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

[Fongus]

I don't agree with the OP but to each his own.

After getting my Neumann KH 120 II DSP studio monitors and KH 750 DSP subs for nearfield and room correcting and aligning with the MA1 system, I don't think I can ever go back. All the correction settings are saved within the speakers/subwoofer's DSP so there's no additional outboard gear nor computer-based software processing needed so what remains is still quite a simple setup after the initial measurements and it's a one and done thing.

I do understand this is Neumann's bespoke proprietary room correction system for their own products, so maybe that's why it works so well. I have not tried universal solutions like DIRAC, REW, EQ APO, etc. yet.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Much like in medicine, it’s often best not to touch what’s already working—invoking the principle of primum non nocere (first, do no harm).

The issue with anything affecting our senses is that it’s difficult to reach a consensus on what constitutes an actual improvement. The only real consensus we have comes from psychoacoustics, which tells us that some DSP tweaks that look "pretty" on screen are essentially inaudible. Conversely, a frequency response graph that looks ruler-flat can hide major problems in the time domain, like phase shifts or a loss of spatiality.

Just as self-medicating is ill-advised, we can fall into the same trap with DSP. We chase a pretty graph and succumb to confirmation bias, feeling satisfied that we have superior acoustics just because the measurement looks smooth.

On the other hand, you have the crowd that refuses to see the doctor. If you genuinely don't have symptoms, it’s valid not to go, but running a verification sweep every now and then to confirm reality doesn't hurt.

The hobby is becoming polarized between the subjectivists/purists who only want to tweak the classic elements (synergy between room, stylus, tubes, and cables) and the objectivists trying to correct every last dB with FIR filters and four subs, perfectly time-aligned and gain-matched via a calibrated mic.

To each their own—everyone should choose what makes them happy, as long as we respect one another.

 

[Geert]

The only real consensus we have comes from psychoacoustics, which tells us that some DSP tweaks that look "pretty" on screen are essentially inaudible. Conversely, a frequency response graph that looks ruler-flat can hide major problems in the time domain, like phase shifts or a loss of spatiality.

You’ve got things backwards.

 

[Fongus]

The issue with anything affecting our senses is that it’s difficult to reach a consensus on what constitutes an actual improvement. The only real consensus we have comes from psychoacoustics, which tells us that some DSP tweaks that look "pretty" on screen are essentially inaudible. Conversely, a frequency response graph that looks ruler-flat can hide major problems in the time domain, like phase shifts or a loss of spatiality.

With the MA1 software, there's ON and OFF tick box I can click to test with DSP correction and without so it's very easy to do sighted and unsighted comparisons and the difference is very much apparent.

The best thing about the MA1 is that it makes sub integration a breeze. Something I cannot simply do by ear. Along with the usual frequency LF and HP setup, it also performs time domain/phase alignment.

The correction/alignment process takes information from seven measurement microphone positions which I assume are used for averaging the corrections at the MLP so I don't end up with a very narrow sweet spot.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

With the MA1 software, there's ON and OFF tick box I can click to test with DSP correction and without so it's very easy to do sighted and unsighted comparisons and the difference is very much apparent.

The best thing about the MA1 is that it makes sub integration a breeze. Something I cannot simply do by ear. Along with the usual frequency LF and HP setup, it also performs time domain/phase alignment.

The correction/alignment process takes information from seven measurement microphone positions which I assume are used for averaging the corrections at the MLP so I don't end up with a very narrow sweet spot.

I have 2 subs, a MiniDSP digital with delays, crossovers, individual PEQ for each channel, 4 presets for different room corrections.
Preset 1 is No DSP and no subs.
The other presets implement different strategies (DBA, low volume loudness, front sub only…) and two of them include a final correction with Dirac Live filters. I do love room correction and I recommend DSP for people eager to learn how to improve the experience through digital strategies. But I also respect those who don’t want to get crazy as me with a microphone and they are happy with their gear just changing to new stylus.

Just to have fun I sometimes put preset 1 without any DSP and let the system play as default, and I also enjoy that sound without treatment, a bit rude, a bit more open and spacious due to echoes and non corrected room modes.

 

[Cote Dazur]

We chase a pretty graph and succumb to confirmation bias, feeling satisfied that we have superior acoustics just because the measurement looks smooth.

That is exactly where I stand at this point,

The hobby is becoming polarized between the subjectivists/purists who only want to tweak the classic elements (synergy between room, stylus, tubes, and cables) and the objectivists trying to correct every last dB with FIR filters and four subs, perfectly time-aligned and gain-matched via a calibrated mic

So, no, we are not polarized between objectivist and subjectivist, because we are all subjectivist, that we want it or not.

We are just different in belief and methods, we all judge the same way, our brain convincing ourselves that what we ear is good (or not good).

When measuring the final results, what we ear from our seat in our room, we get something with enough approximation that one needs to be seriously delusional to take it for more than a vague drawing of something that has been measured. Change the recording and see the graph show something very different, or better yet move the microphone slightly between measurements.

We all ear something that is highly variable.

Measuring null difference between cables to prove that it is impossible to ear a difference and confirming with a blind test. Yes, that is bullet proof and save people from spending stupid money on something totally bogus. That is objective.
Trying to measure what you ear with a microphone listening to music from where you sit in a given room and correcting it with a software, that is a completely different can of worms. Believing the result is objective, because measurement is involve, that is not objective.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

You’ve got things backwards.

Can you point out what you believe is backwards? I’m not trying to argue; I’d like us to align on the rationale behind each view.

 

[Geert]

Can you point out what you believe is backwards? I’m not trying to argue; I’d like us to align on the rationale behind each view.

The only real consensus we have comes from psychoacoustics, which tells us that some DSP tweaks that look "pretty" on screen are essentially inaudible. Conversely, a frequency response graph that looks ruler-flat can hide major problems in the time domain, like phase shifts or a loss of spatiality.

• Normally DRC won't make 'pretty looking tweaks' that are inaudible. Maybe some people who don't understand the theory do, but that's not to be generalized
• What science tells us is that variations in frequency response is what's the most audible. Things like phase much less, even close to not at all. See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...se-distortion-shift-matter-in-audio-no.24026/
• It's exactly with the correction of excess phase (caused by the room's reflections and boundaries), associated with poor imaging and spatiality, that DSP can do the most amazing things.

 

[pablolie]

These discussions often morph into the "all or nothing" argument. And for me, any extreme is flawed: it's as silly to think one can completely compensate for horrendous mistakes in equipment choices and positioning with DSP (how often do we see pictures of expensive equipment placed pathetically in a showoff room?), as is to categorically disregard DSP as an acoustic contamination or such.
The beauty is in shades of grey. For example, I know my room is pretty good and my main speakers are placed pretty much as perfectly as possible. But I used measurements to find the optimal position for the sub in my listening position (and it sounds pretty good anywhere), which is quite tricky to get right just by ear and walking around (which results in those little nagging, bothersome, little doubts we regulalry harbor as "audiophiles")...

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Ok, now I get your point and I completely agree with you.

It’s not DSPs fault but bad implementation due to ignorance. Automated DSP can lead you to a nice flat frecuency graph with higher reverberant nodes if you try to fill them.

My first attempt to Dirac Live made my system soundstage narrower with left balance and some resonance. First my ear and then REW confirmed that bad implementation. It was my fault, but without some intuition an a later check I could have been happy trusting that initial Dirac correction.

Now I use Dirac with great results. But there could be lots of audience trusting YPAO, Audyssey, Wiim correction and other automated softwares with the same problem.

Frequency is important but only reflects one spot reality. You should check more spots, left and right channels independtly, waterfall, step response, phase… there you can trust your implementation is correct.

For better or worse, our ears adapt to the room, allowing us to live in peace—either in blissful ignorance or simply accepting that our room isn’t perfect when we already know that some room modes remain or the speaker response is a bit uneven.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Not much time to go though each of the last posts and point out the flaws in argumentation, although some are so blatant e.g the "beautiful curves" and the "we are all subjectivists" types of arguments.

One of the thing about any tool, it is that the person using it must learn how to use it. The tool purposes are always known; how to reach the results, are a different issue. Same with DSP, it is a powerful tool that can help an audio system; DSP in the context of home audio reproduction and, when used properly. always bring objective improvement to the reproduction of the sound in a room. The degree of perceptibility, or preference , varies with the subject who may even prefer the non-correct result...
Still such preferences are explainable , by , yes you guess it: Science. Studies have shown, what characterizes for most humans, living on this planet, good sound and it seems to be independent of race, ethnicity or even age. I can't recall but there was studie by Olive, Toole IIRC, that pointed to that.
We are past the point where we could disagree that the room plays a major role in what we hear, and that reducing its effect, can only have a positive consequence on our enjoyment of a system. We all know that to reduce the room deleterious effects, we have at our disposal two main methods: DSP or mechanical/acoustical treatments.. A combination of both methods brings better results, true, unfortunately the acoustical/mechanical methods are seldom convenient or invisible .. This leaves the floor to DSP and today it is from cheap to free.

As for measurements, their purpose is not the beauty of some graph, but for assessment and repeatability. Our biological receptor can be trained, but they remain unreliable.. OTOH we must be educated to be able to form an opinion or even to enjoy the benefits of the tool, of DSP.

At some level I understand the value and allure of simplicity, but we should be very aware that what happen within our stereo system, is far from simple. I would surmise that the apparently simple process of amplifying a signal by transistor or tubes is as complex, perhaps more so than what happen within DSP... By the same token, the signal as inscribed into the medium ( a not simple process at that) from the medium, as soon as it comes out of transducer (which for the sake of argument we will deem perfect) is mangled degree of magnitudes by the room, sans DSP. Simplicity some are chasing does (cannot) not make the reproduced sound closer to the original signal on the medium. Far from it, and that, can be proven.

 

[krabapple]

DSP for low frequency modal peaks (and mild, wide 'troughs') was the missing link to far better in-room performance for any wide-range 'stereo' (or multi) system.

But feel free not to use it, you rebels you.

 

[Multicore]

We will have to wait and see if the torque from the weight of the rug on the front pulls it out.

So far it has been stable and seems secure.

 

[FletchAZ]

I've always considered myself an early adopter, perhaps even an avant-gardist, when it comes to hi-fi technology. Over the course of the hi-fi journey, there have been paradigm shifts – the transition to CDs, later embracing streaming, and the shift from bulky floor-standing speakers to sleek active monitors, just to name a few.

In my experience, I've found success in keeping my signal paths straightforward. I've been hesitant to transform my regular home listening environment into an acoustic laboratory with heavy computer usage or reliance on proprietary DSP products. Call me old-fashioned, but I value the simplicity of my setup.

Are there others out there who, like me, choose to forgo room correction, measurement microphones, and other sophisticated tools in favor of a more straightforward audio experience? I'd love to hear about your approaches, experiences, and the reasoning behind your decision.

Is simplicity still a virtue in the ever-evolving landscape of audio technology?

Yes and No. Simplicity, absolutely, but modern simplicity for me means 100% streaming in high res to KEF LS60s and a KEF KC62 subwoofer. Perfectly matched electronics with fully integrated room correction are part and parcel of the LS60s and contained in the speaker cabinets. 100 watts for each woofer, 100 watts for the midrange driver, 100 watts for the tweeter, and 1,000 watts for the woofer. The sound is clean, clear and delightful. Tweaking the room correction settings and the subwoofer crossover points took less than 5 minutes. Sacrilege? Not in today's world of technical advancement. Delirium? Not a bit. Do my audiophile friends using traditional, high quality, passive equipment like the sound? Absolutely! What does Stereophile say? Read it for yourself here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2024-edition-loudspeakers

 

[obsessive9119]

The TV system is more complex with 4 button presses just to get picture and sound

One of my big wins is getting this down to one button press: I turn on the Apple TV, which (via HDMI) turns on the TV. As soon as there’s any sound (like browsing through menus) the WiiM (connected via optical) triggers the amp on, and then the sub turns on once there’s anything playing.

Much more family friendly than anything else I’ve managed over the years. The only downside is that I need 2 remotes - the AppleTV one plus the WiiM remote for volume.

 

[Petrushka]

One of my big wins is getting this down to one button press: I turn on the Apple TV, which (via HDMI) turns on the TV. As soon as there’s any sound (like browsing through menus) the WiiM (connected via optical) triggers the amp on, and then the sub turns on once there’s anything playing.

Much more family friendly than anything else I’ve managed over the years. The only downside is that I need 2 remotes - the AppleTV one plus the WiiM remote for volume.

My Roku remote also controls the TV volume.

 

[obsessive9119]

My Roku remote also controls the TV volume.

So does the Apple Remote - the problem is that (most? at least my) TV doesn’t allow volume control via optical.

 

[Waxx]

Yes and No. Simplicity, absolutely, but modern simplicity for me means 100% streaming in high res to KEF LS60s and a KEF KC62 subwoofer. Perfectly matched electronics with fully integrated room correction are part and parcel of the LS60s and contained in the speaker cabinets. 100 watts for each woofer, 100 watts for the midrange driver, 100 watts for the tweeter, and 1,000 watts for the woofer. The sound is clean, clear and delightful. Tweaking the room correction settings and the subwoofer crossover points took less than 5 minutes. Sacrilege? Not in today's world of technical advancement. Delirium? Not a bit. Do my audiophile friends using traditional, high quality, passive equipment like the sound? Absolutely! What does Stereophile say? Read it for yourself here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2024-edition-loudspeakers

That is certainly simple in use once set up (and not to difficult to set up). But those speakers are so ugly in my book on looks that it would be a dealbreaker. This kind of setups (but maybe a better look) are a lot better for most than what the OP decribe altough. Kef has thought that well out, and minus subjective factors this is a good setup that is simple to operate for the end user, that is true.

I like a different style (bigger woofers and no build in amps mainly) and don't mind a bit complexity. Those very thin and tall metal speaker enclosures are absolute not my cup of tea (and problally you won't like my styling neighter, and that is ok).

 

[Mean & Green]

I recently decided to measure my speakers, subwoofer and room as a whole for the very first time. What have I learned?

Firstly the good! I’ve learned that I successfully tuned my subwoofer and speakers by ear. Yes folks it can be possible to tune by ear if you spend a lot of time and use music in which you are extremely familiar and be prepared to spend a couple of weeks of normal listening sessions making subtle adjustments until you don’t feel the need to adjust anymore. It takes that long as I know my perception changes day to day. I understand this is inconvenient in the modern world with the tools we now have at our disposal and if I was setting up a system in a room from scratch now I would measure to get myself somewhere near without endlessly rotating the same music tracks.

Comparing my sub ‘off’ to sub ‘on’ measurements shows my sub takes over where my mains tail off, I have the crossover correct everything is in phase the group delay seems excellent. I did all of that by ear, however there is a bad and that is a peak at around 57Hz which is obviously a room mode. In reality however this doesn’t present itself too often when listening to music and the system sounds far better with the sub active than it does with it turned off. I find my room really anaemic sounding with no subwoofer and this is with 3 different pairs of speakers that I have used in this room.

I may in the future add some DSP to my tape monitor loop. Yes my system is old school, with a fully analogue integrated amp, a CD player, a network streamer which doubles as a DAC for my TV, a turntable and a phono pre amp. I also have a Schiit Loki tone control connected to my tape loop because I like to reduce the 2KHz region on some (only some) material. Measurements do not show any problems at 2KHz or the surrounding frequencies. In fact my KEF Q750 have a small dip at 1.5KHz according to anechoic measurements. My in room responce shows a nice downward sloping response from bottom to top, yet my ears perceive an occasional sharpness with some recordings in my room that is not evident through headphones.

Which brings me onto my headphones. They got a headless panther rating here from Amir, yet I really enjoy them. They are the headphones that made me stop buying headphones. I am reaching a conclusion on my personal journey of being an audiophile - yes an audiophile! That doesn’t make me a snake oil drinker, or not understand what is fact and what is fiction.

For me personally the measurements matter most with electronics, electronics need to be transparent - I like the piece of mind that my electronics are not screwing with the signal before it gets to my transducers. Speakers and rooms are affected massively by personal differences in hearing and in tonal preference. I was concerned measuring my room would let me see all of the flaws and then I’d hear them, but the opposite is true I’m coming around to the thought I really don’t care that the room has a 57Hz peak and my headphones are headless panthers if my musical enjoyment is so high.

Measuring is important and helpful, but I think chasing a perfect room or headphone is futile because we may or may not like how that graph is actually is perceived by our own ear. I’m not poo pooing science either. I’m just realising that having measured for the first time and using my own perception that I’m happy with my system and how it sounds, regardless that it doesn’t measure perfectly in the room and my headphones are apparently terrible. I also like physical knobs and dials for tone control, rather than digital software the Schiit Loki Mini + is excellent for this on the fly type of adjustment.

I just thought I’d add to this to this thread following on from my previous posts within it.

 

[obsessive9119]

Measuring is important and helpful, but I think chasing a perfect room or headphone is futile because we may or may not like how that graph is actually is perceived by our own ear

I mean, the goal is always to get something you like listening to. Target curves for speakers and headphones are a good way to understand what the science says that people in general prefer, but it doesn’t mean you have to prefer it. Of course you can use the measurements to find speakers that fit your taste, even if it varies from the general preference.

Which headphones, btw? I have to admit that since discovering EQ and the Harman curve, then neutral headphones, the headphone collection I’d built up is mostly gathering dust. I guess I’m lucky in that my preference matches the general one.