Amir speaker testing

[Tom67]

Perhaps that dreaded speaker drop out at about 2K is simply a natural result of the testing method.

 

[staticV3]

Please explain your reasoning. What makes you think that Amir's testing method is flawed? (he's using A Klippel NFS for speaker measurements)

 

[Anton S]

Amir's instrumented testing is done on ONE speaker, not a pair.

 

[SSS]

One point is right to my opinion. Mixing engineers listen to the nearfield and often a acoustical damped room. This is of course different to audio listeners who do not sit near their speakers. So there may be a different perception from that what the mixing engineer heard. But who cares. The music file is how it is. Either on likes the music or not. Most mixes of good music sounds very good for me.

 

[Tom67]

I can hear it, moving my head back-and-forth while holding my cell phone in front of my face with my 74 year old hearing. I would assume that my small iPhone is the equivalent of a single speaker.

 

[AdamG247]

Duplicate threads combined here.

 

[Tom67]

Please explain your reasoning. What makes you think that Amir's testing method is flawed? (he's using A Klippel NFS for speaker measurements)

I never even hinted that Amir’s testing method was somehow flawed. I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I just thought that this quick experiment is interesting and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center. I don’t exactly know what to make of it, but I would suggest that it makes for some interesting discussion for folks here.

 

[Zek]

....and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center.

And what does it have to do with the speaker measurement method?

 

[Thomas_A]

It has been up for discussion many times already. And the solution is to add reflections from the room to reduce the effect. You can also design the frequency response and dispersion of the speaker so that it reduce and not enhance the errors.

 

[Curvature]

I never even hinted that Amir’s testing method was somehow flawed. I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I just thought that this quick experiment is interesting and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center. I don’t exactly know what to make of it, but I would suggest that it makes for some interesting discussion for folks here.

It's a well known phenomenon. At the HF range where the cancellation occurs the precedence effect relies on the level and spectrum of the first arriving soundwave (the direct sound to each ear). The timbre of that wave the perceived sound can be modified by the cancellation (i.e., interference by the arrival of later waves), but it's not severe because room reflections help (kind of like averaging).

It is audible though, and good center channels don't have this problem. Pink noise magnifies the problem, but most music doesn't have the same temporal behaviour or spectrum as noise, and won't trigger the cancellation as much.

The issue is limited to stereophonic techniques and is not inherent to speakers, to be clear, although speakers can influence the outcome by being more or less directive.

 

[Tom67]

And what does it have to do with the speaker measurement method?

I am not quite sure at this point. But, there is also a subjective part of the testing, and perhaps Nearfield listening, might present a different result.

 

[Thomas_A]

I am not quite sure at this point. But, there is also a subjective part of the testing, and perhaps Nearfield listening, might present a different result.

Amir measures and listens to one speaker, not in stereo. The problem arises in stereo, enhanced if you listen in near field or damp those important room reflections too much. That said, you can also design speakers that have small corrections on- and off-axis.

 

[Zek]

might present a different result

Different rooms, different space treatments, different placement of speakers, different listeners' ears... everything affects the final sound.

 

[Curvature]

Different rooms, different space treatments, different placement of speakers, different listeners' ears... everything affects the final sound.

Sure, but how much and what's the most important? We don't want to needlessly worry anyone by overgeneralizing.

 

[dasdoing]

though the effect exists, what we hear off center is mostly comb filtering due to the delay (sometimes called "phasing"). I always used this to "vice" my head center to place my meassurement mic where my ers are.
a 2k boost doesn't sound like this

 

[Thomas_A]

Just a comment to the video. No way the mixer uses a standard peaking of 6 dB at 1.8 kHz due to near field mixing. This is also cancelation with is deeper than that at anechoic conditions.

 

[goat76]

Just a comment to the video. No way the mixer uses a standard peaking of 6 dB at 1.8 kHz due to near field mixing. This is also cancelation with is deeper than that at anechoic conditions.

In a modern music production, every single sound object in the mix are normally sculptured with EQ until the mixing engineer is happy with the final result. If he hears an obvious problem in the mix and is using near-field monitors in a “dry” room where this problem is supposed to be heard even better than in other listening conditions, why on earth do you think the mixing engineer will let an obvious problem like that slip through to the finished product untouched?

But if he really did miss it, the “problem” can’t have been that obvious in the first place.

 

[Thomas_A]

In a modern music production, every single sound object in the mix are normally sculptured with EQ until the mixing engineer is happy with the final result. If he hears an obvious problem in the mix and is using near-field monitors in a “dry” room where this problem is supposed to be heard even better than in other listening conditions, why on earth do you think the mixing engineer will let an obvious problem like that slip through to the finished product untouched?

But if he really did miss it, the “problem” can’t have been that obvious in the first place.

Because it is not seen in spectra! And mixers also listen in headphones and in farfield.

 

[goat76]

Because it is not seen in spectra! And mixers also listen in headphones and in farfield.

Yes, and that's the reason why the fault will sometimes be addressed, and sometimes not.

And if someone tries to fix this in the speaker's response, it will be overcompensated for many music mixes.

If you know that the main part of the music you are listening to is mixed with the use of headphones, you can probably make an EQ compensation for this that is always active. But you will probably never be sure that the mixer never used speakers at some point in production.

 

[Thomas_A]

Yes, and that's the reason why the fault will sometimes be addressed, and sometimes not.

And if someone tries to fix this in the speaker's response, it will be overdressed for many music mixes.

If you know that the main part of the music you are listening to is mixed with the use of headphones, you can probably make an EQ compensation for this that is always active. But you will probably never be sure that the mixer never used speakers at some point in production.

Speaker fix will never be full compensation only fractions of it. Most important is that the speaker response does not add to the problem.