.

Yes AVRs these days make the process fairly easy (I used the room correction with my home theater AVR). But there you have a product where everything is built in ready to go. Most audiophiles are not using an AVR in their stereo systems.

It's turtles all the way down.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's turtles all the way down.

Is this a Dr. Seuss reference?

 

[MattHooper]

It's turtles all the way down.

How so? I know the reference...but don't understand what point you mean to make with it. What does anything we wrote have to do with an infinite regress, even in humorous terms?