How Many Here Season to Taste?

[DSJR]

Hmmm - in recent times I've had to wait for my ears to 'season themselves back to where they'd been,' before reproduced music via speakers became tolerable in any shape, form or whatever.

Treasure your hearing folks and don't fuss too much with the gear, as the MUSIC is what counts, the gear a tool to titilate all the senses, from visuals to tactile responses oh and yes, reproduction as well

 

[Keith_W]

There seem to be an implied assumption here that accurate response and personal taste has to differ?

It's not an invalid question. Toole himself asked this and had to do a study to prove it. His conclusion was, most people preferred an "accurate" response - i.e. a speaker that measures flat under anechoic conditions. But Toole's sample size was small, and he didn't use many speakers. I am sure the same conclusion would be reached if there was a large enough sample size, but I am also sure it would show a bell shaped curve that studies like these have a tendency to show.

Then there are all the individual factors outside of study parameters. Some people might have hearing loss. Some might have bright, minimally furnished rooms. Some might like certain types of music. For example, a lot of Cantopop seems to have a U-shaped mastering, a lot of fizz at the top and bass which makes it sound impressive. I am unfortunate enough to know a lot of people who like this kind of music, so I am subjected to this unique form of torture all the time.

Toole also said that it's OK to apply "broad, low Q, tone-control" like equalization to tame such recordings. So that's what I do. I have different EQ profiles, with different tilts. 90% of the time I am at "neutral", but every now and then someone will tell me they think it sounds too bright or too bass heavy. So I push a button, switch DSP profiles, and they are happy.

There are two factors at play here - in one scenario, listeners may not like an accurate profile. In the other, they want an accurate profile but the recording does not supply it. In both cases, some way to apply additional "seasoning" can make them happy. Ultimately that's what music is for

 

[Anton S]

You don't have to worry about my happiness. I am not sure what you are after with your poll, but if you're not worried about these nuances, that's up to you of course.

I appreciate your permission. It means so much to me.

 

[Anton S]

Just to clarify for those whose interest in my question extends beyond simply throwing rocks, "seasoning" may include adjusting parameters beyond the frequency domain, such as dynamic range and phase manipulations.

 

[Mort]

I can't make sense of the question options, but I always considered very wide directivity speakers to be 'seasoning' the sound. It's a sound I like, but I can hear it.

 

[Blue Shadow]

One preamp, no adjustments, system played as it is

Other preamp, tone, variable loudness, used with loudness just slightly on.

I don’t want to spend all my time trying to get the eq or tone control units set to the best so these are rarely in the system.

I spent my time putting the speakers where they sound best.

I just want my system to sound good and I do say it doesn’t suck. Sure it could be better but I’m happy with the noise it makes, now.

Can I stay even though I don’t strive for the flattest response from the system?

 

[bluefuzz]

I'm not sure I really understand what OP means by seasoning. I calibrate my system with Dirac and that's that. There are recordings which may, due to some technical limitations, be too bright or too bassy and so for which I have Dirac presets with varying slopes. But for 99% of my listening I stay on the default middle slope. Is that 'seasoning' ...?

 

[bluefuzz]

"seasoning" may include adjusting parameters beyond the frequency domain, such as dynamic range and phase manipulations.

Well, a calibration using some kind of manual or automated digital room correction (Dirac et al.) will probably include some kind of phase manipulation. So in that sense yes. If you mean manually adding phase effects or compression/expansion 'by ear' then emphatically no ...

 

[sigbergaudio]

I appreciate your permission. It means so much to me.

Got out on the wrong side of the bed?

 

[Fledermaus]

Once anechoically flat enough and room modes more or less tamed, what I allow myself to adjust by ear is a +/- 300 Hz, low-Q, low-shelf - I like my bass seasoned to taste.

 

[antcollinet]

Can I stay even though I don’t strive for the flattest response from the system?

Of course. No-one* here says "you must do it this way". We accept that what works for one might not for another.

*actually some might - but they can largely be ignored.


Small print
Though you will get some valid objections if you start to promote your version of subjectivity as universal truth.

 

[Mnyb]

There seem to be an implied assumption here that accurate response and personal taste has to differ?

yes but its a squishy quagmire of compromises i simply does not listen loud enough so a little lift in the bass makes it more engaging for me .

And my fumbling attempt of measurements may not be perfect , what i think is accurate is actually not ? that also possible .

So i might fiddle with an imperfect measured response and make it more neutral who knows

I also recently made a very shallow low Q ( 0.6 ) drop at 2kHz at about 0.4 dB made voices a bit softer on my LS60

 

[Mnyb]

Of course. No-one* here says "you must do it this way". We accept that what works for one might not for another.

*actually some might - but they can largely be ignored.


Small print
Though you will get some valid objections if you start to promote your version of subjectivity as universal truth.

+1 the weird hardline idea that one must be a purist and forsaken tone controls etc is a thing they can do at the usual voodoo audiophile sites .
Tone control deniers are interesting , they try anything not a tone control like NOS DAC's tubes exotic cables et al I want to sneak up to them and whisper " tone control" .

Many "purist" system ive heard are in fact not neutral at all plonking exotic speakers into a room does not do that , a pair of modern B&W for example would need EQ to become neutral in the firts place

ASR helps with understanding with that understanding in mind you can relax a bit and have fun with your hifi system

The "purist" mob have removed all functionality from for example preamps ? Mono balance and tone controls sub sonic filter mm mc etc all maner of practical stuff to make it easy to live with tonally abhorrent recordings . Tonaly recordings are everywhere sometimes you need to apply something .

The rags like TAS , Stereophile et all should have spent time testing those function and demanded improvement instead of a bypass button ? Mfg got away with rather shoddy implemetations and those who did good got no cred for it ?

But we live in a golden age PEQ everywhere enjoy !

 

[OldTimer]

If it’s adjusted automatically by the system then I won’t refuse it. I only want to enjoy listening to a music.

 

[sigbergaudio]

yes but its a squishy quagmire of compromises i simply does not listen loud enough so a little lift in the bass makes it more engaging for me .

And my fumbling attempt of measurements may not be perfect , what i think is accurate is actually not ? that also possible .

So i might fiddle with an imperfect measured response and make it more neutral who knows

I also recently made a very shallow low Q ( 0.6 ) drop at 2kHz at about 0.4 dB made voices a bit softer on my LS60

Yes, I think it will often be difficult to know at home which response is truly "accurate" for that specific system and room. Not sure what the definition of accurate is in this poll.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes, I think it will often be difficult to know at home which response is truly "accurate" for that specific system and room. Not sure what the definition of accurate is in this poll.

As a home listener you basically always find yourself without an reference, I try to judge tonality by comparing with my headphones.

Ideally someone would roll up a perfectly done studio control room beside my home

Therefore I try not to worry to much all the time , ”when in gear shopping mode” I can slip into some obsessive behavior , but make a conscious effort to enjoy the music otherwise

 

[Mart68]

My 'seasoning' only amounts to the loudspeaker choice and the room furnishings and treatment. The speakers are anechoically flat but I've never measured in the room.

I have played with various PEQ settings by ear but always go back to no adjustment.

So there's no poll option for me.

Apart from a couple of compilation albums that have been remastered to remove all dynamic range, nothing I listen to sounds bad; the vast majority of the recordings I own sound from good to outstanding. Where else do I need to be?

 

[Cote Dazur]

squishy quagmire of compromises

Thank you for this, I will keep it in mind, as for me, this is what our hobby is about.
As for the OP question, I do seasoning by moving speakers and seat around, once that is done ,it is what it is, my only seasoning post speaker placement is more or less SPL.

 

[Anton S]

Yes, I think it will often be difficult to know at home which response is truly "accurate" for that specific system and room. Not sure what the definition of accurate is in this poll.

With all of the software available these days, including REW, which is completely free (not counting the modest price of a compatible microphone), it's fairly easy to check any system's in-room performance. Frequency response, phase, RT60, etc are all available for the viewing.

For those unable or unwilling set up and run something like REW, the automated room EQ built into a lot of electronics these days will at least provide before and after frequency response plots. Most of those don't actually measure the results, but they typically provide fairly good approximations. As I expected, a few of the responses posted here indicate that there are members who adopt the "Father knows best" approach with respect to the results they've obtained, and that's fine. Similarly, I was not surprised to learn that there are some who have no idea what the objective in-room performance of their systems is.

I presumed, perhaps erroneously, that at least the majority of members here have generated some sort of response graph, and therefore know the in-room response of their systems. This is, after all, Audio SCIENCE Review, not Audiogon. Fortunately, most who responded to my poll had no difficulty understanding what I meant by "accurate." But, as always seems to be the case here, someone invariably jumps in to sidetrack the thread. Most unfortunate.

 

[sigbergaudio]

With all of the software available these days, including REW, which is completely free (not counting the modest price of a compatible microphone), it's fairly easy to check any system's in-room performance. Frequency response, phase, RT60, etc are all available for the viewing.

For those unable or unwilling set up and run something like REW, the automated room EQ built into a lot of electronics these days will at least provide before and after frequency response plots. Most of those don't actually measure the results, but they typically provide fairly good approximations. As I expected, a few of the responses posted here indicate that there are members who adopt the "Father knows best" approach with respect to the results they've obtained, and that's fine. Similarly, I was not surprised to learn that there are some who have no idea what the objective in-room performance of their systems is.

I presumed, perhaps erroneously, that at least the majority of members here have generated some sort of response graph, and therefore know the in-room response of their systems. This is, after all, Audio SCIENCE Review, not Audiogon. Fortunately, most who responded to my poll had no difficulty understanding what I meant by "accurate." But, as always seems to be the case here, someone invariably jumps in to sidetrack the thread. Most unfortunate.

So when you look at an in-room performance in REW (I assume you mean a measurement in the listening position), how do you know that it is accurate?

And if you forgive me for further sidetracking (?) the thread, can you share what you did mean by "accurate" (since you have still not provided a definition, unless I missed it)?