The "audio reference" idea and/or music reproduction, what is your opinion?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

The effect of the room is just not as important as people think it is, because the measurements of a room ignore the listener's ability to ignore it - people can still tell what is neutral regardless of the room. It's what they started learning to do since they were about three minutes old.
..

I do not agree. That logic could be used to justify most any and all colorations regardless of the cause. More "neutral" speakers are great in my book, as they appear to be in yours. But, just looking at frequency response alone, how does the ear distinguish between the speaker's contribution and the room's? When you have narrow response swings of 5,10, 15 dB or more at your ears, doesn't that totally defeat the neutral speaker idea? I have measured such abberations in a number of rooms even with very fine speakers.

Yes, many do not know or care, and others just grow accustomed to the sound they have, room colorations an all. But, others learn what these room effects are doing and how significant they truly are. Once heard and once room effects are substantially reduced, it becomes a critical factor for many to control those colorations. Once learned, it is hard to go back, and listening enjoyment is decidedly enhanced for me and many others in doing so. The sonic difference is quite obvious and decidedly goes in the direction of greater neutrality. And, the tools to do it today are readily available and quite a success in the marketplace. I think that is a very good thing.

 

[amirm]

Agreed. But, isn't some perhaps small - tiny, perhaps - part of that what Stuart is aiming at with MQA? Of course, speakers and room acoustics make a much bigger difference in the end. But, standardization of those would appear to be impossible on planet Earth.

Indeed. Instead of attacking the A to D and D to A component, if MQA had attacked the frequency response in the production and reproduction spaces it would have been fantastic. It would have dealt with a clear audible flaw versus one that is very hard if not impossible to demonstrate.

While the larger landscape will never change, perhaps if as audiophiles we focus strongly on this, we can make progress toward independent producers that are targeting us as customers. I am talking Channel and Challenge Classics, etc. of this world.

 

[amirm]

If the situation is as bad as you say, there would be no point in attempting to build an objectively neutral speaker.

That neutrality is actually established subjectively through listening tests. It shows that most of us like a sloping down frequency response. And a speaker that has similar off-axis to on-axis. With this, then we can EQ at will to adjust to different content and taste if needed.

 

[RayDunzl]

how does the ear distinguish between the speaker's contribution and the room's?

Time and amplitude and HRTF and...?

My room first shows up at 7ms (dipole bounce) and 20dB down from the direct sound.

 

[fas42]

If the situation is as bad as you say, there would be no point in attempting to build an objectively neutral speaker. Those misguided enough to do so would find that there was no general consensus that they sounded any good. But that is not what we find. The speakers that make people's jaws hit the floor are the ones that get closest to neutral. Just look at the reactions to the Kii Threes.
That's my view anyway...

The mistake is made over and over and over again ... without end, it seems - it's all very simple: the system needs to be neutral - the best speakers in the world can effortlessly be made to sound like sh!t - and, I've heard that without end ... The Kii Three can work, because it's a system, with nearly everything sorted ...

A Ferrari can be a brilliant drive - but I can remove a single, cheap as chips, bolt somewhere, and the car would be extremely dangerous, unpleasant to use as transport; all the expensive bits everywhere else can't compensate for that single flaw - and until that concept really sinks in I don't think many people will get what they have to do in audio to achieve optimum sound.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If their "intent" was to make a million bucks and little more, can I reproduce that at home?

All I get is what's on the recording. I try to measurably reproduce that to the degree possible here.

It works for me. The results, for the unpopular music I listen to, seem to be just fine.

Set. Forget.

Its an emotional thing. When the recording makes you feel like someone who has been doing hookers and blo for three months prior to recording, then you know you are there. Or at least with mainstream recordings of the 70's and 80's.

Then there is the philosophical question of reproduction. If you could do hookers and blo for three months prior to listening to the recording to help understand the musicians intent should you?

 

[Cosmik]

Time and amplitude and HRTF and...?

My room first shows up at 7ms (dipole bounce) and 20dB down from the direct sound.

Exactly. Our hearing separates out delayed reflections. Except for completely steady state waveforms which contain no 'clues', we simply don't hear the messed up 'frequency response' that a simplistic magnitude-only fourier transform suggests is reaching our ears. A computer can be taught to work back to the original sound just as we do (i.e. deconvolution).

The result is: we hardly notice the dimensions of a room or the location in a room that a voice of musical instrument is coming from even though a simplistic measurement would show that the 'frequency response' is varying hugely. Isn't this just obvious from everyday experience? It's why 'digital room correction' is worse than just a waste of effort.

 

[RayDunzl]

It's why 'digital room correction' is worse than just a waste of effort.

I think I find it useful. No harm done that I can find, and both measureable and audible improvements.

Maybe "room" correction is a poor choice for an identifier.

It's pretty good at "boom" correction in here, though.

Makes the step response look more like the ideal.

Minor things like that. Maybe the results are variable with different sytems and methods of execution.

What's the downside for you?

 

[amirm]

The result is: we hardly notice the dimensions of a room or the location in a room that a voice of musical instrument is coming from even though a simplistic measurement would show that the 'frequency response' is varying hugely. Isn't this just obvious from everyday experience? It's why 'digital room correction' is worse than just a waste of effort.

What? Room correction is critical for low frequency optimization. In that region, sound is omnidirectional and wavelength so large that there is no differential between what each ear hears. As such there is little psychoacoustic effect and what you see in frequency response graph is almost what you get in your hearing perception. What you speak of occurs above transition frequencies of a few hundred hertz and there, if you have excellently designed speakers, correction is not needed and may indeed be detrimental. My room EQ stops at 200 Hz.

 

[fas42]

I always find this obsession with low frequency stuff bizarre - it forms such a tiny, tiny part of what delivers convincing sound - I don't think many here appreciate how impressive sound which is missing everything below 200Hz can sound, if everything above is pretty well right - I have done this, accidently, so many times, and it takes me a while to realise that something is "wrong".

One of easiest ways to pick this is on piano - most reproduction is pretty pathetic on getting the tonality of the bass end right; just listening to expensive systems on YouTube trying to do a piano playback, and comparing videos of the real thing being played makes this so obvious. Our Yamaha electronic keyboard after settling in, doing MIDI piano at live levels, through miserable 8" or so built-in speakers, makes the typical high end attempts at getting rich left hand end of the piano to come out right look almost farcical - why is it so hard for the hifi world ?

 

[tomelex]

Want to hear the effects of the room, just move around your room some. Granted, stereo is wanting you to be in the sweet spot. While we are on the subject, as I have always asked you guys to do, play your system in mono for three or four days, then play your favorite song in mono and then immediately play it back switched back into stereo. You will find out real fast just how "artificial" stereo is. That's not to say its bad, but only then will you realize what an artificial construct it truly is. It then brings into question what the reference is, an artificial construct "mixed and mastered" to what someone thinks you will like, their guess is your test!

 

[tomelex]

Here's the result (right now) of the "measurable" part I so casually refer to with some particularly unpopular music playing - Marty Ehrlich Malinke's Dance.

Top: In-Room mono measurement mic at the listeningDRC/EQ position
Middle: Left - from the analog out of the CD player, no DRC
Bottom: Right - from the analog out of the CD player, no DRC

View attachment 3945

Since the microphone is summing the stereo output, it doesn't exactly match either of the channels. Playback and measurement through only one channel results in a closer visual match.

The level of the in-room is a little lower than "reference" at the moment, too.

I, despite protests from The Science of Preference as well as The King of Audio, DRC/EQ flat. I find even a little bass boost to end up being counter productive, and I can't hear the high end, but those who can have not registered any complaints locally.

Also, bear in mind these are the lowest rated type speakers from the subjects (some trained), tested by the Scientists of Audio Preference, so, I'm an idiot.

Dude, I love and appreciate your charts and graphs! Bass is a funny thing, but treating rooms for better FR seems to make for better sounding bass. Let me find my reference thing and I will put it here in a bit. see post below

 

[tomelex]

Rooms, even on you tube you can hear the difference in the bass, you might not like it, bass is a BIG preference thing, and also a lot to do with the room below 300 hz or so. I love this video
Use the gear thingy to up the quality all the way up as high you can.

 

[amirm]

I always find this obsession with low frequency stuff bizarre - it forms such a tiny, tiny part of what delivers convincing sound

That's not what the research says. Some 20 to 30% of the user impression of fidelity lies in this tiny region. For me it is even more important as nothing ruins a piece of music for me more than bloated bass.

 

[amirm]

That's not to say its bad, but only then will you realize what an artificial construct it truly is. It then brings into question what the reference is, an artificial construct "mixed and mastered" to what someone thinks you will like, their guess is your test!

Indeed. Stereo is very frequently used as an effect, not to recreate any illusion. Examples are guitar strings that are split between left and right speaker! It is a pleasant effect at times but clearly nothing resembling reality.

 

[Thomas savage]

Its an emotional thing. When the recording makes you feel like someone who has been doing hookers and blo for three months prior to recording, then you know you are there. Or at least with mainstream recordings of the 70's and 80's.

Then there is the philosophical question of reproduction. If you could do hookers and blo for three months prior to listening to the recording to help understand the musicians intent should you?

Hookers and blow? Um, this sounds like it requires further investigation. I sense a vital experiment is on our horizon , but I need crowd funding!

 

[watchnerd]

Agreed. But, isn't some perhaps small - tiny, perhaps - part of that what Stuart is aiming at with MQA?

What Stuart is aiming for with MQA is a new licensing / revenue stream to replace their expiring ones.

 

[fas42]

Rooms, even on you tube you can hear the difference in the bass, you might not like it, bass is a BIG preference thing, and also a lot to do with the room below 300 hz or so. I love this video
Use the gear thingy to up the quality all the way up as high you can.

Sort of curious what the point of the video is - is it to point out that one can emphasise poor reproduction quality, and make it sound like it's coming out of a small box, by adding room treatments everywhere?

 

[RayDunzl]

Before/After RTA for the first and third cuts of the video above.

Some 20 to 30% of the user impression of fidelity lies in this tiny region.

The context seems to be "everything below 200Hz". If 25 to 200 hz is described as tiny, it's 3 of the 7 1/3 octaves of a piano. Maybe I misinterpret your "tiny".

(Hmm.. can't make this a thumbnail)

Bass is a funny thing, but treating rooms for better FR seems to make for better sounding bass.

It tightened up the lower frequency response some, above. I wonder what the bill was for the materials and expertise.

His: Mine (L/R/Both, a little treatment, and DSP):

You will find out real fast just how "artificial" stereo is.

I find stereo to be to my liking, since 1960. Mono is not objectionable, but it seems as artificial to me as goofy stereo may to you. Go figure.

I don't think many here appreciate how impressive sound which is missing everything below 200Hz can sound, if everything above is pretty well right

Ok, I put a 200Hz 48dB/octave high pass on for a few minutes. Sounded small. Bass instrument missing in action, Drums sounded like bongos. I have a pair of ancient Radio Shack speakers with a single 3" driver in each that sounds similar.

 

[fas42]

Ok, I put a 200Hz 48dB/octave high pass on for a few minutes. Sounded small. Bass instrument missing in action, Drums sounded like bongos. I have a pair of ancient Radio Shack speakers with a single 3" driver in each that sounds similar.

Thanks for doing that, Ray. Obviously it will depend upon material played to some degree, and that's how I became aware that I had lost the woofer, when this happened to me - but there wasn't a sense of smallness; the fullness of 'big' music was still in place. Part of the answer may be ASA, where it talks about the ability of the mind to fill in the missing bits, when the remaining information all correlates.

Mono can be very impressive indeed, the sense of rich depth layering, because of how they recorded much material in earlier times, is very satisfying to the ear - I don't fuss about whether the recording is stereo or mono, at all.