Passive speakers, separate boxes...help me understand the appeal

[andreasmaaan]

And a speaker from Genelec is tuned here with a complete flat response , no gradual tilt at all. Such a graph sounds to bright and with too little bass for most people.

The Genelec speakers have a rising DI with frequency, which - particularly when combined with typical room materials/furnishings - is almost certain to result in a downward sloping steady-state response at the listening position.

The direct sound will of course be flat, which most of the research (of which I’m aware) tends to be preferred by most listeners.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Smooth and flat are two different things. Don't mix these.
I'm referring to a response in the listening room that is flat without any gradual fall. Like previously mentioned, it's been known since the 70's that such a graph that doesn't sound neutral. Part of the reason for that has to do with near mics picking up more high frequency than low frequency. You should read the paper.

A small speaker will have fairly high amounts of distortion. That's not SOTA IMO.

Smooth and flat has been the ideal for ages.

There is a difference between the anechoic room and normal room response, of course.

Your definition of SOTA is vague and meaningless as it doesn’t take into account application. In your definition, Apollo 11 was not state of the art technology due to space (sic!) limitations in the spacecraft. SOTA is not one single design. SOTA can come in many shapes and forms.

 

[Bjorn]

The Genelec speakers have a rising DI with frequency, which - particularly when combined with typical room materials/furnishings - is almost certain to result in a downward sloping steady-state response at the listening position.

The direct sound will of course be flat, which most of the research (of which I’m aware) tends to be preferred by most listeners.

There's no doubt the response was close to being flat at the demos I been at. I was shown the response at one too. Tried to explain to them the Bruele&Kjære study, but they seem to insist on flat response. I can understand that for mixing/mastering, but it would not be how I would tailer a response for hifi listening.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The Genelec speakers have a rising DI with frequency, which - particularly when combined with typical room materials/furnishings - is almost certain to result in a downward sloping steady-state response at the listening position.

The direct sound will of course be flat, which most of the research (of which I’m aware) tends to be preferred by most listeners.

My Genelec speakers don’t measure flat in room, of course. And the GLM DSP doesn’t force the curve upwards, either. So in this case, @Bjorn talks about something he doesn’t know much about.

EDIT: @Bjorn could use the Genelec GLM DSP to tailor the curve to his preferences, though.

 

[andreasmaaan]

There's no doubt the response was close to being flat at the demos I been at. I was shown the response at one too. Tried to explain to them the Bruele&Kjære study, but they seem to insist on flat response. I can understand that for mixing/mastering, but it would not be how I would tailer a response for hifi listening.

Perhaps at the show you went to the response had been modified to achieve a flat steady-state response?

It’s inconceivable to me why anyone would want to do that, but I can’t think what kind of room it must have been (heavy low-frequency absorption, no high frequency absorption??) for a speaker like the Genelec to give a flat steady-state response without intervention.

 

[Soniclife]

There's no doubt the response was close to being flat at the demos I been at. I was shown the response at one too. Tried to explain to them the Bruele&Kjære study, but they seem to insist on flat response. I can understand that for mixing/mastering, but it would not be how I would tailer a response for hifi listening.

You are not the first to try to explain this to them, see the following posts from Floyd Toole on exactly this issue.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-on-audio-science.3110/post-78090

The next few posts of his are also about this.

 

[Bjorn]

You are not the first to try to explain this to them, see the following posts from Floyd Toole on exactly this issue.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-on-audio-science.3110/post-78090

The next few posts of his are also about this.

Thanks for sharing. I had not seen this before.

It confirms what I said and me and my fiends experience at different demos, and as mentioned I also saw the room response at one of them. Genelec sort of stuck out from the rest with a much brighter and leaner response at every demo. Not favorable to any of us.

"Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it"

 

[andreasmaaan]

You are not the first to try to explain this to them, see the following posts from Floyd Toole on exactly this issue.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-on-audio-science.3110/post-78090

The next few posts of his are also about this.

This is not something I was aware of, and explains @bjorn’s experiences at shows. It’s obviously a result of the EQ applied in those specific setups, rather than the speakers themselves, which indeed measure anechoically flat and have a downward sloping power response.

 

[sergeauckland]

This is not something I was aware of, and explains @bjorn’s experiences at shows. It’s obviously a result of the EQ applied in those specific setups, rather than the speakers themselves, which indeed measure anechoically flat and have a downward sloping power response.

The only Genelecs I've measured are my 1029As, and they're sensibly flat when measured pseudo-anechoically. In-room with a normally furnished room they have the expected downward sloping response, but of course can be equalised flat in-room. Doing so will make them sound undesirably bright.

Although I don't agree with the ITU and EBU recommendation for a home listening room, I understand why they specify that for monitoring broadcasts. Listening to a broadcast or a production isn't done for pleasure, it's a job of work, and firstly, by standardising on a flat in-room response, that makes it easier when moving from one room to the next. Sound engineers in broadcast studios often have to work on the same piece in different rooms, so a standard in-room response avoids any acclimatisation time moving from one room to the next. They could have just as easily specified a 'house curve' with a downward tilt.

Secondly, having the sound somewhat bright highlights any issues with speech sibilants as well as bringing up distortion and other undesirable noises. This isn't necessarily a problem unless the sound is then equalised to remove the brightness.....

S.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Measurement of Genelec 8351 in modern Nordic room (red is uncompensated raw FR, blue is room compensation, green line is the result of raw+compensation).

Is this a flat room curve?

Does the GLM DSP push up higher frequencies?

 

[andreasmaaan]

The only Genelecs I've measured are my 1029As, and they're sensibly flat when measured pseudo-anechoically. In-room with a normally furnished room they have the expected downward sloping response, but of course can be equalised flat in-room. Doing so will make them sound undesirably bright.

Although I don't agree with the ITU and EBU recommendation for a home listening room, I understand why they specify that for monitoring broadcasts. Listening to a broadcast or a production isn't done for pleasure, it's a job of work, and firstly, by standardising on a flat in-room response, that makes it easier when moving from one room to the next. Sound engineers in broadcast studios often have to work on the same piece in different rooms, so a standard in-room response avoids any acclimatisation time moving from one room to the next. They could have just as easily specified a 'house curve' with a downward tilt.

Secondly, having the sound somewhat bright highlights any issues with speech sibilants as well as bringing up distortion and other undesirable noises. This isn't necessarily a problem unless the sound is then equalised to remove the brightness.....

S.

I’m not sure I agree on the value of spec’ing a target in-room response, even for broadcast purposes.

The research makes it difficult to escape the conclusion IMO that even where a given pair of speakers is EQ’d to a target room curve we will (mostly) hear the speakers rather than the room. So if hitting this target involves tilting the anechoic response of the speakers upward to compensate for a downward sloping power response and/or the absorption properties of the room, the result will be that different speakers that require different EQ to reach the same in-room target will sound very different.

Or to put it another way, two different speakers equalised for a flat in-room response are likely to sound more different than two flat-measuring speaker in two different rooms.

It would make more sense IMHO if the standard spec’d the speaker’s response and focused on other aspects of the room’s acoustics, eg RT times, dimensions, absorption/diffusion ratios, etc, as opposed to target room response (IIRC it does this too FWIW, but it’s been a while since I looked at it).

If a bright/lean response really is beneficial for this type of work (not sure I’m sold on that one either tbh but that’s another story), this would be achieved with more consistent (ie psychoacoustically consistent) results by spec’ing a leaner loudspeaker response and heavier low frequency absorption.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Measurement of Genelec 8351 in modern Nordic room (red is uncompensated raw FR, blue is room compensation, green line is the result of raw+compensation).

Is this a flat room curve?

Does the GLM DSP push up higher frequencies?

View attachment 24460

It pushes down lower frequencies, which will tend to have the same effect. Don’t know how that corrected response sounds to you but I’d hazard a bet it would sound lean to me...

 

[Soniclife]

Measurement of Genelec 8351 in modern Nordic room (red is uncompensated raw FR, blue is room compensation, green line is the result of raw+compensation).

Is this a flat room curve?

Does the GLM DSP push up higher frequencies?

View attachment 24460

Looks quite flat, but how flat is up for debate, look at the different opinions here...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-is-your-favorite-house-curve.2382/post-79458

 

[svart-hvitt]

It pushes down lower frequencies, which will tend to have the same effect. Don’t know how that corrected response sounds to you but I’d hazard a bet it would sound lean to me...

I have had the speakers playing uncompensated for a couple of weeks now. That’s a level down in quality. The low frequency booms don’t add anything; just distortion. Compensated sound>uncompensated sound.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have had the speakers playing uncompensated for a couple of weeks now. That’s a level down in quality. The low frequency booms don’t add anything; just distortion. Compensated sound>uncompensated sound.

YMMV, I guess. I’ve heard (and measured) the 8351s uncorrected in a medium-sized, moderately-treated room, and in that context boomy or bass-heavy were the last adjectives that came to mind. Obviously very difficult to compare our experiences in different rooms, ofc.

What can be said though is that the corrected curve you posted looks leaner/flatter than the experimentally derived targets curves I’m familiar with - and that was basically my original point.

PS not that I believe in EQing to a target curve anyway! Modal region only for room correction IMO...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Looks quite flat, but how flat is up for debate, look at the different opinions here...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-is-your-favorite-house-curve.2382/post-79458

Higher frequencies are not

YMMV, I guess. I’ve heard (and measured) the 8351s uncorrected in a medium-sized, moderately-treated room, and in that context boomy or bass-heavy were the last adjectives that came to mind. Obviously very difficult to compare our experiences in different rooms, ofc.

What can be said though is that the corrected curve you posted looks leaner/flatter than the experimentally derived targets curves I’m familiar with - and that was basically my original point.

PS not that I believe in EQing to a target curve anyway! Modal region only for room correction IMO...

I can post the left speaker later. That speaker has very little compensation in 600 Hz - 1200 Hz area. So the question is if the optimizer wants pretty equal FR from both speakers. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Soniclife]

I have had the speakers playing uncompensated for a couple of weeks now. That’s a level down in quality. The low frequency booms don’t add anything; just distortion. Compensated sound>uncompensated sound.

That fits my experience as well, the question for people with rooms that have big nodes is not so much EQ or no EQ, it's what EQ. If your software allows, explore the other more downward sloping curves and see which you prefer.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I can post the left speaker later. That speaker has very little compensation in 600 Hz - 1200 Hz area. So the question is if the optimizer wants pretty equal FR from both speakers. Do you see what I mean?

That makes sense if you've decided to use room EQ above the modal region I guess. Anyway, in this case we're talking about your speakers, your room, and your preferences - so the psychoaoustic research can only guide your decisions, not make them. If that EQ setting sounds better to you than no EQ (or any other EQ setting), it is the correct setting

 

[RayDunzl]

Apollo 11 was not state of the art technology due to space (sic!) limitations in the spacecraft.

Definition of state of the art
: the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time usually as a result of modern methods

Taken as a whole, I would consider the combination of the Saturn V stack, the Command and Service Modules, the Lunar Excursion Module, and the ground-based supporting facilities to represent "State of the Art" if, for no other reason, they were the only example of the "art" of delivering three Space Monkeys to Lunar Orbit, and dropping two of them onto the surface, and returning them to later enjoy a ticker-tape parade in New York, and the derision of flat-earthers saying "Never happened"..

 

[Hypnotoad]

To my ear, speakers have become “over engineered”. The frequency response is much smoother and controlled, but they don’t “sound good” to me. But I have far more experience with older speakers. (Speakers that are my age, heh heh, I think my nostalgia influences my preferences pretty heavily.)

As an example, I have a pair of B&W DM12 bookshelves. These are really nice to listen to, but they have a “tubby” low end. So knocking down the low mids cleans them up nicely.

I agree, I have a pair of B&W DM1400's and they sound superb to my old ears, I did some fine tuning to slightly roll off the top end which seemed to go on forever, and careful placement seems to alleviate the tubby-ness in the low end. A very satisfying speaker to listen too.

I was at the Best Buy a while back, and they had a set of Martin Logan electrostatic speaker’s with built in subs, driven by some pretty nice MacIntosh gear. An classic Elton John track came on and it sounded ridiculous.

I was at Fry's Electronics a long time ago and they had Martin Logan Purity's on sale, they are active electrostatic speakers and the sound was what I would describe at plastic, no character at all IMO.