tuga
Major Contributor
Well, you can't miss what you've never experienced
Indeed, life is to short not to enjoy what I have. FOMO is not my thing.
Well, you can't miss what you've never experienced
This post requires more information before it can be responded to thoughtfully.
Am interested, but please create another thread as is clearly off topic.
Thanks!
Rick
I have both. Multichannel is great for movies, but for music, 2-channel works very well. Actually, it is much better.Well, you can't miss what you've never experienced
I think the point is that if observations determined prior to measurement are consistent with the measurements it lends credibility to the reviewers critical listening abilities.I admit I don't really understand the fixation on listening before measuring. Like, I guess vice versa creates some bias? But so do 100 other things. You're still doing sighted tests, rendering your listening test questionable AT BEST...
If a reviewer tells me they listen before measuring I just think "So what? You eliminated 1 bias, what about the other 99?". it's just totally irrelevant.
That's perfectly fine but it doesn't negate there might be something out there you might enjoy even moreIndeed, life is to short not to enjoy what I have. FOMO is not my thing.
My understanding of M-Noise is that it's similar to pink noise up to 700hz or so. I don't know of any case in which any normal home/studio speaker would be SPL limited by frequencies above that. I think this is solving for an issue with how the dynamic capacity of extremely large PA/cinema speakers is measured. Not really a problem that we have.
I think that the 50dB-wide vertical scale is informative enough, it is more or less standard too.
Too much smoothing is common though, but that is not a problem with Amir's measurements.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying dynamic capability above 700hz(or 1khz really, theres little divergence by that point anyways) is not an issue, so M-Noise doesn't help much. You generally have to get into crazy multi-12" or 15" woofer designs before midrange and tweeter output become an issue. Those types of speakers are more like PA and commercial cinema designs, and only the absolute tiniest percentage of people really need them.I do think dynamic capability is a big problem for home audio...for two basic reasons.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying dynamic capability above 700hz(or 1khz really, theres little divergence by that point anyways) is not an issue, so M-Noise doesn't help much. You generally have to get into crazy multi-12" or 15" woofer designs before midrange and tweeter output become an issue. Those types of speakers are more like PA and commercial cinema designs, and only the absolute tiniest percentage of people really need them.
For the average cone and dome domestic loudspeaker(or comparable design), the woofer is going to fall apart long before any other driver. This is even more true with home theatre, where bass requirements are higher than with music. I would say most HT content requires at least +20dB in bass relative to 1khz output.
So I agree dynamic capapability in general is an issue, but that's primarily because we don't have any good conditions for test failure that have been shown to correlate with audible problems. The way we currently measure and depict distortion has no correlation with audible problems. M-Noise doesn't help with that problem, as it's just a test signal. We still need some kind of measurement(s) to judge failure that actually correlates with audible issues in a clear way.
I just start the measurement sweep for distortion, no more than a 1/2 octave below the speaker's intended xover point. Keeps there from being excessive garbage distortion down low.Along these lines, if a subwoofer is going to be used, how useful are some of distortion and dynamic capability measures based on full range signals? I would like to see some tests done with an appropriate cross-over for the speaker (or have every speaker use 80 Hz if easier). Particularly for the common 2-way bookshelf, but it would also apply to a lot of other speakers.
Since we can supposedly hear differences as little as 1 dB, why should we settle for visual representaion that is +/- 25 dB? Agree it is a standard, but does why allow tolerances way beyond component comprising other parts of the audio system?
Yes, many people can pick a +-1db level change in a steady tone. That changes rather drastically when you play two, non harmonically related tones. Most people won't pick out a much larger difference between the levels in that case. Thus while we hear the level change on a steady signal we really aren't very good at judging the relative loudness of differing parts of the audio spectrum.
That is to say that in yer average living room, frequency response variations are far less critical than most people think.
Here is a plot of my speakers in my living room taken with REW ... The scaling is set to 1db and 1/12 octave smoothing.
Notice how disastrously bad it looks... Really... how could anyone listen to THAT?
View attachment 205147
Well, when we adjust the same plot to more closely resemble what people actually hear ... with 0db at the bottom of the chart and the active trace at about half of full scale and then use psychoacoustic smoothing... we get this... and, that is pretty much what I hear in the room ... nice even sound, a bit of punch to the bass, some sub bass activity and gently rolled down highs... perfect for my ears!
View attachment 205149
Keep in mind it's the same measurement... all I did was adjust the scale and smoothing to more closely resemble human hearing.
If I did not tell you those are the same measurement of the same speakers ... which would you prefer?
Here are some test tones you can play with... all are equal volume at -10dbfs...
Your average customer can follow a line on a graph .... but they have no way of equating that with what they are actually hearing. If you present them with a "loudness curve" instead, most will look at it and go 'Wow... that's better than I expected" and most can follow the tones to confirm that's pretty much what they are hearing.I think it would be a mistake to shrink the scale and make the deviations more detailed. People are already struggling to understand what they're seeing, and assuming this and that without knowing how to interpret the graphs.
Thanks, this is comparable to my original point (from a different perspective).
The question is what value is the visual representation for comparison? They clearly do no sound any different. I suggest both have value for different reasons.
That's the thing ... I mean no offence to anyone... but sometimes the engineers do get lost in detail and minutia that the average listener can't discern and probably shouldn't care about.
I think it would be a mistake to shrink the scale and make the deviations more detailed. People are already struggling to understand what they're seeing, and assuming this and that without knowing how to interpret the graphs.
Maybe but suggest it really depends on who the "People" are.
Am not in favor of dumbing down for the lowest common denominator but can see why the manufacturers seem to go there. IMO, it should not be an excuse to not have some way for more technical folk to get more detailed information.