Those of you who believe measurements aren't the whole story, do you have a hypothesis why that is?

[Jimbob54]

First, we are talking about equipment for preproducing audio, so all your arguments are non-sequitur. But anyway ...


You really think musical instruments are built without using science or measurements?


OK. Wine making is the same as manufacturing speaker cables. So, we have grape harvest once a year, but how about speaker cable "harvest"? Once a week, once a day, once a shift? Alright! The brand A speaker cables vintage of 2020 week 34 are keepers; 2019 week 12, not so much



Then explain to me why would F1 teams waste money on wind tunnels, dynos, etc.

@Frank Dernie might have something to say about that last bit of nonsense regarding motor racing too. I'm sure he was just a glorified kwik fit fitter for Williams.

 

[Robin L]

You really think musical instruments are built without using science or measurements?

Of course not. On the other hand, this points to what I regard as the Achilles' Heel of audio, resonant activity. Each instrument has its own, unique resonant signature. As does the performance space for those instruments. The resonant activity of transducers---not only speakers, but microphones and phono cartridges, among other components in the chain---will obscure and blur that unique resonant activity. My premise is that in order to get closer to the original event, we need [first] to have a sound capturing device that doesn't have a physical diaphragm. And we need to measure resonant activity on a finer level of detail. I think measurements can be the whole story. However there are some aspects of audio performance that we need to measure, but that we don't know we need to measure.

 

[Wes]

Sorry but that's just typical audiophile hand waving, you sound just like a politician. You didn't really say anything that wasn't explicitly said or implied by my original post.

Actually, I sound like what I am - a scientist. And one with some expertise in the area of sensory detection and performance, including hearing.

You asked for any Ha - I gave you some.

Now, what exactly is YOUR claim to expertise in this area???

 

[Duke]

The spectral tilt occurs because the off-axis response of the speaker is more directional at high frequencies, so high frequencies are not reflected by the room as much as low frequencies... This occurs with live music, too--the highest frequencies are most likely to be attenuated when reflected compared to the low frequencies.

... we may state that the speaker's job is to originate sound in a way similar to the source instruments, so that the room can affect it the same way it does for original instruments. But this is the wrong objective, because many of us want to hear the effect of the performance space in our non-performance space...

Agreed. The spectral downward-tilt in the reflections in a concert hall is ALREADY CAPTURED on the recording. Any further downward-tilting of the reflections on the recording due to the speaker's inherent off-axis downward spectral tilt is not natural.

I want some of the performance space to come through, and I want my own room to add as little as possible to it...

I therefore rather prefer a bit less downward spectral tilt as what Toole's data suggests people prefer--that downward tilt, as Toole suggests, is naturally interpreted as room effects and filtered by our brains.

There is, in effect, a competition in the playback room between the room's inherent "small room signature" and the acoustic signature of the venue on the recording, whether said venue signature be real or engineered or both. When the latter "wins", we have that elusive "you are there" presentation.

Imo the proper role of the in-room reflections is to be the CARRIERS of the reverberant energy which is on the recording. So ideally we want to minimize the "small room signature" inherent in the in-room reflections while promoting their effective delivery of the reverberant energy on the recording. And preserving the spectral balance is a part of that.

My understanding is that the earliest in-room reflections are the ones which most strongly convey the playback room's undesirable "small room signature", while the later reflections are the ones which most effectively convey the reverberation tails which are on the recording, which give us a sense of venue size and a feeling of immersion or envelopment (given a good recording), not to mention conveying timbral richness. So imo we want to minimize the early reflections while encouraging the later ones, but we do not want to use absorption to minimize the early reflections (unless absolutely necessary) because absorption reduces short-wavelength energy moreso than longer wavelength energy, and we'd be back to having that undesirable down-tilt in the spectral balance of the reflections.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I remember a few things more clearly than others, from Floyds presentation:
Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction - art and science/opinions and facts.

He mentions, as I understand it, that if a speaker, measurers great in an anechoic room - it will be able to faithfully reproduce the source material - just like listening to a voice, and easily recognizing the person right away - no matter the room it plays in. We listen through rooms, but speakers and microphones are just electromechanical devices, that know no better than what we do with them - and humans cannot be trusted.
But no recording has ever existed, without some kind of "measurement" of the sound from voices, instruments and/or any type of mechanical vibration. So suddenly it's art. And what if an art - created on unknown systems - suddenly dictates if I truly can enjoy the reproduction at my home, where I believe, that I did it just right?
When I daily communicate with my colleagues, which can be anything from engineers to workers that left school in the 7'th grade. Then we need to break the circle of confusion, by searching for a common ground, before any proper conversation can continue, and hereby solving any given challenge ahead.
There needs to be some kind of reference, for any of the measurements to make sense. And when we all listen to music, in so many different rooms, then how can we know, that we are not sometimes fooling ourselfs just a little bit?
I've heard anything from a guitar, bagpipe, harmonica, piano, organ and many more - straight up - live. But I also live close to a big garden, where there's a tiny mini festival for a few days every year. And as I live on the second floor, I can almost see the little tent over the surrounding rooftops, where the sometimes unknown bands play their little songs and creative tunes. On a warm, calm summer night, I can easily hear what they play, through my open windows. And what really pays off... is all those tests they run on the PA system, on the day before the festival starts. Because it sounds really clean when they finally go at it. No single measurement will be enough... and a number of tests are needed too. No matter which camp you decide to be in.... things take time, effort, experience and hard work.

So yes, I kinda believe that a measurement is still not enough.... there need to be some kind of decision-making too - someone to understand the measurement and knowing when a measurement is to be trusted or not, and when it can be used to improve things and not worsen them.

 

[JayGilb]

This is fun. I'm new to this forum and getting to know the members; It's just like people watching at a busy airport.

 

[Honken]

Agreed. The spectral downward-tilt in the reflections in a concert hall is ALREADY CAPTURED on the recording. Any further downward-tilting of the reflections on the recording due to the speaker's inherent off-axis downward spectral tilt is not natural.

True, but not all music is recorded in concert halls. Or even "recorded" at all.

Wouldn't this line of thinking lead to more (possibly bad) assumptions than a flat anechoic response would, because there are so many variables that the transducers cannot account for?

I'm a mere layman so I honestly don't know. I do know that most of my music sounds awful when I try to add a tilt to make the response flat my listening position though. Shrill would probably be the best way to describe it.

 

[Duke]

I do know that most of my music sounds awful when I try to add a tilt to make the response flat at my listening position though. Shrill would probably be the best way to describe it.

Actually my experience is similar to yours, though I didn't go into that much detail in my post. In my experience "flat" measured response sounds "bright". And my beta-testers agree; I provide them with the means to independently adjust the spectral balances of the direct and reverberant energy, and they invariably choose a gently downward-sloping spectral balance for both.

 

[cany89]

Motorsports racing (esp. F1) is an even bigger one... It all depends on the race driver's feel, not measurements. Showing measurements doesnt work. The driver doesnt feel good means it doesnt work. Eg. Driver prefer AP brakes over brembo ones (or vice versa) because it feels better... It doesnt matter what the numbers say. you may even hear drivers say a new set of tyres dont feel right and get it replaced. At the end of the day, driver confidence matters more than any measurement.

Nope.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Actually my experience is similar to yours, though I didn't go into that much detail in my post. In my experience "flat" measured response sounds "bright". And my beta-testers agree; I provide them with the means to independently adjust the spectral balances of the direct and reverberant energy, and they invariably choose a gently downward-sloping spectral balance for both.

Remember in room response that slopes down at roughly 1 db/octave is the measurement of a speaker that is flat anechoicly. Getting flat in room response would be for a speaker with rising anechoic response and why it sounds bright. Because it is bright.

Now that we have a flat speaker response, it is up to the recording. If something gets miked up close it will sound it. If it gets miked at a distance it will sound more natural. And of course most recording are heavily manipulated. Still to hear what they had in mind a downward sloping in room response with controlled off-axis response is what people both prefer and is more accurate.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Agreed. The spectral downward-tilt in the reflections in a concert hall is ALREADY CAPTURED on the recording. Any further downward-tilting of the reflections on the recording due to the speaker's inherent off-axis downward spectral tilt is not natural.




There is, in effect, a competition in the playback room between the room's inherent "small room signature" and the acoustic signature of the venue on the recording, whether said venue signature be real or engineered or both. When the latter "wins", we have that elusive "you are there" presentation.

Imo the proper role of the in-room reflections is to be the CARRIERS of the reverberant energy which is on the recording. So ideally we want to minimize the "small room signature" inherent in the in-room reflections while promoting their effective delivery of the reverberant energy on the recording. And preserving the spectral balance is a part of that.

My understanding is that the earliest in-room reflections are the ones which most strongly convey the playback room's undesirable "small room signature", while the later reflections are the ones which most effectively convey the reverberation tails which are on the recording, which give us a sense of venue size and a feeling of immersion or envelopment (given a good recording), not to mention conveying timbral richness. So imo we want to minimize the early reflections while encouraging the later ones, but we do not want to use absorption to minimize the early reflections (unless absolutely necessary) because absorption reduces short-wavelength energy moreso than longer wavelength energy, and we'd be back to having that undesirable down-tilt in the spectral balance of the reflections.

So, to get that concert hall feels, best solution is a big room?

 

[Wes]

This is fun. I'm new to this forum and getting to know the members; It's just like people watching at a busy airport.

in Uganda?

 

[Digital_Thor]

I'm a mere layman so I honestly don't know. I do know that most of my music sounds awful when I try to add a tilt to make the response flat my listening position though. Shrill would probably be the best way to describe it.

Absolutely Trying to measure in the listening position, and then trying to either use some software or just manually guess what's going on in the speakers... is not a good idea... and also, almost impossible. So yes... it will sound awful

 

[MarkS]

I provide them with the means to independently adjust the spectral balances of the direct and reverberant energy

How do you do that?

 

[Trif]

So, to get that concert hall feels, best solution is a big room?

If you can afford a room the size of Symphony Hall, then yes.

Seriously, there are folks who make a hobby of building and treating their rooms.

My suggestion though, is pay attention to the recording techniques used (anyone else missing liner notes?) looking for those that include the hall, as opposed to 'pre-modern' close-micing techniques. Some of the best experiences are to had with headphones.

 

[Pdxwayne]

If you can afford a room the size of Symphony Hall, then yes.

Seriously, there are folks who make a hobby of building and treating their rooms.

My suggestion though, is pay attention to the recording techniques used (anyone else missing liner notes?) looking for those that include the hall, as opposed to 'pre-modern' close-micing techniques. Some of the best experiences are to had with headphones.

My 5000+ cubic ft living room, ~23 wide, 2 stories in height, and heavily carpeted, gives me the best illusion of a big hall. Sounds can come from way beyond the width of my room......
: P

 

[dshreter]

When I daily communicate with my colleagues, which can be anything from engineers to workers that left school in the 7'th grade. Then we need to break the circle of confusion, by searching for a common ground, before any proper conversation can continue, and hereby solving any given challenge ahead.
There needs to be some kind of reference, for any of the measurements to make sense. And when we all listen to music, in so many different rooms, then how can we know, that we are not sometimes fooling ourselfs just a little bit?

Well stated. And the circle of confusion is even more confusing because while there isn't a single reference, different music is mastered with different near-references in mind anyway. Radio-pop is mastered with cars, earbuds, and phone speakers all top of mind for the engineer. "Hifi" labels as mastered with hifi systems as the type of system they will be optimizing for likely utilizing anechoically neutral monitors. So at present time a theoretically ideal system can't even exist.

 

[Duke]

Remember in room response that slopes down at roughly 1 db/octave is the measurement of a speaker that is flat anechoicly. Getting flat in room response would be for a speaker with rising anechoic response and why it sounds bright. Because it is bright.

This is true for virtually all speakers with front-firing-only drivers. But it is not necessarily true for polydirectional speakers. One such example would be the big SoundLab fullrange electrostats which use a faceted-curved panel to provide exceptionally uniform sound across a 90-degree arc (front and back), transitioning to a dipole figure-8 pattern at low frequencies. Not only is the spectral balance uniform across 90 degrees in front of the speaker, the backwave energy has the identical spectral balance.

So, to get that concert hall feels, best solution is a big room?

Well that's one way!

But you could also take the SoundLab speakers that I mentioned to Blumlein 88 above and pull them out into the room maybe 5-7 feet in front of the wall behind them, and toe them in a bit. They approximate a line source so there would be no significant early floor or ceiling reflections; they have a dipole null to the sides so they could be aimed to have no early sidewall reflections which reach the listening position; and the round-trip path length for the backwave energy is long enough that it won't contribute significantly to "small room signature" but WILL contribute to the desirable later-arriving reverberant energy. All that's left is the reflection off the wall behind your head, and I'd suggest either diffusing or re-directing (reflecting) it away from your head, rather than absorbing it, unless your room is underdamped to begin with.

I'll briefly describe another way in my reply to MarkS below.

How do you do that [independently adjust the spectral balance of the direct and reverberant sound]?

Each speaker has two fairly directional arrays, one aimed at the listening area (toed-in aggressively to avoid the near-side walls) and the other aimed away from it, I can post photos if you'd like. The spectral balance of each array can be adjusted independently, and the level of the rear-firing array can also be adjusted independently.

While adjusting the spectral balance of the front-firing array does affect the spectral balance of the reverberant sound, one could theoretically tweak the spectral balance of the rear-firing array to compensate, resulting in spectral adjustment of the direct sound only. And obviously adjustments to the rear-firing array would not affect the direct sound.

 

[Jim Matthews]

in Uganda?

More like Orlando, just before New Year's day.

 

[FeddyLost]

Measurements are not the whole story due to
1) all psychoacoustical models are based on correlation between impressions and measured parameters
this means something like "most probably you will like equipment with high predicted preference ratio, but there's no warranty"
2) room and speaker interaction is real PITA
all these predictions of in-room responce also based on some assumptions that may not work in one's exact use case even if speakers used "properly"
usually there we need to use a lot of crutches and adhesive tape in form of DRC
3) there's no publically available model that use some "matrix" of measurements that can be used to predict how will perform real equipment chain, even electronic one (dac-pre-power amp-resistor), don't mind real speaker and room
so, there's only rough guidelines like "don't do this, it must sound like crap"
4) personal variability and ability to train hearing and listening ...

That's why I really like measurements but always recommend to listen something personally if it's significant investment.
Measurements are signs that designer is talented/golden-ear/did his homework well/etc
but
... some kind of warranty of subjective result may be get only by extensive test in exact use case.