I just like all the digital steps in my music.
/
That's because you can dance to them, right?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Embracing Simplicity in Audio: Anyone Else Skipping Room Correction, Measurement Microphones, and the Like?
- Thread starter computer-audiophile
- Start date
That's because you can dance to them, right?
You've surely come across some variation of Pascal's explanation: je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte?
Certainly @MattHooper has spent more time/effort to arrive at what he considers to be an elegant/simple solution. That's often how it works. Not that he writes that way.
*translates to something like 'I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.'
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,128
- Likes
- 19,766
Very nice to hear about how your madvr is helping with different ARs. I do have some pre-sets on my JVC that do similar (e.g. if I decide to electronically mask a Nolan multiple AR movie or whatever).
Ok, yes, I think there is some level of relevance to this thread that can be drawn between home theater/video and audio. Especially in regards to "what looks better," accuracy, preference etc.
So with that in mind, here's an early experience I had with calibration:
I was an early adopter of plasma displays when they are eye-wateringly expensive. I bought a Panasonic 42" ED- resolution (essentially DVD resolution back then) plasma. One reason I bought it was, just as I've always been fascinated by comparing reproduced sound to the real thing, I was fascinated by how much more "real" the image looked on the plasma than any I'd seen before. The size and perfectly flat presentation, lacking that bulge we all grew up with on CRTs, and corner-to-corner perfection just gave a picture window effect on to images that I'd never encountered.
I did my own quick picture adjustments and loved the image. But I kept reading in the ASR forum and elsewhere that you HAD to have your display calibrated or you were never going to see the "best" image quality possible from that display. So it wasn't just that the display would be more accurate to the created content, it was almost always argued that this also amounted to "better/best" picture quality. So...I hired one of the most renowned calibrationists at that time to do my plasma. When he finished...yup...it now looked well calibrated to SMPTE standards (IIRC that's what he went for, could be wrong). Movies looked more rich and film like. Good stuff. But it had to my eyes absolutely taken a step backwards in terms of that window-like realism I had enjoyed.
So I tried my own form of calibration with the aim of simply producing the most life-like image I could get. I'd literally adjust it in comparison to real life scenes and objects. I'd have an image of a female face on screen, have my wife stand near the display, and note "what is it that, aside from the 2D, that makes the TV image look artificial compared to the real thing?" Well, it wasn't as clear, the TV image tended to have a "glowing illuminated" quality, the color seemed too exaggerated and over-rich, the contrast was lower, etc. So I would adjust all the parameters, for instance dialing back saturation, until that "glowing" quality receded, adjusted all the other parameters until..amazingly...it actually had more of the character of looking at a real person. I did this for various different scenes, comparing to scenes outside my window etc. The result was truly amazing, the window-like effect! Guests were just startled when I'd play content, including movies, "like I'm looking on to the real scene or movie set!" Even when they later bought much better, newer, more capable flat screens they'd say "but it looks nowhere near as real as yours!"
I shared my technique with AVForum members and it became something of a "thing" there, with a number finding success too.
Now, eventually I came to appreciate the ISF settings on the plasma more. I really also did like the lush, film look it reproduced for movies. Sometimes my settings looked "too real" like I was watching them on the set (sort like people complained about with High Frame Rates in movies).
BUT...the point is...while one could talk about less or more accurate in terms of the image settings, it still leaves room for which image "looks better." And that is more a preference than some objective statement. And I would say that my own calibrated image certainly "looked better" IF we were talking about the standard of "looking more constantly realistic" which is a hard thing for images to achieve. Like "ok, this is strictly more accurate, but if I do THIS....it sounds a bit more real to me which I like..."
As for my projector, I stick with the ISF calibrated settings for various reasons, including that I love the film-like look. But I'm not above tweaking it sometimes a bit to my taste, e.g. with sharpness or contrast.
So, back to the relevance to audio: IF someone's reference for "best sound quality" is strictly "which is calibrated to be the most accurate" then it's a foregone conclusion that the accurate system "is better." But IF someone has some other goals or taste, for instance I like to keep certain aspects of real life sound I care about in mind when listening to systems, then by those measures, similar to my plasma settings scenario, some departure from accuracy might meet those goals.
Ok, yes, I think there is some level of relevance to this thread that can be drawn between home theater/video and audio. Especially in regards to "what looks better," accuracy, preference etc.
So with that in mind, here's an early experience I had with calibration:
I was an early adopter of plasma displays when they are eye-wateringly expensive. I bought a Panasonic 42" ED- resolution (essentially DVD resolution back then) plasma. One reason I bought it was, just as I've always been fascinated by comparing reproduced sound to the real thing, I was fascinated by how much more "real" the image looked on the plasma than any I'd seen before. The size and perfectly flat presentation, lacking that bulge we all grew up with on CRTs, and corner-to-corner perfection just gave a picture window effect on to images that I'd never encountered.
I did my own quick picture adjustments and loved the image. But I kept reading in the ASR forum and elsewhere that you HAD to have your display calibrated or you were never going to see the "best" image quality possible from that display. So it wasn't just that the display would be more accurate to the created content, it was almost always argued that this also amounted to "better/best" picture quality. So...I hired one of the most renowned calibrationists at that time to do my plasma. When he finished...yup...it now looked well calibrated to SMPTE standards (IIRC that's what he went for, could be wrong). Movies looked more rich and film like. Good stuff. But it had to my eyes absolutely taken a step backwards in terms of that window-like realism I had enjoyed.
So I tried my own form of calibration with the aim of simply producing the most life-like image I could get. I'd literally adjust it in comparison to real life scenes and objects. I'd have an image of a female face on screen, have my wife stand near the display, and note "what is it that, aside from the 2D, that makes the TV image look artificial compared to the real thing?" Well, it wasn't as clear, the TV image tended to have a "glowing illuminated" quality, the color seemed too exaggerated and over-rich, the contrast was lower, etc. So I would adjust all the parameters, for instance dialing back saturation, until that "glowing" quality receded, adjusted all the other parameters until..amazingly...it actually had more of the character of looking at a real person. I did this for various different scenes, comparing to scenes outside my window etc. The result was truly amazing, the window-like effect! Guests were just startled when I'd play content, including movies, "like I'm looking on to the real scene or movie set!" Even when they later bought much better, newer, more capable flat screens they'd say "but it looks nowhere near as real as yours!"
I shared my technique with AVForum members and it became something of a "thing" there, with a number finding success too.
Now, eventually I came to appreciate the ISF settings on the plasma more. I really also did like the lush, film look it reproduced for movies. Sometimes my settings looked "too real" like I was watching them on the set (sort like people complained about with High Frame Rates in movies).
BUT...the point is...while one could talk about less or more accurate in terms of the image settings, it still leaves room for which image "looks better." And that is more a preference than some objective statement. And I would say that my own calibrated image certainly "looked better" IF we were talking about the standard of "looking more constantly realistic" which is a hard thing for images to achieve. Like "ok, this is strictly more accurate, but if I do THIS....it sounds a bit more real to me which I like..."
As for my projector, I stick with the ISF calibrated settings for various reasons, including that I love the film-like look. But I'm not above tweaking it sometimes a bit to my taste, e.g. with sharpness or contrast.
So, back to the relevance to audio: IF someone's reference for "best sound quality" is strictly "which is calibrated to be the most accurate" then it's a foregone conclusion that the accurate system "is better." But IF someone has some other goals or taste, for instance I like to keep certain aspects of real life sound I care about in mind when listening to systems, then by those measures, similar to my plasma settings scenario, some departure from accuracy might meet those goals.
DonR
Major Contributor
Those preferences should ideally be based on a strictly neutral starting point, shouldn't they? Correct first then season to taste.
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,128
- Likes
- 19,766
I certainly get the logic you imply. But I guess that depends on someone's goal. If strict technical accuracy is not your goal, then "neutral sound" is just another flavor to choose from. So if "strictly neutral" isn't someone's goal per se, in principle they could just skip to choosing what they like.
I know plenty of audiophiles who haven't had sound that is neutral to ASR standards but are happy as clams. So I don't see necessarily why they "should" pursue something else in terms of "should have bought a more neutral system instead" as their starting point.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,542
- Likes
- 2,143
Exactly. I have 6 different dsp profiles (based on a generic preferred starting curve) depending on source, genre, time of day and sometimes just my mood or what iam drinking lol.
The one thing i really cant do without is correcting bass issues
fpitas
Master Contributor
The cows in the field don't seem to care.
Clearly anyone that cares about audio -and we're a weird bunch that probably constitutes less than 0.25% of the population- wants to achieve "accuracy". But is the accuracy point defined by a personal preference (let's call it the personal ideal sound profile) or accuracy to the signal that was recorded (sometimes well, but often poorly)? Is the ideal to stay a slave to the recording engineer, blindly trusting their setup as "the truth"? Or is the goal to run it through some manipulation to please the listener's fancy?
I think I have a strong preference for neutral delivery, and yet sometimes the curse is... if I listen analytically to something, I think "wow, this is yet another recording engineer on crack". You can shake your head and snap out of analytical listening mode, but then there's the approach of purposedly coloring it so you don't need to do it. Which is especially true if one is into a certain type and genre. I have often used the example of my friend with a system that consists of -no brands named- a great tube amplifier combined with very sensitive speakers that are an acquired taste... unless you listen to Chopin. Then the combo is pure magic. Not accurate to the recording. But probably -and I know this is a stretch, because I have zero way to prove the point- accurate to the vision Chopin would have had, of it being as mellifluous and sweet as possible, it just "flowing" organically. Yes, I got into that tricky creative wording here to describe emotion rather than numeric measurability.
To me, EQ with room correction is yet another tool we can use. Personally, I'd recommend audio hobbyists try it out to establish differences and whether those matter to them. It is very cool to establish what a capably accurate tool recommends you pay attention to. And everybody can have very different takeaways, ranging from "I hate the corrected result" to "oh this helps a little" to "yes, this is exactly what I was looking for".
Audio discussions -like any other discussion- go to h*ll when people go "unless you do exactly what I do, you're an uneducated philistine that knows nothing". I would recommend people try out a room correction run, but I'd also completely accept when someone says they're totally happy with their stuff and don't think they need it. But don't go upgrading cables to optimize your system if you claim the latter, please. :-D
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,936
- Likes
- 38,503
To illustrate, I am cleaning up my shop. It's a basement. Man-cave I guess.
I am redoing simple wall treatment, removing the Helmholtz traps I have because they were lame. This is all in preparation for finishing up my latest DIY speaker build, and surviving the winter!
The basement's acoustics are are what the are, dominated by 10.4 x 8.2 meter dimensions and concrete walls, with a room for the house mechanicals and a washroom in the middle of the basement.
The mechanical room and washroom are not my biggest challenge to getting good sound with a simple setup. The modal frequencies are due to the room dimensions. My room isn't bad, nor is it good, and I can certainly get good sound despite the issues so long as I understand and manage the issues, or get very lucky. I wish to place a pair of speakers where the room issues are in control and I get somewhat smooth bass response. I want it to fit in with the aesthetic choices I have made (it's a basement! irony...
). And I want to do it without moving the setup around since it is cumbersome.
One of the design choices is the credenza for my collection of semi-useful HiFi artifacts:
First, I want to see what the response of the Genelec speaker setup* is in the position in the above picture:
*I use the term setup similar to Klippel e.g. changing position of speaker or microphone, room, etc.
The actual in-room response is massively different than Amir's estimate! I can see why nobody would ever want to see a measurement, looking at this response is depressing!
The high frequency issues I will address with treatment, and with some advice of other ASR members with more experience on this topic. But the low frequency deviations are massive, clearly audible, more or less depending on recording. Not what we worked for or expected. Note that this is just one mic position at the MLP, capturing pink noise with an Real Time Analyzer. I could have integrated over the MPL with moving mic method, which is a better way to do this measurement, but this illustrates the general idea.
I also get fantastic visibility to my listening environment just measuring ambient. The red and black traces below are measurements as the refrigerator came on:
The thing is so sensitive, I can discern each electrical or mechanical object in the basement by the different spectra... water heater (low freq), freezer, refrigerator, outside traffic (more low freq). Even my fanless laptop can be detected if it is too close to the mic! I detect and eliminate rattles too.
First order after seeing the shocking response, are my speakers broken? I replaced the Genelecs with a few different subs I had lying around. A Seas 10" with passive radiator, 10" Seas sealed, and a JBL 15" sealed, all with no DSP or EQ of any kind.
Here is the Genelec vs. the Seas 10" with passive radiator in the same place, the response isn't the speaker it's the room:
The Seas sub goes deeper than the 8361, has less midbass energy above 120Hz, and less of a null at 90Hz (due to the sub being on the ground). But the peaks at 34Hz and 17Hz are intrinsic to the long dimension of the room, the 40Hz null and subsequent peak are due to a conspiracy of the short and the long dimensions! I tested four different subs in the same place, all with no crossover or EQ.
They all have the same irregularities even if they have different frequency responses! The Genelec avoids energizing the 17Hz node due to the steep rolloff (evident in Amir's measurements). The 2216Nd has different midbass response, but this is expected from the frequency response of this driver in a cabinet with no filters. The notch in the response at 40Hz and peak at 50Hz is going to be noticeable. So the Genelec isn't broken (unless you don't like their sound!) My room will break anything, as will most of our rooms. I have a sub with response to 17 Hz that is problematic in this room without a notch filter at the lowest room mode. That is another topic.
Since the Seas sub with the passive radiator is fine for exploring room modes, I am going to use it to explore a bunch of speaker locations to try to see if I can find an acceptable compromise in my basement that doesn't energize the peak at 50Hz, and perhaps mitigate the null at 40Hz. After all, this is what we do when we put speakers in a room, we move them around in an attempt to find the best location within our ability and tolerance!
With that goal and the sub on wheels, I explore a few potential speaker locations across my listening area. Position 6 is where the above measurements were taken.
And as it turns out position 6 and position 10 have complimentary response profile across listening position:
It's no coincidence that these two places are the best compromise since I had taken measurements of the entire room before lugging in that credenza and the the speakers and electronics! I made the original measurements in less than an hour, strolling around with a microphone and an ugly subwoofer on wheels. The other option is to try setup after setup, which I don't find productive.
Here is the un-EQ'ed response of the Genelecs in those two places (locations 6 and 10), left, right, and both speakers combined:
The combined response (black trace) better than either left or right. It still has too much 35Hz energy, and not enough 80-100Hz but both of those problems are manageable now that I know. My room will present a problem for even the most powerful speakers in the 20-50Hz region no matter what I do unless I place the speakers wisely. So will most people's rooms.
Once fairly good positioning, what next? DSP is one option. In my case, I like subwoofers with the main goal to further smooth response by more evenly energizing the room modes I just measured. And get deeper bass.
At that point I can iron out remaining peaks fairly gently with DSP which I find quite manageable.
I am redoing simple wall treatment, removing the Helmholtz traps I have because they were lame. This is all in preparation for finishing up my latest DIY speaker build, and surviving the winter!
The basement's acoustics are are what the are, dominated by 10.4 x 8.2 meter dimensions and concrete walls, with a room for the house mechanicals and a washroom in the middle of the basement.
The mechanical room and washroom are not my biggest challenge to getting good sound with a simple setup. The modal frequencies are due to the room dimensions. My room isn't bad, nor is it good, and I can certainly get good sound despite the issues so long as I understand and manage the issues, or get very lucky. I wish to place a pair of speakers where the room issues are in control and I get somewhat smooth bass response. I want it to fit in with the aesthetic choices I have made (it's a basement! irony...
). And I want to do it without moving the setup around since it is cumbersome.One of the design choices is the credenza for my collection of semi-useful HiFi artifacts:
First, I want to see what the response of the Genelec speaker setup* is in the position in the above picture:
*I use the term setup similar to Klippel e.g. changing position of speaker or microphone, room, etc.
The actual in-room response is massively different than Amir's estimate! I can see why nobody would ever want to see a measurement, looking at this response is depressing!
The high frequency issues I will address with treatment, and with some advice of other ASR members with more experience on this topic. But the low frequency deviations are massive, clearly audible, more or less depending on recording. Not what we worked for or expected. Note that this is just one mic position at the MLP, capturing pink noise with an Real Time Analyzer. I could have integrated over the MPL with moving mic method, which is a better way to do this measurement, but this illustrates the general idea.
I also get fantastic visibility to my listening environment just measuring ambient. The red and black traces below are measurements as the refrigerator came on:
The thing is so sensitive, I can discern each electrical or mechanical object in the basement by the different spectra... water heater (low freq), freezer, refrigerator, outside traffic (more low freq). Even my fanless laptop can be detected if it is too close to the mic! I detect and eliminate rattles too.
First order after seeing the shocking response, are my speakers broken? I replaced the Genelecs with a few different subs I had lying around. A Seas 10" with passive radiator, 10" Seas sealed, and a JBL 15" sealed, all with no DSP or EQ of any kind.
Here is the Genelec vs. the Seas 10" with passive radiator in the same place, the response isn't the speaker it's the room:
The Seas sub goes deeper than the 8361, has less midbass energy above 120Hz, and less of a null at 90Hz (due to the sub being on the ground). But the peaks at 34Hz and 17Hz are intrinsic to the long dimension of the room, the 40Hz null and subsequent peak are due to a conspiracy of the short and the long dimensions! I tested four different subs in the same place, all with no crossover or EQ.
They all have the same irregularities even if they have different frequency responses! The Genelec avoids energizing the 17Hz node due to the steep rolloff (evident in Amir's measurements). The 2216Nd has different midbass response, but this is expected from the frequency response of this driver in a cabinet with no filters. The notch in the response at 40Hz and peak at 50Hz is going to be noticeable. So the Genelec isn't broken (unless you don't like their sound!
) My room will break anything, as will most of our rooms. I have a sub with response to 17 Hz that is problematic in this room without a notch filter at the lowest room mode. That is another topic.Since the Seas sub with the passive radiator is fine for exploring room modes, I am going to use it to explore a bunch of speaker locations to try to see if I can find an acceptable compromise in my basement that doesn't energize the peak at 50Hz, and perhaps mitigate the null at 40Hz. After all, this is what we do when we put speakers in a room, we move them around in an attempt to find the best location within our ability and tolerance!
With that goal and the sub on wheels, I explore a few potential speaker locations across my listening area. Position 6 is where the above measurements were taken.
And as it turns out position 6 and position 10 have complimentary response profile across listening position:
It's no coincidence that these two places are the best compromise since I had taken measurements of the entire room before lugging in that credenza and the the speakers and electronics! I made the original measurements in less than an hour, strolling around with a microphone and an ugly subwoofer on wheels. The other option is to try setup after setup, which I don't find productive.
Here is the un-EQ'ed response of the Genelecs in those two places (locations 6 and 10), left, right, and both speakers combined:
The combined response (black trace) better than either left or right. It still has too much 35Hz energy, and not enough 80-100Hz but both of those problems are manageable now that I know. My room will present a problem for even the most powerful speakers in the 20-50Hz region no matter what I do unless I place the speakers wisely. So will most people's rooms.
Once fairly good positioning, what next? DSP is one option. In my case, I like subwoofers with the main goal to further smooth response by more evenly energizing the room modes I just measured. And get deeper bass.
At that point I can iron out remaining peaks fairly gently with DSP which I find quite manageable.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
No. It's science. And you do you. Just don't expect to be convincing many of your non-scientific ways in here.
I love this website but it is not religion. Be always emancipated. Science is a neverending discovery journey and never ever an endgame.
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
I never said it was. But it's based upon what can be measured and verified. Not feelings.
I also described that I use DSP room EQ of course, but this elaborates at another level.
Seriously concrete room though, to my ear/estimation more than EQ will be required bring the reverb times down to acceptable levels (for me, some people won't care).
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Likes
- 3,130
I find it remarkable that Mathaudio Room EQ still is not tested on ASR. Dominikz is the only one who did a comparison test in 2020. For a free DSP software solution (more or less APO & REW in one) running on the most used free media player Foobar2000 here on ASR it's remarkable that this excellent piece of software is not tested /compared more. Guess it is not Sexy enough
Comparison of DRCs: Dirac Live for Studio, IK Multimedia ARC System 3 and Sonarworks Reference 4 Studio edition
That is a massive suck out between 50-100Hz, I don't think that can really be cured by any EQ....I think the solution would involve room sound treatments or rearranging speaker & listening position in the room. You are right - that would be the best solution. However it is not an option for me...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Last edited:
I'd say it depends on what personal goals are. But I'd also say if one chose to be a subjectivist first and foremost, ASR may not be the gentlest forum for them. Even though I think we're all subjectivists in the end. And I repeat - I think room correction a totally worthwhile exercise, before this comment is taken out of context.
Yes, and has a calibration file for that config. Which is what I used for the measurements. The picture was supposed to dramatically show off my cave and pile of speakers!
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,128
- Likes
- 19,766
Yes, and has a calibration file for that config. Which is what I used for the measurements. The picture was supposed to dramatically show off my cave and pile of speakers!
Indeed.
As suggested earlier, I think the post like you made weren't what the OP was looking for in terms of discussion.
That said, you have a truly enviable bunch o' speakers, I love your enthusiasm, and you have provided some fantastic contributions to the site in terms of posting and discussing your measurements!
Thanks.
To the OP's topic (hopefully). I hope the measurements, despite a bit specific, are useful to understand what we all grapple with. No matter how simple or complicated our approach, we all have these location and room dependent peaks and valleys. My personal goal is to get the setup as close as possible. I use subs to get smoother bass response than I can with just two mains, again with the help of the measurements. The measurements really help me in my experience, at the very least I can narrow down places where speakers make sense rapidly, and unless I am dealing with really wonky speakers I can consistently get close to a good starting point.
