Wanted: Proof of multiple subs and sub EQ

[AJ Soundfield]

I don't know Michael. It doesn't appear to me that he has a proper grasp of the topic.

He does not. I tried explaining this a while back in this thread, because he seems like a genuinely nice guy.
Anything called "Accurate reproduction..." screams to me Studiophile alert!!

 

[amirm]

He does not. I tried explaining this a while back in this thread, because he seems like a genuinely nice guy.
Anything called "Accurate reproduction..." screams to me Studiophile alert!!

That was a good post. But I did not know we were talking about "Mitchco." He is indeed one of the "good guys." I worked with him on some of his investigations of Flac versus uncompressed. Caught between a rock and a hard place trying to criticize him now .

 

[dallasjustice]

He does not. I tried explaining this a while back in this thread, because he seems like a genuinely nice guy.
Anything called "Accurate reproduction..." screams to me Studiophile alert!!

Okay. I read your exchange and I tried to learn something valuable from it. Unfortunately I wasn't able to learn anything new.

The best I can tell, you and Amir believe that Mitch's approach to room reflections is "old school" and that modern acoustic science demonstrates that room reflections are subjectively preferred in listener evaluations. Therefore, the proper recommendation for rooms should be to use very few room treatments and utilize speakers with excellent polar response.

Mitch did post a couple of photos from his room and it appeared to me like a fairly reflective listening environment. Your comment about Mitch's listening environment was "I note that you[r] room looks an awful lot like what I would prefer . . ."

So assuming you believe Mitch's listening space fits well with modern acoustic science, what is your complaint about Mitch's setup?

If Mitch can demonstrate objectively that the frequency response is improved both in and around listening position, what's the problem with that? Aren't you familiar with Sean Olive's work which demonstrates that a smooth targeted frequency response as measured with a microphone (not attached to a human head) is subjectively preferred by real humans using their ears and brains?

So has Mitch not demonstrated that he's accomplished that goal? I would say so. Now I agree there's a paucity of science which supports improved time domain performance is subjectively preferred, outside of extreme group delay. However, time and frequency are two sides of the same coin. That's basically what Floyd Toole says as well.

From an outsider, it looks like you guys are arguing over the unimportant stuff and ignoring the similarities in your approaches to accurate reproduction. It's a pity because I sincerely believe we all can learn something valuable from other's experiences. Maybe I should just speak for myself. . .

 

[amirm]

Michael, what he writes is a mix of old and new. I have never seen that. Those philosophies are inconsistent with each other. I can't rationalize quoting Sean Olive in one breath, and any mention of LEDE, RFZ, etc. in the next.

 

[dallasjustice]

That was a good post. But I did not know we were talking about "Mitchco." He is indeed one of the "good guys." I worked with him on some of his investigations of Flac versus uncompressed. Caught between a rock and a hard place trying to criticize him now .

Nope; too late Amir. I've lumped you and AJ in together on this one.

 

[dallasjustice]

Michael, what he writes is a mix of old and new. I have never seen that. Those philosophies are inconsistent with each other. I can't rationalize quoting Sean Olive in one breath, and any mention of LEDE, RFZ, etc. in the next.

I think we are getting hung up on side stuff. The point of the book is how to use DSP and Acourate in particular. If you look at some photos of Mitch's room, we could probably move on to the important stuff.

 

[mitchco]

Michael, what he writes is a mix of old and new. I have never seen that. Those philosophies are inconsistent with each other. I can't rationalize quoting Sean Olive in one breath, and any mention of LEDE, RFZ, etc. in the next.

Hi Amir, here is the first paragraph of my book description:

"This eBook provides the audio enthusiast with an easy-to-follow step-by-step guide for designing a custom digital filter that corrects the frequency and timing response of your loudspeakers in your listening environment so that the music arriving at your ears matches as closely as possible to the content on the recording."

My references to LEDE room are simply indicating the historical attributes of what I liked about the room I mixed sound in and the time aligned monitors I was using. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, my own listening room is quite live as can be seen by the measurements

The chapter on the Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Room Correction was reviewed by JJ, so if you were to focus in on a philosophy that I believe in, try that chapter.

Kind regards, Mitch

 

[amirm]

Hi Amir, here is the first paragraph of my book description:

"This eBook provides the audio enthusiast with an easy-to-follow step-by-step guide for designing a custom digital filter that corrects the frequency and timing response of your loudspeakers in your listening environment so that the music arriving at your ears matches as closely as possible to the content on the recording."

My references to LEDE room are simply indicating the historical attributes of what I liked about the room I mixed sound in and the time aligned monitors I was using. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, my own listening room is quite live as can be seen by the measurements

The chapter on the Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Room Correction was reviewed by JJ, so if you were to focus in on a philosophy that I believe in, try that chapter.

Kind regards, Mitch

Mitch, it is all Michael's fault. It is always his fault.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Thomas savage]

Umm...amir you found a cunning way to bring experts to the forum

High risk strategy but it seems to have work

 

[Thomas savage]

Nope; too late Amir. I've lumped you and AJ in together on this one.

Well I have never seen them together in the same room... Are they the same person??

Run for your lives... But really

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The best I can tell, you and Amir believe that Mitch's approach to room reflections is "old school" and that modern acoustic science demonstrates that room reflections are subjectively preferred in listener evaluations. Therefore, the proper recommendation for rooms should be to use very few room treatments and utilize speakers with excellent polar response.

You have misread. It's the opposite. Studiophiles tend to speak in absolutes, even when all the evidence points the other way. I don't know, or pretend to know, what you will prefer. I can only say, that the science suggests, if you are in the majority, you will not prefer studiophile iso-ward "treatments" recommendations for "accurate" reproduction. Under non-sighted conditions, i.e, trust ears only. You may, but that would put you in the statistical minority.
I can say that I prefer (sighted) normally furnished/reflective etc living rooms for acoustic reproduction environments.
As such, I do recommend as you say, 'fixing" at the source, i.e., utilize speakers with excellent polar response (among other things) and that we can, to a large extent, listen "through" the normal room.
I make no claim this is "accurate to the recording" or any such studiophile belief.
It is simply what I prefer..and statistically, most other listeners.
How you could have read all my posts including the HTS linked thread and not discerned this distinction...

So assuming you believe Mitch's listening space fits well with modern acoustic science, what is your complaint about Mitch's setup?

I give up, what is my complaint abut Mitch's setup???
I take exception to the "accuracy" claims, misunderstanding of impulses, time domain, etc, etc. measurements electrically vs acoustically, everything having "sonic" signature, etc, etc...but his setup?? Can you quote?
Did you read the HTS thread past my linked post?

So has Mitch not demonstrated that he's accomplished that goal?

He has demonstrated EQing his system to his preference, then conflated this with some imagined "accuracy to the recording", wavering between measured "accuracy" and perceptual "accuracy", without any proof of correlation.

From an outsider, it looks like you guys are arguing over the unimportant stuff and ignoring the similarities in your approaches to accurate reproduction.

Sorry Michael, I don't speak in such terms. I'm no studiophile.
If you want to imagine your EQ'd, "time aligned", etc, system is "accurate" to an arbitrary stereo media construct, or some imagined "intent", by all means do so.
Enjoy!

cheers,

AJ

 

[Purité Audio]

Interesting, so what can we all agree are important for high fidelity reproduction?
Linearity/low distortion, a room that doesn't do too much harm .....
It was interesting hear the Beolabs on narrow and wide beam, I preferred the narrow beam setting, everything was just sharper, everything image, sound, the rooms contribution was well minimal.
Keith.

 

[dallasjustice]

Thanks for posting here Mitch!

Interesting, so what can we all agree are important for high fidelity reproduction?
Linearity/low distortion, a room that doesn't do too much harm .....
It was interesting hear the Beolabs on narrow and wide beam, I preferred the narrow beam setting, everything was just sharper, everything image, sound, the rooms contribution was well minimal.
Keith.

thats fine Keith. Just don't say it was more accurate.

 

[Purité Audio]

Can I say it was more Acourate!
There is a paradox though isn't there, striving for a 'sound' which can never exist , or rather it may exist but we don't know what it is or when we have found it?
Keith.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Interesting, so what can we all agree are important for high fidelity reproduction?

My speakers.

It was interesting hear the Beolabs on narrow and wide beam, I preferred the narrow beam setting, everything was just sharper, everything image, sound, the rooms contribution was well minimal.

Bingo, preferred.
Some might prefer a bit more diffuse soundfield.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Just don't say it was more accurate.

Exactly!
Unless perceptually compared to a "reference" soundfield.

 

[Purité Audio]

My speakers.


Bingo, preferred.
Some might prefer a bit more diffuse soundfield.

Without sounding like a Beolab evangelist, that is precisely what you get with a swish of the remote, select wide beam and everything is more diffuse, images are slightly less precise the sound also as the room noticeably comes more into play .
Btw contacted Atte at Gradient, I may have a pair of Active revolutions here soon!

Keith

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Without sounding like a Beolab evangelist, that is precisely what you get with a swish of the remote, select wide beam and everything is more diffuse, images are slightly less precise the sound also as the room noticeably comes more into play .

A bit like having a Salon 2 and a 4367 in one speaker. Now which is more "accurate"....

Btw contacted Atte at Gradient, I may have a pair of Active revolutions here soon!

Cool, what do those retail at these days?

 

[hvbias]

Hi Amir, here is the first paragraph of my book description:

"This eBook provides the audio enthusiast with an easy-to-follow step-by-step guide for designing a custom digital filter that corrects the frequency and timing response of your loudspeakers in your listening environment so that the music arriving at your ears matches as closely as possible to the content on the recording."

My references to LEDE room are simply indicating the historical attributes of what I liked about the room I mixed sound in and the time aligned monitors I was using. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, my own listening room is quite live as can be seen by the measurements

The chapter on the Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Room Correction was reviewed by JJ, so if you were to focus in on a philosophy that I believe in, try that chapter.

Kind regards, Mitch

Does the book have anything on crossover theory, or is it mostly how to employ active crossovers in Acourate?

 

[RayDunzl]

From AVAA Website:

"Through PSI Audio’s patented technology, it will transform acoustic pressure into acoustic velocity and absorb it over a large range of frequencies."

Could someone translate the bold part for me?