Do you need high end speakers for rock and heavy metal?

[Sigberg Audio]

First off... I have both read and also measured(confirmation), that the sloping curve, is a product of a given speaker design and higher frequencies quicker losing energy over distance + typical higher absorption rate of increasingly higher frequencies - so, not something you can just successfully force onto any speaker with a DSP.
Further, I do not think that the "pop curve" presented, would sound nice with typical pop music. I have a natural sloping curve because of my DIY coax speakers, which I definitely prefer for especially pop music. If I had more energy in the upper midrange and tweeter... my ears would be tired from most pop music - very quickly - IMO.... and I did try

They are not target curves, but rather represent average energy distribution in the different genres.

 

[MatrixS2000]

That would imply that you need a specific tonality on the speaker for each specific genre, aka different speakers for each genre, which is not what we observe.

Yes I know, so again I ask, what is the purpose of this thread? Why would rock/heavy metal be different if you don’t think its spectrum plays a role? What else is there to talk about that makes rock/heavy metal different from other genres that would demand more/less from a speaker that the spectrum does not represent?

A good speaker works well across genres despite the mastering curve of the different genres being quite different.

So we have our answer then? Because I do believe the above.

They are not target curves, but rather represent average energy distribution in the different genres.

No, they are target curves. From Izotope:

Target Library​

You can modify the overall target that the Master Assistant will work toward in the Target Library section. Changing the target selection will adjust all Master Assistant processing to work toward matching your track to the selected target. The factory target curves were generated through an analysis of chart-topping hit songs from a range of different genres. The Cinematic target was generated through an analysis of the scores of top box office films.

Each Target is comprised of sub-targets that are associated with different aspects of Master Assistant processing:

• Tonal Balance: the distribution of energy across the audible frequency spectrum.
• Vocal Balance: the difference in loudness between the vocals and the rest of the music.
• Stereo Width: the ratio of mid to side signal power in each band.
• Dynamics: a measure of microdynamics, defined by the ratio of a very short term loudness to short term loudness.
• Loudness: the integrated loudness measured in LUFS.

 

[Digital_Thor]

They are not target curves, but rather represent average energy distribution in the different genres.

Oh, I see. Well, that changes things a bit. Though - I still like me some natural curves

 

[Digital_Thor]

A good speaker works well across genres despite the mastering curve of the different genres being quite different.

This is an excellent point IMO .
It can be quite tricky to make objective evaluations of your own speaker creations. But when you are able to listen to a rather broad set of recordings across genre, age and recording style. Then there's at least a better chance, that you made a good speaker

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Yes I know, so again I ask, what is the purpose of this thread? Why would rock/heavy metal be different if you don’t think its spectrum plays a role? What else is there to talk about that makes rock/heavy metal different from other genres that would demand more/less from a speaker that the spectrum does not represent?

I am not sure I've said that the spectrum doesn't play a role, I was questioning its relation to the harman curve. Beyond that I think we've been through this a couple of times in this thread, including in part in my initial post. Many (expensive) speakers struggle to reproduce rock and metal in a believable, satisfying way. The thread aimed to explore why that is. The complexity of the energy and spectrum has certainly been part of it.

To me, it's not like I can look at the mastering target curve for rock that you shared and go "Aha, now I understand why it is difficult for speakers to produce rock in a good way", but I may be missing something.

No, they are target curves. From Izotope:

Target curves for mastering / production surely, not playback?

 

[MatrixS2000]

I was questioning its relation to the harman curve.

Got it. I agree.

The complexity of the energy and spectrum has certainly been part of it.

This is what I was trying to highlight via illustration (although several are similar).

Target curves for mastering / production surely, not playback?

Mastering but they should translate to playback if accuracy is an important factor.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Legends are still made (we just don't believe such) and who ever tells you the size dosent matter... And all it needs is a gentle touch.

You won't get low C live alike, that's space.
The bass guitar won't go deep (41 Hz) but it sure as hell gonna go loud (4x12" over 130, 120 db to far feald peeks). Rest is space and more space (reverb). In the end those (huge) organs are almost unique. I did music theory and aesthetics during studies and still like real ramblers. Know quite a few musicians academic and otherwise on friendly bases, even live surrounded by them in the way (trumpeter is the worst). Back to topic, old Onkyo's, JBL L120 Classics, NS1000... ali still more associated to popular music than classic even they are all very old ones. People made pasive (very low gain cuple mV) preamp semy costume cuple PEQ alike tube speakers vocal EQ's in 60's (and they work great even today in emulated form). Point is good speakers are good speakers and you really don't want to be pedal to the metal near field to the vintage classic bass amplifier. Today there are electronic gernes and new gernes in generally where low peeks and huge ones go to low 30 Hz. Add to that + 10 dB to average low psy compensation for mid low SPL (under 70 dB). You need sub's how ever you look at it. Everything else is really discrimination to music.

Lovely to see Anna, her parents are friends of ours!

 

[goat76]

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

What shape or form the tonality takes in the program material, no matter the genre, has nothing to do with the loudspeaker's response curve. If you have loudspeakers that sound balanced to you, there will be no need to change the speaker's response curve to suit different types of music genres.
To put it this way, there is no specific music genre that is in more need of a balanced-sounding loudspeaker than any other genre. All genres will benefit the same, even if it happens to be a well-known reference rock song that reveals a lack of energy in the high-bass/low-mid region of a particular loudspeaker. When that problem is addressed, any other genre will also sound better thanks to that adjustment.

The above is me saying that we should take it as granted that the overall frequency response of the loudspeakers is not specifically more important for rock music than any other genre, so I think we can put that aspect to the side, as I believe other factors more related to response and timing with less ”overhang” for a lack of word. Nothing destroys it more for rock music reproduction than speakers that sound ”slow” and ”sluggish” and can’t cope with densely incoming transients.




And a few words on those ” target curves” for different genres…

When it comes to the production side of things, those genre-specific target curves should only be used as a guideline if anything, which may or may not suit the specific track, no matter if the track happens to be of that specific genre the target curve is meant to be suited for.

If you have an iPhone, I'm sure you have at some point tried to use their pre-made EQ settings named rock, jazz, pop, and so on. If so, did you ever find the rock tracks to sound best with the pre-made EQ adjustment made for rock, the jazz tracks to sound better with the EQ for jazz, and the pop tracks to work great with the pop EQ?
I think your answer to that question will be "no", you know it doesn't work like that, and it's very similar to the target curves in iZotope Ozone. Any of those targets can suit a specific rock song, no matter if the target is called "rock" or "jazz," as most songs are unique in their way even inside a certain genre. How much in common do you think a rock song by Tom Petty has with AC/DC?

But with that said, AI-related programs that help with the overall tonal balance (and other things) will surely be more and more important with time. I have used the "Mastering Assistant" in Logic Pro, which doesn't have any genre-specific curves and instead only adjusts the overall response to make the track generally more balanced-sounding. I think it works pretty good after you reduce it a bit and make some manual adjustments.

 

[MatrixS2000]

What shape or form the tonality takes in the program material, no matter the genre, has nothing to do with the loudspeaker's response curve.

I never said anything like what you are inferring.

If you have loudspeakers that sound balanced to you, there will be no need to change the speaker's response curve to suit different types of music genres.

Again never said anything like changing the speakers response curve to suit different types. I expect good speakers to reproduce the tonal balance of any genre. I thought I stated this clearly.

To put it this way, there is no specific music genre that is in more need of a balanced-sounding loudspeaker than any other genre. All genres will benefit the same, even if it happens to be a well-known reference rock song that reveals a lack of energy in the high-bass/low-mid region of a particular loudspeaker. When that problem is addressed, any other genre will also sound better thanks to that adjustment.

The above is me saying that we should take it as granted that the overall frequency response of the loudspeakers is not specifically more important for rock music than any other genre, so I think we can put that aspect to the side, as I believe other factors more related to response and timing with less ”overhang” for a lack of word. Nothing destroys it more for rock music reproduction than speakers that sound ”slow” and ”sluggish” and can’t cope with densely incoming transients.

Not telling me anything I don’t already know. Most rock music only has a handful of instruments playing at any time, other genres have many more instruments playing at the same time. So I don’t believe timing or response is more important in rock music vs classical. There are many classical pieces with dense transients.

And a few words on those ” target curves” for different genres…

When it comes to the production side of things, those genre-specific target curves should only be used as a guideline if anything, which may or may not suit the specific track, no matter if the track happens to be of that specific genre the target curve is meant to be suited for.

Of course and no song is going to track it exactly.

How much in common do you think a rock song by Tom Petty has with AC/DC?

Tom Petty - Free Falling - Qobuz

AC/DC - Hells Bells - Qobuz:

I think it works pretty good after you reduce it a bit and make some manual adjustments.

It does work well particularly for EQ I find, not so much for imaging, loudness, etc. I use it as a start point then make changes from there.

 

[goat76]

I never said anything like what you are inferring.


Again never said anything like changing the speakers response curve to suit different types. I expect good speakers to reproduce the tonal balance of any genre. I thought I stated this clearly.

Okay then, but please explain what your reason is for bringing in how the average spectrum may look for different music genres?

Not telling me anything I don’t already know. Most rock music only has a handful of instruments playing at any time, other genres have many more instruments playing at the same time. So I don’t believe timing or response is more important in rock music vs classical. There are many classical pieces with dense transients.

The number of instruments playing at the same time is of no relevance at all, as both the recording of the rock track and the classical track end up being just two signals, one for the left channel and another for the right channel. So, from a pure signal and reproduction point of view, the rock track can easily be the one that is most likely to have way more hard-hitting transients at a denser rate throughout the whole track, which is not as generally common in a classical recording. That's where the challenge will be for the loudspeakers, as the speakers don't have a "clue" if the signal contains 4, 10, or 100 different instruments.

Of course and no song is going to track it exactly.


Tom Petty - Free Falling - Qobuz
View attachment 443004

AC/DC - Hells Bells - Qobuz:
View attachment 443002



It does work well particularly for EQ I find, not so much for imaging, loudness, etc. I use it as a start point then make changes from there.

Like I said, these programs can be used as guidelines but not much more. As can be seen in the Tom Petty song, most would likely find that song way too bright if a mastering engineer were aiming for the rock target curve in that program.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Okay then, but please explain what your reason is for bringing in how the average spectrum may look for different music genres?

Because I was asked for the various curves.

We are taking about a specific genre - so to have a discussion we need to discuss all the characteristics that could be unique to that genre. This was one of them. Simple as that. Another would be loudness, this genre would be louder than classical. I think we have beaten it to death and we are both in agreement in the long run.

So, from a pure signal and reproduction point of view, the rock track can easily be the one that is most likely to have way more hard-hitting transients at a denser rate throughout the whole track, which is not as generally common in a classical recording. That's where the challenge will be for the loudspeakers, as the speakers don't have a "clue" if the signal contains 4, 10, or 100 different instruments.

Imo it has more to due with the loudness of this genre. My point about having more instruments playing is that the more instruments playing the more opportunity for transients. If you have one bass guitar and a drum set (this would be the band OM), it would be different than having a full orchestra playing where each of the varied instruments could be providing various transients. Whether the transients are dense for the entire track (rock) or only a portion (classical), I don’t think is relevant. Maybe it is but I have yet to see evidence of that.

Have a listen to Bartok - Concerto for Orchestra/Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta as an example. Intermezzo Interrotto and Finale in particular.

Like I said, these programs can be used as guidelines but not much more. As can be seen in the Tom Petty song, most would likely find that song way too bright if a mastering engineer were aiming for the rock target curve in that program.

That was a trace of the playback from Qobuz - it is unmodified, so you are seeing what the mastering engineer was aiming for.

 

[goat76]

Imo it has more to due with the loudness of this genre. My point about having more instruments playing is that the more instruments playing the more opportunity for transients. If you have one bass guitar and a drum set (this would be the band OM), it would be different than having a full orchestra playing where each of the varied instruments could be providing various transients. Whether the transients are dense for the entire track (rock) or only a portion (classical), I don’t think is relevant. Maybe it is but I have yet to see evidence of that.

Sorry, but what I'm saying here has nothing to do with "opinions". It's a simple fact that rock music in general contains way more hard-hitting transients throughout the tracks, and usually with very short gaps between them. It's also very easy to prove just by zooming in on an equal timeframe of the waveforms, if not listening to the music would be enough, or maybe just look at the movement of your speaker cones.

Yes, there would be opportunities for more transients if all the musicians in a symphony orchestra went rogue on solo missions, but luckily, most of them are playing together, sharing the same transients.



Ride of the Valkyries - Wagner

AC/DC - Hells Bells (Original release)

 

[ZolaIII]

@MatrixS2000 you really didn't listen trough R'N'R and at about least 100 gernes it gave birth to or what? From classic to hard, trough two progressive generations including electronic and tone float to modern. There is no instrument you won't find in it and if they didn't had them they made them (experimental). Including all kinds of organs (like psychedelic first gen) including pipe one's. Completely varies but there are and very complex one's. There is much more emphasis to the vocal part in comparison to classical orchestral peaces but that's about it.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Sorry, but what I'm saying here has nothing to do with "opinions". It's a simple fact that rock music in general contains way more hard-hitting transients throughout the tracks, and usually with very short gaps between them. It's also very easy to prove just by zooming in on an equal timeframe of the waveforms, if not listening to the music would be enough, or maybe just look at the movement of your speaker cones.

Yes, there would be opportunities for more transients if all the musicians in a symphony orchestra went rogue on solo missions, but luckily, most of them are playing together, sharing the same transients.



Ride of the Valkyries - Wagner

View attachment 443045




AC/DC - Hells Bells (Original release)

View attachment 443044

It’s hard to see your time line.

Antonio Vivaldi - The Four Seasons - Spring Full:

Zoomed:

Saint Saens - Havanaise:

Still looks more like a loudness issue than a density of transients issue.

 

[Sokel]

Antonio Vivaldi - The Four Seasons - Spring:

View attachment 443130
Saint Saens - Havanaise:
View attachment 443131

I'll go for a little higher:

Igor Stravinsky - The Firebird No 2 Final

 

[MatrixS2000]

@MatrixS2000 you really didn't listen trough R'N'R and at about least 100 gernes it gave birth to or what?

Have you noticed the bands I have mentioned in this thread? Like I mentioned earlier, this is the genre (and many of its sub-genres) I listen to most.

 

[goat76]

It’s hard to see your time line.

Antonio Vivaldi - The Four Seasons - Spring Full:

View attachment 443130
Zoomed:
View attachment 443135

Saint Saens - Havanaise:
View attachment 443131

Still looks more like a loudness issue than a density of transients issue.

What is it you want to show here exactly?

To me, it looks like you are confirming that the classical tracks don't contain as many constantly and rapidly hard-hitting transients as the AC/DC track, so are we on the same page on this now? Or is it the more obvious changes in the dynamics you see over time in the classical tracks? If so, we are most definitely not talking about the same thing.


As it seems like you prefer the single waveform view, I think we should compare the tracks in that optional view.


Antonio Vivaldi - The Four Seasons (zoomed in timeframe of about 36-37 sec)

AC/DC - Hells Bells (zoomed in timeframe of about 34-35 sec)

I mean, it gets very silly if you can't admit that the AC/DC track above has way more hard-hitting transients coming in with way shorter time-gaps, and we have not even started to talk about metal music yet, which is commonly much faster phased music than AC/DC.

This is from the noise rock music I play, record, mix, and master. As you can see, it has way more "dramatic" dynamics than the AC/DC track, almost reaching silence between the hard-hitting transients.

If we get back to the topic...

Many loudspeakers can't seem to handle it that well when fast phased rock and metal music is played, the sound gets messy, and it can be very fatiguing after a fairly short time. While other speakers seem to handle it much better, a sort of "calmness" is there even if the music is highly chaotic. The only explanation for this I can think of is that it's a timing-related thing, like less "overhang" and "stop and start" faster when following the incoming signal.




.

 

[MatrixS2000]

I mean, it gets very silly if you can't admit that the AC/DC track above has way more hard-hitting transients coming in with way shorter time-gaps, and we have not even started to talk about metal music yet, which is commonly much faster phased music than AC/DC.

All those AC/DC transients are kick drum/snare/cymbal.

None the following transients are from kick drum/snare/cymbal:

Andy McKee - Drifting (34 sec window)

 

[Cbdb2]

The number of instruments playing at the same time is of no relevance at all, as both the recording of the rock track and the classical track end up being just two signals,

So you think a full orchestra playing a busy piece is as easy to reproduce as a solo vocal? Sure theres only one signal but it can be low bandwith, low dynamic, few impulses (not double kicks playing 16th notes) or it can be the opposite.

 

[Cbdb2]

All those AC/DC transients are kick drum/snare/cymbal.

None the following transients are from kick drum/snare/cymbal:

Andy McKee - Drifting (34 sec window)
View attachment 443227

An impact is an impact. Hes hitting his solo guitar. I can make a flute have large transients if I hit the mic with it.