Has DSP turned us into audio neurotics? [rant]

[Multicore]

[rant]
As I remember my days as a college student, there was always some rich kid with a fabulous stereo. It would be a pair of AR 2a's, maybe a Phase Linear amp, a Dynaco preamp (or maybe Pioneer receiver). You get the idea. Speakers went wherever they fit in a dorm cubicle room, not a thought about acoustics or much else. We all thought it sounded fabulous! Fast forward a few years later as we advanced to fancier stuff. McIntosh! KEF! Maybe Magneplaners for the oddballs. Still, little thought about acoustics except to do the best you could. If you were fancy maybe some kind of equalizer. But no SPL sweeps, no waterfalls, measurements, none of that. Somehow we still managed and enjoyed the results. Who had the ability to obsess about a 1/8 octive 10dB null at 74Hz?

Fast forward to now. DSP now allows us to tweak to a degree previously unimaginable. Pefection seems theoreticaly attainable, though perhaps always just out of reach. Is this creating a new cohort of audio neurotics? Are we tweaking things that we never heard before, or didn't care, just cause we can? I'm finding myself increasingly drawn into the DSP rabbit hole (I refer to 2ch, HT/video is another matter). This distrubs me, cause I think my system already sounds damn good. The perfect has become the enemy of the good. God save us all.
[/rant]

I don't feel neurotic about it. I haven't adjusted anything on either system except for the volume and loudness for over two years.

 

[pablolie]

The definition of neurotic is always having a negative feeling like self doubt and anxiety and such. I hope no one really goes to those extremes. Even the worst system I ever head allowed me to listen to music and experience some pleasure.
And I have learned in my now long life that I rank contentment higher than passing peaks of ecstatic happiness.

 

[goat76]

As stated in the cited post: "... the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz." (Emphasis added).

What if someone does not have a typical room? My room must not be typical - my in-room response certainly is not "quite linear" above 500 Hz.

I wonder how many people advocating against DSP have really spent a significant amount of time experimenting with it in their system. Now, it certainly is not for the crowd that wants to plug and play, but for those who enjoy the process (or at least don't mind it), it can be a very good option. I have had good results. In that regard, I do not foresee myself ever again not using DSP unless I have a room specifically treated to provide an optimal acoustic environment, and I have speakers that are very neutral both on and off axis.

If anyone wants to hear the results, reach out to me.

The room curve is just an example of how it can look like a typical room with a "well-behaved" loudspeaker, but it should never be used as a target and that goes for your "not-so-typical" room as well. But that is what you do, you use it as a target and that's where you go wrong (even if it may give you a better result than not doing any adjustments at all).

If you know that your loudspeakers are very neutral both on and off-axis, you should just simply ignore how the in-room response looks in the range above 400-500 Hz no matter how bumpy it is. At least that's what the science says, we are supposed to hear through the room as our hearing puts more emphasis on the direct sound and treats the reflections as secondary sounds.

 

[terryforsythe]

The room curve is just an example of how it can look like a typical room with a "well-behaved" loudspeaker, but it should never be used as a target and that goes for your "not-so-typical" room as well. But that is what you do, you use it as a target and that's where you go wrong (even if it may give you a better result than not doing any adjustments at all).

If you know that your loudspeakers are very neutral both on and off-axis, you should just simply ignore how the in-room response looks in the range (400-500 Hz) no matter how bumpy it is. At least that's what the science says, we are supposed to hear through the room as our hearing puts more emphasis on the direct sound and treats the reflections as secondary sounds.

Are you an engineer or scientist that has working experience in audio? Have you yourself spent a significant amount of time experimenting with DSP?

Science always is evolving. With regard to the science you refer, I wonder of the acoustic characteristics of the rooms in which the experiments were conducted. Do you know?

I know the results I have achieved using DSP in my system in my room. DSP has improved my system performance both objectively and subjectively. The largest improvements are bass response (objective) and better focused imaging. Imaging is subjective, but the frequency responses of the left and right channels are much more tightly correlated with one another as measured at the listening position, which improves imaging.

EDIT: Also, using DSP for the crossovers provides a number of benefits over using passive crossovers. Most speakers use inductors, which add resistance to the circuit. That resistance reduces the damping factor, thus reducing control of the amplifier at controlling overshoot of the drivers. This mostly is a concern with woofers, and it is audible. Also, reasonably priced speakers oftentimes use steel core inductors, which have both eddy current losses and hysteresis losses, both of which increase both with increasing frequency and increasing magnetizing force. This negatively effects the signals and it is audible, especially in the upper midrange.

 

[DLS79]

If you know that your loudspeakers are very neutral both on and off-axis, you should just simply ignore how the in-room response looks in the range (400-500 Hz) no matter how bumpy it is. At least that's what the science says, we are supposed to hear through the room as our hearing puts more emphasis on the direct sound and treats the reflections as secondary sounds.

Imo, that's bad advise without a lot of caveats. In small rooms untreaded rooms you can get a base boost in some scenarios, and you might need a cut in the lower frequencies.

 

[goat76]

Are you an engineer or scientist that has working experience in audio? Have you yourself spent a significant amount of time experimenting with DSP?

Science always is evolving. With regard to the science you refer, I wonder of the acoustic characteristics of the rooms in which the experiments were conducted. Do you know?

I know the results I have achieved using DSP in my system in my room. DSP has improved my system performance both objectively and subjectively. The largest improvements are bass response (objective) and better focused imaging. Imaging is subjective, but the frequency responses of the left and right channels are much more tightly correlated with one another as measured at the listening position, which improves imaging.

Do I really have to be a scientist or a working audio engineer, isn't it enough to understand what Toole says about the matter?
I have been recording my music and have experimented with digital signal processing almost every day for the last 10 years, if that is good enough. (I don't really see the importance of this)

Yes, science is always evolving, but the thing that has not evolved is the way microphones work, and how differently they work compared to our hearing.
A microphone picks up everything as if they are equally important no matter if it's the direct sound from the source, or reflected sounds from the room. But that's not how our hearing works as it puts more emphasis on the direct sound, and treats the reflected sounds as secondary sounds.

You can easily test this by placing your recording microphone beside you while your lovely wife speaks to you from say a 3-meter distance. Listen carefully to how she sounds to you and compare that to the recorded sound of her voice (use headphones), notice how much of the direct sound you hear of her voice hearing her in real life compared to how dominating the room reflections are on the recording.

That simple little test is all that is needed to understand that our hearing will put way more emphasis on the direct sound from the loudspeakers, in comparison to the in-room measurement made by the microphone.

 

[goat76]

Imo, that's bad advise without a lot of caveats. In small rooms untreaded rooms you can get a base boost in some scenarios, and you might need a cut in the lower frequencies.

I’m talking about the response above 400-500 Hz, the adjustments for the frequency range below that should be based on the in-room measurements.

(I see that I made a typo and missed the word ‘above’ in the message you quoted if that makes a difference to you.)

 

[terryforsythe]

You can easily test this by placing your recording microphone beside you while your lovely wife speaks to you from say a 3-meter distance. Listen carefully to how she sounds to you and compare that to the recorded sound of her voice (use headphones), notice how much of the direct sound you hear of her voice hearing her in real life compared to how dominating the room reflections are on the recording.

That simple little test is all that is needed to understand that our hearing will put way more emphasis on the direct sound from the loudspeakers, in comparison to the in-room measurement made by the microphone.

I understand that, and it is true. But, reflections also matter, just not to the extent of direct sound. That is why people use room treatments, so that they can control the reflections. I don't have that luxury. So, instead, I use DSP and it helps. Does it help as much as room treatment? No. But it is better than completely ignoring the issue of asymmetric reflections.

 

[DLS79]

(I see that I made a typo and missed the word ‘above’ in the message you quoted if that makes a difference to you.)

It does, as context is very important when discussing this topic.

 

[Chrispy]

No, it was more a case of just not feeling the need - my L/C/R speakers go plenty deep for me, and not wanting the additional hassle of a subwoofer. I don’t like the look of subwoofers., I find the more boxes cluttering a space, hard to find a good place to put them at least in my room . But I finally did get around to buying two subwoofers to try with my music system. as mentioned earlier in the thread, I ultimately got rid of them.

But basic speaker coffins are aesthetically okay? Did you have good gear to integrate subs with ("music" system conjures little hope for that)?

 

[MattHooper]

But basic speaker coffins are aesthetically okay?

Of course! Speakers come in all sorts of designs.

I find that loudspeaker with a sleek, contemporary design and a beautiful wood finish can be a beautiful object, to my eyes far more attractive than your standard Big Black Box black subwoofer. I like the looks of my Joseph Audio

And Thiel 2.7 speakers:

Far more than trying to shove two of these homely things into the room as well:

Yuck.

Did you have good gear to integrate subs with

Yup. JL Audio CR1 crossover
2 JL Audio 110e subs
Dspeaker Anti mode for room/sub correction.

That’s as far as I was willing to go. I got a very seamless balance and nice flat bass.

Sorry, but I can't help but think that you never really got your subwoofers to interact seamlessly with your main speakers.

That’s part of the problem. I did actually get a nice seamless sound. Could it have been even better? I would guess with enough tweaking and more effort or different equipment sure. But that just tells me how much of a hassle it really is to “ redesign” a loudspeaker by integrating subwoofers.
I was only willing to go so far.

 

[Chrispy]

Of course! Speakers come in all sorts of designs.

I find that loudspeaker with a sleek, contemporary design and a beautiful wood finish can be a beautiful object, to my eyes far more attractive than your standard Big Black Box black subwoofer. I like the looks of my Joseph Audio

View attachment 396472

And Thiel 2.7 speakers:
View attachment 396475


Far more than trying to shove two of these homely things into the room as well:

Yuck.





Yup. JL Audio CR1 crossover
2 JL Audio 110e subs
Dspeaker Anti mode for room/sub correction.

That’s as far as I was willing to go. I got a very seamless balance and nice flat bass.



That’s part of the problem. I did actually get a nice seamless sound. Could it have been even better? I would guess with enough tweaking and more effort or different equipment sure. But that just tells me how much of a hassle it really is to “ redesign” a loudspeaker by integrating subwoofers.
I was only willing to go so far.

Meh still on the coffin boxes. Only so much better than the sub boxes.

 

[RichB]

Of course! Speakers come in all sorts of designs.

I find that loudspeaker with a sleek, contemporary design and a beautiful wood finish can be a beautiful object, to my eyes far more attractive than your standard Big Black Box black subwoofer. I like the looks of my Joseph Audio

View attachment 396472

And Thiel 2.7 speakers:
View attachment 396475


Far more than trying to shove two of these homely things into the room as well:

Yuck.





Yup. JL Audio CR1 crossover
2 JL Audio 110e subs
Dspeaker Anti mode for room/sub correction.

That’s as far as I was willing to go. I got a very seamless balance and nice flat bass.



That’s part of the problem. I did actually get a nice seamless sound. Could it have been even better? I would guess with enough tweaking and more effort or different equipment sure. But that just tells me how much of a hassle it really is to “ redesign” a loudspeaker by integrating subwoofers.
I was only willing to go so far.

Jim Salk made custom Rythmik dual 12" subwoofers to match my Salon2s.

So, it can be done

- Rich

 

[MattHooper]

Meh still on the coffin boxes. Only so much better than the sub boxes.

If you really don’t discern much difference ..,no accounting for taste

Are you the fella on here who just doesn’t like the look of audio gear? (I remember encountering an ASR remember saying essentially that but I can’t remember who.)

 

[MattHooper]

Jim Salk made custom Rythmik dual 12" subwoofers to match my Salon2s.

View attachment 396480

So, it can be done

- Rich

It’s nice that the sub has a good finish, but it still strikes me as ungainly looking. The set up would look much more sleek and neat with just the floorstanding speakers , without another big box with giant drivers like that sub. I find adding the subs makes it look cluttered, like when you go to an audio store and they have various speakers set up beside each other.

But that’s my taste.

 

[Chrispy]

If you really don’t discern much difference ..,no accounting for taste

Are you the fella on here who just doesn’t like the look of audio gear? (I remember encountering an ASR remember saying essentially that but I can’t remember who.)

I certainly don't put as much on the aesthetics of the boxes of electronics or transducers you do.....but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, eh?

 

[Descartes]

Maybe when all AVR and Processors incorporate generative AI they will be able to make the sound exactly as we want ask, without having to do anything!

 

[Chrispy]

Maybe when all AVR and Processors incorporate generative AI they will be able to make the sound exactly as we want ask, without having to do anything!

That still comes out as sounding frightening....

 

[RichB]

It’s nice that the sub has a good finish, but it still strikes me as ungainly looking. The set up would look much more sleek and neat with just the floorstanding speakers , without another big box with giant drivers like that sub. I find adding the subs makes it look cluttered, like when you go to an audio store and they have various speakers set up beside each other.

But that’s my taste.

Fair point.
For 2 channel, I listen to the Salon2s via Roon (DietPi) Benchmark: DAC3B, HPA4, AHB2s.

The subs are used for HT, but that represents most of the system use.
The Rythmik subs are very clean and are felt more than heard.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

Maybe when all AVR and Processors incorporate generative AI they will be able to make the sound exactly as we want ask, without having to do anything!

Or perhaps, it will get pissed that you keep asking for another optimization and find a way to kill you

- Rich