[ChrisCoaster]

I researched and read up on these on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
and pretty much understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

My question is: Should I attempt to duplicate these curves roughly
with a graphic equalizer of minimum 10-bands, or the one in the
currnent Media Player 10& up?

I was able to duplicate the curve(roughly!) in Media Player since that
is where I play most of my music - hooked up to a decent 80W per Ch
amp and medium-sized Kenwood speakers.
Of course, the tone settings on the JVC receiver are flat, and
loudness disabled!

It's a very listenable response curve, but I know that just
arbitrarily setting the eq in media player to resemble "Fletcher
Munson" or the equal loudness contour doesn't account for room
acoustics.

Any comments? Suggestions?

-ChrisCoaster

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
I researched and read up on these on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
and pretty much understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

My question is: Should I attempt to duplicate these curves roughly
with a graphic equalizer of minimum 10-bands, or the one in the
currnent Media Player 10& up?

I was able to duplicate the curve(roughly!) in Media Player since that
is where I play most of my music - hooked up to a decent 80W per Ch
amp and medium-sized Kenwood speakers.
Of course, the tone settings on the JVC receiver are flat, and
loudness disabled!

It's a very listenable response curve, but I know that just
arbitrarily setting the eq in media player to resemble "Fletcher
Munson" or the equal loudness contour doesn't account for room
acoustics.

Any comments? Suggestions?

-ChrisCoaster

It's difficult to replicate the F-M curves as they differ according to
loudness. This means that you will need a different contour for each setting
of the volume control, and for quiet as opposed to loud recordings.

Also, your ears will follow the F-M contours only approximately as they are
a statistical result based on averaging many tests on many different people,
consequently your own frequency response will be different, more so if you
are older than perhaps late teens-mid 20s as hearing, especially higher
frequencies will start dropping off thereafter.

However, as a tone control contour, it's pretty extreme for normal
listening, but if it sounds good to you.......

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 10:07*am, ChrisCoaster wrote:
I researched and read up on these onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
and pretty much understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

My question is: Should I attempt to duplicate these curves roughly
with a graphic equalizer of minimum 10-bands, or the one in the
currnent Media Player 10& up?

No

It's a very listenable response curve, but I know that just
arbitrarily setting the eq in media player to resemble "Fletcher
Munson" or the equal loudness contour doesn't account for room
acoustics.

Any comments? Suggestions?

Yes, it's not only a waste of time but you're misunderstanding
the principles behind the curve.

When you listen to music at a certain level, your ear
exhibits frequency response errors that the curves
reflect. Fine, but ...

When you listen to music LIVE, your ears have these
responses, AND when you listen to playback of that
music, you're (presumably) using the same ears and
thus the behave the same way.

If you're now adding correction on playback using the
Flecther-Munson curves, you're OVERcompensating:
you're ears have already done what they are supposed
to do.

The only time applyin a curve has any real validity is if you're
listebing to music at substantially DIFFERENT levels than
originally played or intended.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 1, 10:39*am, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

However, as a tone control contour, it's pretty extreme for normal
listening, but if it sounds good to you.......

S.
*--http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
____________________
I'm with you there, pal! Kinda hard to find a tone control or EQ with
+-40 dB correction anywhere.

I guess these curves(whether the original Fletchers or more up to date
curves as documented in the Wiki article) are more useful for
listening at lower than average volume levels in a car or at home.

-CC

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
When you listen to music LIVE, your ears have these
responses, AND when you listen to playback of that
music, you're (presumably) using the same ears and
thus the behave the same way.

Given the same SPL at the persons ears.

The only time applyin a curve has any real validity is if you're
listebing to music at substantially DIFFERENT levels than
originally played or intended.

Which is of course the whole point, isn't it. Many times people do listen to
music at substantially different levels to what was originally intended.
Whether any tone adjustment will sound better is entirely up the listener.
Invoking a specific curve like F-M just because it has some scientific
basis, doesn't make it any more or less correct however. (especially given
the difficulty in matching the proper F-M curve to actual SPL in any case)

IMO, as long as it sounds good to *you*, enjoy the music, however you
achieve it.

MrT.

[isw]

In article
,
ChrisCoaster wrote:

On Feb 1, 10:39*am, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

However, as a tone control contour, it's pretty extreme for normal
listening, but if it sounds good to you.......

S.
*--http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
____________________
I'm with you there, pal! Kinda hard to find a tone control or EQ with
+-40 dB correction anywhere.

I guess these curves(whether the original Fletchers or more up to date
curves as documented in the Wiki article) are more useful for
listening at lower than average volume levels in a car or at home.

Any way you do the eq, unless you take the efficiency of your specific
speakers (and their environment) into account, you can't get it right by
"following the curves" -- for equal loudness in the room, the volume
knob will be in very different positions, depending on whether you have
1% or 10% efficient speakers.

If you reproduce at substantially lower volume than what was present at
the recording venue, just crank up the bass until you like it.

Isaac

[Jim Gregory]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
...
When you listen to music LIVE, your ears have these
responses, AND when you listen to playback of that
music, you're (presumably) using the same ears and
thus the behave the same way.

Given the same SPL at the persons ears.

The only time applyin a curve has any real validity is if you're
listebing to music at substantially DIFFERENT levels than
originally played or intended.

Which is of course the whole point, isn't it. Many times people do listen
to
music at substantially different levels to what was originally intended.
Whether any tone adjustment will sound better is entirely up the listener.
Invoking a specific curve like F-M just because it has some scientific
basis, doesn't make it any more or less correct however. (especially given
the difficulty in matching the proper F-M curve to actual SPL in any case)

IMO, as long as it sounds good to *you*, enjoy the music, however you
achieve it.

MrT.

Once all monitoring was flat but increasingly found to be irksome. That is
why they added a Loudness control or bass enhancer to volume controls, to
account for lack of bass at *lower* listening levels or if used with 'middy'
loudspeakers. It's ideally tweakable
to suit your taste [or lack of]. Not so vital with intimate headphones
listening.
There is no point in creating a silly equaliser with millions of curves if
the starting reference SPL is altering!
Now, don't get me going on equalisation.... it is so abused all the way from
the recording desk channel to the HiFi. And we will never know what setting
it should be, at whatever band.
A general rule of thumb... if it sounds right, it *is* right.
Jim

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

I researched and read up on these on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour and pretty much
understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

My question is: Should I attempt to duplicate these curves roughly
with a graphic equalizer of minimum 10-bands, or the one in the
currnent Media Player 10& up?

No. The frequency response alteration comes with a loss of perspective.

I was able to duplicate the curve(roughly!) in Media Player since that
is where I play most of my music - hooked up to a decent 80W per Ch
amp and medium-sized Kenwood speakers.
Of course, the tone settings on the JVC receiver are flat, and
loudness disabled!

Media player - and indeed windows "loudspeaker settings" are poorly
documented "knows better than you" contraptions. For a starter DO tell
windows that you listen via headphones, then you at least get rid of their
bloat version of what they think is the proper frequency response
compensation for you loudspeakers. Some day when very bored I'll try and
document what all those settings do.

It's a very listenable response curve, but I know that just
arbitrarily setting the eq in media player to resemble "Fletcher
Munson" or the equal loudness contour doesn't account for room
acoustics.

Any comments? Suggestions?

The loudness compensation is in my opinion nonsense based on understanding a
treshold curve as a frequency response curve, it is no such thing. Loudness
was successful back when ordinary household loudspeakers benefitted from the
added bass and treble because they had neither.

-ChrisCoaster

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Jim Gregory wrote:

There is no point in creating a silly equaliser with millions of
curves if the starting reference SPL is altering!

Generally so is the case with music .... it is not at a constant spl.

Now, don't get me going on equalisation.... it is so abused all the
way from the recording desk channel to the HiFi. And we will never
know what setting it should be, at whatever band.
A general rule of thumb... if it sounds right, it *is* right.

Occasionally an amplifier model comes up with gradually adjustable loudness,
but the spatial mess that is caused by the frequency response error still in
my assessment is a good reason for just using ordinary tone controls and
finding the setting that works in the room in question with the audio and
the loudspeakers it is about.

Jim

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mr.T]

"Jim Gregory" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
IMO, as long as it sounds good to *you*, enjoy the music, however you
achieve it.

A general rule of thumb... if it sounds right, it *is* right.

No, I'll stick with what I said. You can measure the spectral response of an
acoustic gig for example, and show that on playback it may NOT actually be
"right". BUT if you think it sounds good, you can still enjoy the music.

To put it another way, when you say something "*is* right" then it shouldn't
just mean you "think" it is right.
And IF you think it sounds right, why worry if it's not?

Of course recording/mastering engineers should worry a little more than the
average listener, but even they don't seem to care too much.

MrT.

[Karl Uppiano[_2_]]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
ChrisCoaster wrote:

Media player - and indeed windows "loudspeaker settings" are poorly
documented "knows better than you" contraptions. For a starter DO tell
windows that you listen via headphones, then you at least get rid of their
bloat version of what they think is the proper frequency response
compensation for you loudspeakers. Some day when very bored I'll try and
document what all those settings do.

I never noticed any difference regardless of the setting. It's always flat.
But perhaps my sound card doesn't support that feature.

The loudness compensation is in my opinion nonsense based on understanding
a treshold curve as a frequency response curve, it is no such thing.
Loudness was successful back when ordinary household loudspeakers
benefitted from the added bass and treble because they had neither.

The receivers from the 1970s used to have a ubiquitous "loudness" button
that always seemed to boost the bass and treble. The effect was supposed to
subside as you turned the volume up past the 12:00 position. A single on/off
switch doesn't calibrate the F-M compensation to the source or the listening
environment. What they got wrong was a "proper" loudness control has a
volume _and_ a loudness control. You're supposed to turn the loudness
control all the way up (flat position) and then increase the volume to
"realistic" levels. After that, you use the loudness control to determine
the, well ... loudness. It would apply the F-M threshold appropriately (more
or less) as you reduced the loudness. The trouble was, it was only
"calibrated" for the source you calibrated it for. If you're going to do all
that for each source, you might as well just tweak the bass and treble
manually to taste.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:14:06 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

Bingo!

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Mr.T]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
What they got wrong was a "proper" loudness control has a
volume _and_ a loudness control. You're supposed to turn the loudness
control all the way up (flat position) and then increase the volume to
"realistic" levels. After that, you use the loudness control to determine
the, well ... loudness. It would apply the F-M threshold appropriately
(more
or less) as you reduced the loudness. The trouble was, it was only
"calibrated" for the source you calibrated it for. If you're going to do
all
that for each source, you might as well just tweak the bass and treble
manually to taste.

Doesn't have to be, would be easy to add gain trims on each input to fix
that. The real problem would still remain, the average user just has no idea
how all that is supposed to work, has little chance of getting it
calibrated, and is probably better off simply adjusting the bass and treble
controls to taste in any case.

The same problem existed with graphic equalisers. They sold big numbers for
a short while, but the average listener had no idea how to use them.
The pro audio market still uses them because they usually know how, why and
when.

MrT.

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:14:06 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

I researched and read up on these on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour and pretty much
understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

No - only the zero dB curve is a threshold curve. All the remainder
are response curves. Or rather they are the inverse of response
curves.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:14:06 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

I researched and read up on these on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour and pretty much
understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

No - only the zero dB curve is a threshold curve. All the remainder
are response curves. Or rather they are the inverse of response
curves.

Mea culpa, I have erred, they are sone to db conversion curves.

Praetereo censeo however that it still always sounds wrong and ruins the
sonic perspective no matter the sone level listened at.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:08:39 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:14:06 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

No - only the zero dB curve is a threshold curve. All the remainder
are response curves. Or rather they are the inverse of response
curves.

All human responses are threshold events and they all involve
cascading triggers. The idea that a "reverse curve" can be
associated with "loudness" (spoken as if anyone understood
the subject) is the unspoken subtext of so much of this
thread that I've just gotta balk.

The "Fletcher-Munson" curves are an antique, interesting but
fundamentally fatally flawed description. The proof of this
statement is easily made by listening to *anybody's*
example of a linear curve purported to make "A" listening
volume sound like "B" listening volume. It's never convincing.

We're a species of primate with an ability to distinguish
between a huge variety of stuff, but our current description
of that ability is still a work in progress. It's a great
time to be alive.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

I researched and read up on these on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
and pretty much understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

My question is: Should I attempt to duplicate these curves roughly
with a graphic equalizer of minimum 10-bands, or the one in the
currnent Media Player 10& up?

Why would you want to ?

Media Player is **** btw.

The ear and brain naturally adapt to listening level and the effects thereof.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:

I researched and read up on these on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour and pretty much
understand what the aim is with these frequency-
response curves.

It is not a "response curve", it is a threshold curve.

You're talking to the dumb Peter. They realise not that they walk around every
day with this 'defect' built into their listening systems.

The guy might as well ask "should I always wear rose / purple / green /
ultra-violet tinted glasses". A fundamental misconception is at play.

Graham

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 10, 3:54*pm, Eeyore
flatulated:

You're talking to the dumb Peter. They realise not that they walk around every
day with this 'defect' built into their listening systems.

The guy might as well ask "should I always wear rose / purple / green /
ultra-violet tinted glasses". A fundamental misconception is at play.

Graham
_____________________
Typical American - calling anyone who asks an intelligent question
"dumb".

Why don't you look in the mirror? If you want dumb why don't you
stroll the halls of Congress?!

-CC