Is a totally flat speaker really what we want for home reproduction?

[TheBatsEar]

Have many of you lot listened to the same speaker in different domestic rooms? I'm not being patronising, but the flattest model will change its sound vastly depending on the room and positioning within it.

Use DSP and a few stretegically placed carpets.

Bearing in mind the above, my take is to try for speakers with the least added 'character' of their own if possible and then adjust them if possible to the room they're in. Not all of us can tinker hugely with room decor and furnishings unless we have a 'man cave' and shut ourselves away from the family for music listening.

True, very true.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Bearing in mind the above, my take is to try for speakers with the least added 'character' of their own if possible and then adjust them if possible to the room they're in.

yes...this is pretty much what most of us are talking about. Neutral speakers EQ'd for the room.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

When someone say I like bigger vocal, it is not gonna be flat respond earthing.

huh? "Bigger vocal" means turn up the frequencies in the vocal range. What does that have to do with buying speakers? I don't think a strategy of looking for speakers that emphasize the vocal range of frequencies is a particularly wise way to go. There's a lot of stuff that happens in that range that isn't vocals...why would anyone want that slapped on top of every recording they listen to?

 

[digitalfrost]

The ‘BBC dip’ turns out to be a persistent myth. There’s no evidence that it was ever deliberately incorporated into a BBC speaker design. It was at best as an unfortunate side-effect from persuing other design goals, or a deliberate degradation of speaker performance in order to simulate the poor speakers built into TVs.

Gundry Dip or BBC Dip?

Gundry Dip or BBC Dip?

hydrogenaud.io

There are still good reasons for it https://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm#H

Our hearing is very sensitive around this region

Everyone can easily test it for themselves it can make sound recordings much better.

 

[ADU]

In case anyone may be interested...

The Yamaha NS10 Story

Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and investigate why a monitor whose sound has been described as "horrible" became an industry standard.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[TheBatsEar]

That is why i am a proponent of mandatory variable loudness on all amps.

The Yamaha NS10 Story

Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and investigate why a monitor whose sound has been described as "horrible" became an industry standard.

www.soundonsound.com

It was used to have a prototypical "bad" speaker, like you would find at that time at the hat shelf of a car or inside a tape recorder. Make sure your mix doesn't disintegrate while listening to it on door speakers or other suboptimal hardware.

 

[kongwee]

huh? "Bigger vocal" means turn up the frequencies in the vocal range. What does that have to do with buying speakers? I don't think a strategy of looking for speakers that emphasize the vocal range of frequencies is a particularly wise way to go. There's a lot of stuff that happens in that range that isn't vocals...why would anyone want that slapped on top of every recording they listen to?

You can just buy speaker doing that and lots of them, and components that contribute more without eqing.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You can just buy speaker doing that and lots of them, and components that contribute more without eqing.

Why would anyone do that?? I mean whatever floats your boat, but as a general strategy for putting a system together it's pretty bizarre.

 

[Mart68]

Why would anyone do that?? I mean whatever floats your boat, but as a general strategy for putting a system together it's pretty bizarre.

It's a great strategy if you want lots of your recordings to sound harsh and bright, and then you want to spend a small fortune on interconnects, power cables, mains purifiers and other tat trying in vain to fix it.

 

[Killingbeans]

I don't get it either. It's still just a form of EQing. But the most cumbersome one imaginable.

Seems to be the backbone of the hobby for a lot of people though, so I can respect it as a kind of enjoyable waste of time. Just not my bag.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I don't get it either. It's still just a form of EQing. But the most cumbersome one imaginable.

Exactly. "Rather than simply apply this single, small boost to the vocal frequencies with this free parametric EQ, I'm going to spend endless time and money buying a stream of different speakers and components to achieve the same goal but with less individual control."

 

[Mart68]

Anytime I see a speaker review and it mentions that they were 'designed by ear' I think 'F-me, run a mile!'.

But in audiophile circles it's considered to be a good thing. Sometimes it's astonishing how wrong people can be.

 

[RobL]

I’ve begun to think that good directivity (i.e. off axis sound tonally similar to direct sound) is more important than perfectly flat FR. You can eq to taste (whatever target curve at LP you want) afterwards if directivity is good. My quite flat anechoic measuring speakers lose all semblance of that in my room.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Oh yeah good directivity is important too for sure. Perfectly flat response certainly isn't a hard necessity. It's just a good thing to try and shoot for. But a bit of variance from flat here and there isn't going to destroy the process - especially assuming some EQ work is going to be done in the end to smooth off the significant discrepancies...

 

[Vacceo]

Use DSP and a few stretegically placed carpets.


True, very true.

Rockwool (or similar) on walls, Ikea Kallax with a gazillon books and grandma´s thick wool carpet are, most of the time, quite good and functional alternatives to super expensive bass traps and reflective pannels.

With good positioning of the speakers and a bit room correction, that will cover a lot of small and medium spaces.

 

[kongwee]

Why would anyone do that?? I mean whatever floats your boat, but as a general strategy for putting a system together it's pretty bizarre.

Go to audiophile show, the answer is there.

 

[Mart68]

Go to audiophile show, the answer is there.

I do and the best sound is always from the systems using properly engineered loudspeakers.

 

[kevinh]

Tone controls are a good thing if you listen to music from different eras. The best one I am aware of is the 'Master Class' essentially a rebranded software developed by Dick Burwen to replace his eq system 9which was the basis for the Cello Audio Palette).

Software – Daniel Hertz S.r.l.

Daniel Hertz Software | Master Class Software upgrades your digital music library to the sound and feeling of pure analog master tapes.

www.danielhertz.com

At the bottom of the page there are soem samples of songs that have been 'corrected' by the software.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Go to audiophile show, the answer is there.

ah yes, marketing and snake-oil. Of course.

 

[Killingbeans]

Go to audiophile show, the answer is there.

Huh? The acoustics at audiophile shows are mostly horrific, and they never match the ones in your listening space at home, so what useful answer would you actually get? Aesthetics, user interface and tactile experience, sure. But sound?