From text I sent to Stereophile

I have been a subscriber for about 15 years. In that time I have=20
learned, and tried to put in practice, good room treatment techniques. I=20
use test CD's and a sound meter to aid in placement and I treat all the=20
room hot spots like first order reflection, echo flutter and deaden the=20
area behind my head (my Triangle Celius speakers sounds their best in a=20
spot that forces me to the rear wall- I have an odd room). What confuses=20
me is the double speak on tone controls and equalizers as well as=20
exactly which test tones I should use when running the tests.

On equalizers/tone controls. I can't count how many times I have read=20
that these are either the bane of our collective electronic existence or=20
a necessary tool to help make some recordings sound right (specifically=20
tone controls). On equalizers I read that they induce too many problems=20
but your magazine has recommended several of them (all in the digital=20
domain I believe).

In my room I have several strong nodes below 300hz (as do most people I=20
am sure). I have a small dent at 50hz, huge plus ups at 60hz and 120hz=20
and a dip at about 250hz (Here is where the test tone confusion comes=20
in. With warble tones the aberrations are far lower. With straight tones=20
I have a 16db shift from 120hz to 250hz - with warble tones the shift is=20
about 5db. Which am I to use? Seems to me warble tones are more=20
effective because the approximate the changes that occur in music?).=20
After studiously using my test gear/tones, set up programs, several=20
suggestions from professional sources (read in your mag and others) as=20
well as installing some room treatment (albeit none for bass control) I=20
am left with the predicament described. As far as I can tell room=20
treatments, designed to help in the low end, are not discriminate=20
enough. While they will tame my hot spots they will also negatively=20
affect my dips(?). Using a bass tone control won't work for basically=20
the same reason. At the end of the day (which I assure you is a grossly=20
understated metaphor) I decided to try a cheap 10 band EQ I had on hand=20
(I would try the digital products but they are way too expensive).=20
Utilizing the EQ and other associated items I was able to smooth out the=20
bumps, in both directions, to a very significantly measurable degree.=20
Now here's the rub. When I asked my daughter to help me A/B the=20
difference (which is easy with an EQ - one button) I had to work at=20
hearing the difference - more often than not. (I should note that I=20
could go flat to 40hz and only 3db down at 31.5hz). While I was able to=20
discern the difference on some recordings (bass notes ended sooner - no=20
bloat) it was not a startling difference. As such is it "better" that I=20
use the EQ to settle the bloat or run away from the wretched beast, and=20
all it's detriments, and deal with the bloat because its less damaging?=20
(I should also note that I heard no negative artifacts with the EQ - no=20
imaging change or high frequency issues). Finally =96 does anyone make an=
=20
affordable analog EQ that only affects the range below 300hz? (Or a=20
digital unit that is affordable and isn=92t meant for subwoofers?)

MD wrote:
From text I sent to Stereophile
=20
I have been a subscriber for about 15 years. In that time I have=20
learned, and tried to put in practice, good room treatment techniques. =
I=20
use test CD's and a sound meter to aid in placement and I treat all the=
=20
room hot spots like first order reflection, echo flutter and deaden the=
=20
area behind my head (my Triangle Celius speakers sounds their best in a=
=20
spot that forces me to the rear wall- I have an odd room). What confuse=
s=20
me is the double speak on tone controls and equalizers as well as=20
exactly which test tones I should use when running the tests.
=20
On equalizers/tone controls. I can't count how many times I have read=20
that these are either the bane of our collective electronic existence o=
r=20
a necessary tool to help make some recordings sound right (specifically=
=20
tone controls). On equalizers I read that they induce too many problems=
=20
but your magazine has recommended several of them (all in the digital=20
domain I believe).
=20
In my room I have several strong nodes below 300hz (as do most people I=
=20
am sure). I have a small dent at 50hz, huge plus ups at 60hz and 120hz=20
and a dip at about 250hz (Here is where the test tone confusion comes=20
in. With warble tones the aberrations are far lower. With straight tone=
s=20
I have a 16db shift from 120hz to 250hz - with warble tones the shift i=
s=20
about 5db. Which am I to use? Seems to me warble tones are more=20
effective because the approximate the changes that occur in music?).=20
After studiously using my test gear/tones, set up programs, several=20
suggestions from professional sources (read in your mag and others) as=20
well as installing some room treatment (albeit none for bass control) I=
=20
am left with the predicament described. As far as I can tell room=20
treatments, designed to help in the low end, are not discriminate=20
enough. While they will tame my hot spots they will also negatively=20
affect my dips(?). Using a bass tone control won't work for basically=20
the same reason. At the end of the day (which I assure you is a grossly=
=20
understated metaphor) I decided to try a cheap 10 band EQ I had on hand=
=20
(I would try the digital products but they are way too expensive).=20
Utilizing the EQ and other associated items I was able to smooth out th=
e=20
bumps, in both directions, to a very significantly measurable degree.=20
Now here's the rub. When I asked my daughter to help me A/B the=20
difference (which is easy with an EQ - one button) I had to work at=20
hearing the difference - more often than not. (I should note that I=20
could go flat to 40hz and only 3db down at 31.5hz). While I was able to=
=20
discern the difference on some recordings (bass notes ended sooner - no=
=20
bloat) it was not a startling difference. As such is it "better" that I=
=20
use the EQ to settle the bloat or run away from the wretched beast, and=
=20
all it's detriments, and deal with the bloat because its less damaging?=
=20
(I should also note that I heard no negative artifacts with the EQ - no=
=20
imaging change or high frequency issues). Finally =96 does anyone make =
an=20
affordable analog EQ that only affects the range below 300hz? (Or a=20
digital unit that is affordable and isn=92t meant for subwoofers?)

I could give you another way of looking at the problem. Sometimes we get=20
too absorbed in hi-fi trivia, trying to get some sort of perfect curve=20
to our frequency response and reduce all contributions from the room,=20
which is based on a misunderstanding of the system.

Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and=20
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid=20
question, right? Now, the point of the exercise is to make your room=20
sound good for MUSIC, and let your system simply play in this good=20
sounding room. Sure, if there is some ridiculous resonance at some bass=20
frequency you want to dampen it. But the system itself will be basically=20
playing flat into your room, just as the quartet live is playing "flat"=20
and sounds perfectly real without even any EQ! So set up a reasonable=20
system, get a good balance between your mains and your subs, between the=20
fronts and the surrounds, and enjoy the music! If you didn't need any=20
fancy digital room correction for the live music, you don't need it for=20
the reproduction either. And remember, EQ is not supposed to be flat at=20
the listening position. The room gives it a natural taper at the high=20
frequencies, which is part of the deal, so don't go to any lengths to=20
"correct" that.

Gary Eickmeier

Finally =96 does anyone make an
affordable analog EQ that only affects
the range below 300hz? (Or a digital
unit that is affordable and isn't meant
for subwoofers?)

I use a Rane 1/3 octave equalizer. I have several sub-woofers and find
that corner placement is NOT a good choice (in my room). I use
considerable boost at 40 and 50 Hz and cuts at 80, 100, and 120. Again,
this works for MY room. The Rane equalizers are not too expensive.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

I find you need 1/3 octave control to make it work well usually.
1/5 octave is better. And I am referring to using warble tones.
I would EQ to the listening position.

You don't want to boost dips in response too much. I usually limit
it to 6 dB. I drop peaks as much as needed. I find it makes a fair
amount of difference when done.

I use software to make 1/5 th octave warble tones. Measure the
speaker up close and at the listening position. Helps you figure out
what the room is doing. I then EQ digitally with software to flatten
things out. Seems to do a good job. Just not convenient. Using this
approach you would need to EQ and re-burn all your CD's if that is
your source. A piece of consumer digital gear to give you this
control would be extremely useful.

Dennis

Get yourself a TacT Room Correction preamp. They even have refurbished RCS
2.0 models for less than half price with full warranty.

http://www.tactlabs.com/

Tim McTeague

I haven't heard them in action, but Behringer makes a line of equalizers and
most interesting to me, three-way crossovers, some of which have adjustable
equalization and time delay which I hope to test with my JBL S8R fairly soon
(using two Hafler 500's and a Halfer 225 for the amplifiers - my neighbors
will probably hate me).

neIed the time delay because there is no way to mount
a 375 with either the 2350 horn or 2309/2310 horn/lens assembly (to get
a 500Hz low horn cut-off) in the same plane with the LE15A bass driver and
075 tweeter.

The most popular 1/3 octave equalizer in the 70's was made by Soundcraftsmen,
and I've seen one on eBay recently.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

"Tim McTeague" wrote in message
...
Get yourself a TacT Room Correction preamp. They even have refurbished
RCS
2.0 models for less than half price with full warranty.

http://www.tactlabs.com/

Tim McTeague


Although the TacT RCS 2.0 is very good there is a valid reason why they can
now be got for less than half price. This is because of the huge advances
made in the RCS 2.2. There was a time when you could get a RCS 2.0 upgraded
to RCS 2.2, sadly this time has now past, (unless of course you actually
mean this upgrade by the word 'refurbished') IMO once you've heard the RCS
2.2 there is just no going back! May I just add that customer support from
TacT is truly excellent.
I don't own TacT RCS myself but have been greatly involved in the setting up
of friends TacT based systems.

-=Mike=-

Hi Mike,

A few notes:

Although the TacT RCS 2.0 is very good there is a
valid reason why they can
now be got for less than half price. This is because
of the huge advances
made in the RCS 2.2.

That's an "RCS 2.2X", not the discontinued "RCS 2.2".
Don't buy an RCS 2.2 - it's too old.

There was a time when you could get a RCS 2.0
upgraded
to RCS 2.2, sadly this time has now past, ...

Tact was going to offer a 2.0 to 2.0 mk II upgrade, but
couldn't get the chips for it. They now have an RCS
2.0S that offers the same performance as the RCS 2.2X,
but without the sub channels. A used or refurbished
RCS 2.0 is still a very good device, and an excellent
value for the money.

... IMO once you've heard the RCS
2.2 there is just no going back!

With the 2.2X, you can add corner-woofers like the
Lyngdorf (nee Tact) W210's and get fantastic bass.
Even if you have no desire to add subwoofers now, you
will once you learn what room correction can do.
Without the RCS, you're the room's bitch. With the RCS
2.0S, you're putting up a fight. With the RCS 2.2X,
the room is your bitch.

May I just add that customer support from
TacT is truly excellent.

There also is the Tact Audio Users Group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TacTAudioUsersGroup/)
for beginners to advanced users. BTW, don't let the
advanced users and modifiers scare you off - we may
have our complaints but you'd have to rip our RCS's
from our cold dead hands to get it away from us.

I have the RCS 2.2X, a pair of the S2150 amps, and a
pair of the W410 corner-woofers.

Regards,
Tip

"Tip" wrote in message
...
Hi Mike,

A few notes:

Although the TacT RCS 2.0 is very good there is a
valid reason why they can
now be got for less than half price. This is because
of the huge advances
made in the RCS 2.2.

That's an "RCS 2.2X", not the discontinued "RCS 2.2".
Don't buy an RCS 2.2 - it's too old.

There was a time when you could get a RCS 2.0
upgraded
to RCS 2.2, sadly this time has now past, ...

Tact was going to offer a 2.0 to 2.0 mk II upgrade, but
couldn't get the chips for it. They now have an RCS
2.0S that offers the same performance as the RCS 2.2X,
but without the sub channels. A used or refurbished
RCS 2.0 is still a very good device, and an excellent
value for the money.

... IMO once you've heard the RCS
2.2 there is just no going back!

With the 2.2X, you can add corner-woofers like the
Lyngdorf (nee Tact) W210's and get fantastic bass.
Even if you have no desire to add subwoofers now, you
will once you learn what room correction can do.
Without the RCS, you're the room's bitch. With the RCS
2.0S, you're putting up a fight. With the RCS 2.2X,
the room is your bitch.

May I just add that customer support from
TacT is truly excellent.

There also is the Tact Audio Users Group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TacTAudioUsersGroup/)
for beginners to advanced users. BTW, don't let the
advanced users and modifiers scare you off - we may
have our complaints but you'd have to rip our RCS's
from our cold dead hands to get it away from us.

I have the RCS 2.2X, a pair of the S2150 amps, and a
pair of the W410 corner-woofers.

Regards,
Tip


I was wondering how much the newer models added other than subwoofer
control. My new Linkwitz Orions already go down to 20Hz so I don't plan on
adding a sub. The refurbished RCS 2.0, at $1500, was already the most I was
willing to spend for a new preamp. Has anyone actually done a blind test of
the 2.0 and 2.2X using the same room curve? I wonder how much, if any
difference there really is.

Tim McTeague

Hi Tim,

I was wondering how much the newer models added other
than subwoofer
control.

The subs are only on the RCS 2.2X. The RCS 2.0S has
twice the frequency resolution of the RCS 2.0, but
that's not a big deal.

My new Linkwitz Orions already go down to 20Hz so I
don't plan on
adding a sub.

The advantage of the sub channels of the 2.2X is that
the subs, or preferably corner-woofers like the W210's,
can be placed in the front corners (if you've got
them). I have B&W801's, which aren't bass-shy either,
but adding the W410's made a huge improvement in the
bass because of the corner placement, which is the best
place for woofers but only if there is DSP correction.
Next best is dipole woofers, but they don't work in
corners. Stick a Thor in each corner.

The refurbished RCS 2.0, at $1500, was already the
most I was
willing to spend for a new preamp. Has anyone
actually done a blind test of
the 2.0 and 2.2X using the same room curve? I wonder
how much, if any
difference there really is.

I had an RCS 2.0 before I got the 2.2X, but I didn't
compare them because I also added the W410
corner-woofers, which made an order of magnitude
difference. But I wouldn't tell you to upgrade from
the RCS 2.0 to the RCS 2.0S. I sold my RCS 2.0 for
$1900 three years ago, so I think you got a great deal.

Regards,
Tip

I had an RCS 2.0 before I got the 2.2X, but I didn't
compare them because I also added the W410
corner-woofers, which made an order of magnitude
difference. But I wouldn't tell you to upgrade from
the RCS 2.0 to the RCS 2.0S. I sold my RCS 2.0 for
$1900 three years ago, so I think you got a great deal.

Regards,
Tip



Tip,

Thanks, that is sort of what I wanted to hear. As my current setup far
exceeds the quality of anything I have ever heard before I can't imagine
much improvement. Some DVD movies, however, can cause the power amp to clip
during super low frequency stuff so maybe a 2.2X and pair of Thors are in my
future. For now I am happy camping.

Tim

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
MD wrote:

From text I sent to Stereophile

I have been a subscriber for about 15 years. In that time I have
learned, and tried to put in practice, good room treatment techniques.
I use test CD's and a sound meter to aid in placement and I treat all
the room hot spots like first order reflection, echo flutter and
deaden the area behind my head (my Triangle Celius speakers sounds
their best in a spot that forces me to the rear wall- I have an odd
room). What confuses me is the double speak on tone controls and
equalizers as well as exactly which test tones I should use when
running the tests.

On equalizers/tone controls. I can't count how many times I have read
that these are either the bane of our collective electronic existence
or a necessary tool to help make some recordings sound right
(specifically tone controls). On equalizers I read that they induce
too many problems but your magazine has recommended several of them
(all in the digital domain I believe).

In my room I have several strong nodes below 300hz (as do most people
I am sure). I have a small dent at 50hz, huge plus ups at 60hz and
120hz and a dip at about 250hz (Here is where the test tone confusion
comes in. With warble tones the aberrations are far lower. With
straight tones I have a 16db shift from 120hz to 250hz - with warble
tones the shift is about 5db. Which am I to use? Seems to me warble
tones are more effective because the approximate the changes that
occur in music?). After studiously using my test gear/tones, set up
programs, several suggestions from professional sources (read in your
mag and others) as well as installing some room treatment (albeit none
for bass control) I am left with the predicament described. As far as
I can tell room treatments, designed to help in the low end, are not
discriminate enough. While they will tame my hot spots they will also
negatively affect my dips(?). Using a bass tone control won't work for
basically the same reason. At the end of the day (which I assure you
is a grossly understated metaphor) I decided to try a cheap 10 band EQ
I had on hand (I would try the digital products but they are way too
expensive). Utilizing the EQ and other associated items I was able to
smooth out the bumps, in both directions, to a very significantly
measurable degree. Now here's the rub. When I asked my daughter to
help me A/B the difference (which is easy with an EQ - one button) I
had to work at hearing the difference - more often than not. (I should
note that I could go flat to 40hz and only 3db down at 31.5hz). While
I was able to discern the difference on some recordings (bass notes
ended sooner - no bloat) it was not a startling difference. As such is
it "better" that I use the EQ to settle the bloat or run away from the
wretched beast, and all it's detriments, and deal with the bloat
because its less damaging? (I should also note that I heard no
negative artifacts with the EQ - no imaging change or high frequency
issues). Finally – does anyone make an affordable analog EQ that only
affects the range below 300hz? (Or a digital unit that is affordable
and isn’t meant for subwoofers?)


I could give you another way of looking at the problem. Sometimes we get
too absorbed in hi-fi trivia, trying to get some sort of perfect curve
to our frequency response and reduce all contributions from the room,
which is based on a misunderstanding of the system.

Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right? Now, the point of the exercise is to make your room
sound good for MUSIC, and let your system simply play in this good
sounding room. Sure, if there is some ridiculous resonance at some bass
frequency you want to dampen it. But the system itself will be basically
playing flat into your room, just as the quartet live is playing "flat"
and sounds perfectly real without even any EQ! So set up a reasonable
system, get a good balance between your mains and your subs, between the
fronts and the surrounds, and enjoy the music! If you didn't need any
fancy digital room correction for the live music, you don't need it for
the reproduction either. And remember, EQ is not supposed to be flat at
the listening position. The room gives it a natural taper at the high
frequencies, which is part of the deal, so don't go to any lengths to
"correct" that.

Gary Eickmeier

So well put. People try so hard to get that absolute flattest response
in their room, but really, they should simply achieve the best balance.


I say to simply move your speakers around in the room untill you find a
spot where the speakers seem to come "alive." That's it. Any EQ or tone
controls added afterwards should be mild, plus or minus 4 db. Then
you're good and all is well. It's not perfect, but its' probably perfect
for that room or very close to perfect, and, ultimately, you'll be happy.

CD

MD wrote:

On equalizers/tone controls. I can't count how many times I have read
that these are either the bane of our collective electronic existence
or a necessary tool to help make some recordings sound right
(specifically tone controls). On equalizers I read that they induce
too many problems but your magazine has recommended several of them
(all in the digital domain I believe).
Any tool can be misused and some lend themselves to misuse. Tone
controls are most effective for source correction, not room
correction. EQs come in many formats, varieties and capabilities, so
no blanket assessment is appropriate. BTW, we (I) have recommended at
least one analog EQ, the Rives Audio PARC.

In my room I have several strong nodes below 300hz (as do most people
I am sure). I have a small dent at 50hz, huge plus ups at 60hz and
120hz and a dip at about 250hz (Here is where the test tone confusion
comes in. With warble tones the aberrations are far lower. With
straight tones I have a 16db shift from 120hz to 250hz - with warble
tones the shift is about 5db. Which am I to use? Seems to me warble
tones are more effective because the approximate the changes that
occur in music?). After studiously using my test gear/tones, set up
programs, several suggestions from professional sources (read in your
mag and others) as well as installing some room treatment (albeit none
for bass control) I am left with the predicament described. As far as
I can tell room treatments, designed to help in the low end, are not
discriminate enough. While they will tame my hot spots they will also
negatively affect my dips(?). Using a bass tone control won't work for
basically the same reason. At the end of the day (which I assure you
is a grossly understated metaphor) I decided to try a cheap 10 band EQ
I had on hand (I would try the digital products but they are way too
expensive). Utilizing the EQ and other associated items I was able to
smooth out the bumps, in both directions, to a very significantly
measurable degree. Now here's the rub. When I asked my daughter to
help me A/B the difference (which is easy with an EQ - one button) I
had to work at hearing the difference - more often than not. (I should
note that I could go flat to 40hz and only 3db down at 31.5hz). While
I was able to discern the difference on some recordings (bass notes
ended sooner - no bloat) it was not a startling difference. As such is
it "better" that I use the EQ to settle the bloat or run away from the
wretched beast, and all it's detriments, and deal with the bloat
because its less damaging? (I should also note that I heard no
negative artifacts with the EQ - no imaging change or high frequency
issues).

Your preference for using the warble tones over the extended pure
tones is probably right. Even better are gated sweeps or pulses but
you need appropriate software for those. So far as deciding whether
it is better to make a seemingly subtle EQ or eliminate the EQ and
live with the 'bloat.' only you can decide. I would suggest, however,
that A/B testing can help you with discerning the difference but is
less useful, for psychophysiological reasons, than extended listening.
The difference may be subtle but it is, now, a change from your
internal reference. Try living with the EQ correction for a few weeks
and then repeat the A/B. Your response may be different.

You should also be aware, as you have implied, that trying to correct
for a local peak or null may make things a bit worse elsewhere in the
room.

Ultimately, however, you only have to satisfy your ears and mind, not
your graphic displays. Try surfing the room EQ discussions on
www.avsforum.com for a lot of heated but informed commentary.

Kal

Codifus wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
MD wrote:

From text I sent to Stereophile

I have been a subscriber for about 15 years. In that time I have
learned, and tried to put in practice, good room treatment techniques.
I use test CD's and a sound meter to aid in placement and I treat all
the room hot spots like first order reflection, echo flutter and
deaden the area behind my head (my Triangle Celius speakers sounds
their best in a spot that forces me to the rear wall- I have an odd
room). What confuses me is the double speak on tone controls and
equalizers as well as exactly which test tones I should use when
running the tests.

On equalizers/tone controls. I can't count how many times I have read
that these are either the bane of our collective electronic existence
or a necessary tool to help make some recordings sound right
(specifically tone controls). On equalizers I read that they induce
too many problems but your magazine has recommended several of them
(all in the digital domain I believe).

In my room I have several strong nodes below 300hz (as do most people
I am sure). I have a small dent at 50hz, huge plus ups at 60hz and
120hz and a dip at about 250hz (Here is where the test tone confusion
comes in. With warble tones the aberrations are far lower. With
straight tones I have a 16db shift from 120hz to 250hz - with warble
tones the shift is about 5db. Which am I to use? Seems to me warble
tones are more effective because the approximate the changes that
occur in music?). After studiously using my test gear/tones, set up
programs, several suggestions from professional sources (read in your
mag and others) as well as installing some room treatment (albeit none
for bass control) I am left with the predicament described. As far as
I can tell room treatments, designed to help in the low end, are not
discriminate enough. While they will tame my hot spots they will also
negatively affect my dips(?). Using a bass tone control won't work for
basically the same reason. At the end of the day (which I assure you
is a grossly understated metaphor) I decided to try a cheap 10 band EQ
I had on hand (I would try the digital products but they are way too
expensive). Utilizing the EQ and other associated items I was able to
smooth out the bumps, in both directions, to a very significantly
measurable degree. Now here's the rub. When I asked my daughter to
help me A/B the difference (which is easy with an EQ - one button) I
had to work at hearing the difference - more often than not. (I should
note that I could go flat to 40hz and only 3db down at 31.5hz). While
I was able to discern the difference on some recordings (bass notes
ended sooner - no bloat) it was not a startling difference. As such is
it "better" that I use the EQ to settle the bloat or run away from the
wretched beast, and all it's detriments, and deal with the bloat
because its less damaging? (I should also note that I heard no
negative artifacts with the EQ - no imaging change or high frequency
issues). Finally - does anyone make an affordable analog EQ that only
affects the range below 300hz? (Or a digital unit that is affordable
and isn't meant for subwoofers?)


I could give you another way of looking at the problem. Sometimes we get
too absorbed in hi-fi trivia, trying to get some sort of perfect curve
to our frequency response and reduce all contributions from the room,
which is based on a misunderstanding of the system.

Not it's not. any contributions to the sound from the listening room is
a coloration. it is not trivial. now one does have to pay attention to
the speaker design since many speaker designers design with room
colorations in mind. It is not trivial and IME the best sound comes
from speakers with very low distortion in rooms with very little sound
of their own.



Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right?

In this context yes. fact is if they overload the room they will not
sound real in the way we want things to sound real.


Now, the point of the exercise is to make your room
sound good for MUSIC, and let your system simply play in this good
sounding room.

You couldn't be more wrong. the acoustics for good live music are
nothing like the acoustics for playback. For live music, the room sound
is part of the performance. For playback that kind of reverb, good
reverb for live music, would be terrible.

Sure, if there is some ridiculous resonance at some bass
frequency you want to dampen it. But the system itself will be basically
playing flat into your room,

No it is not. frequency responses are measured well into the room and a
reverberant room will profoundly affect that response not to mention
all the smearing you will get.


just as the quartet live is playing "flat"

Are they? You think they would sound the same regardless of the space
they are playing in?


and sounds perfectly real without even any EQ!

And in the wrong room perfectly awful. But your premise is painfully
flawed.


So set up a reasonable
system, get a good balance between your mains and your subs, between the
fronts and the surrounds, and enjoy the music!


That is a good basic formula for the bare essentials of playback. But
with time, care and the right equiment there is a lot of room for
improvement. That is what the high end is about. your advice is quite
right for casual listenes not for audiophiles.


If you didn't need any
fancy digital room correction for the live music, you don't need it for
the reproduction either.


Oh that is ridiculous. How can you possibly compare such two entirely
different things? The reverb in live music is an intregal part of that
music. If well recorded *that* reverb is already there. Adding the
everb of yet another room, the listening room for playback is all
wrong. It's not the same thing at all. The only way to make listening
room reverb work the same way as concert hall reverb is to have a
seperate channel for each instrument with zero cross talk from the
other instruments, and then have a mic/speaker system that can mimic
the radiation patterns of the original instrument, then place each
speaker in the room in the same configuration as was the original
performance. That would ridiculous. But if this isn't what you are
doing then you are simply comparing apples and oranges. Speaker/room
interaction is nothing like live acoustic music/room interaction.

And remember, EQ is not supposed to be flat at
the listening position.


Why not.

The room gives it a natural taper at the high
frequencies, which is part of the deal, so don't go to any lengths to
"correct" that.


Wrong wrong worng. correct it please. Don't let the room ruin the
playback.



Gary Eickmeier

So well put. People try so hard to get that absolute flattest response
in their room, but really, they should simply achieve the best balance.



The best balance usually is a flat response. Certainly there are other
issues but all else being equal flatter is usually better with
speakers.




I say to simply move your speakers around in the room untill you find a
spot where the speakers seem to come "alive." That's it. Any EQ or tone
controls added afterwards should be mild, plus or minus 4 db.


I agree with this more or less. You will likely do much better with
careful speaker placement and room treatment than you will with EQ. I
wouldn't mess with EQ for room correction. If the speaker room
interface is sooo bad that it needs EQ I would look to one of the
digital room correction devices. They are far more precise and the good
ones do more than just fix frequency response.


Then
you're good and all is well. It's not perfect, but its' probably perfect
for that room or very close to perfect, and, ultimately, you'll be happy.


Not to be a nay sayer but it takes a lot of work with speaker placement
and usually substantial room treatment to get anywhere near the best
sound possible from your system.


Scott

wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right?

In this context yes. fact is if they overload the room they will not
sound real in the way we want things to sound real.



Umm...I'm going to let everyone chew on that phrase for a second: "they
will not sound real in the way we want things to sound real."

I believe you have summarized the basic problem facing audiophiles
[sic] rather succinctly (whether intentional or not!). Listeners don't
want "reality"; they want what they want...and then they want to
believe that *that's* "reality".

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right?

In this context yes. fact is if they overload the room they will not
sound real in the way we want things to sound real.



Umm...I'm going to let everyone chew on that phrase for a second: "they
will not sound real in the way we want things to sound real."


What's to chew on? Anyone with substantial experience with live music
knows exactly what I am talking about. There is a good reason
acousticians are involved in designing concert halls. There are obvious
reasons why orchestras don't play in rooms the size of your average
listening room. You put an instrument or an ensemble in a room that is
not big enough to handle the sound then you will get a sound that is
not the way we want it to be. So you will get a sound that is both real
and completely wrong.



I believe you have summarized the basic problem facing audiophiles
[sic] rather succinctly (whether intentional or not!).

Hardly. The basic problem most audiophiles face is affording what they
want.



Listeners don't
want "reality";


I think it wise that you don't speak for other audiophiles. Just
because I don't like the sound of live instruments overloading a room
doesn't mean I don't want realism.Big diffence between realism and
reality when reality sucks. The realism I seek in audio is that of live
music played in a good acoustic space. Is this idea new to you?


they want what they want...


I suppose that much is true.....


and then they want to
believe that *that's* "reality".

Wanting what one wants isn't reality? Please explain. you mean I don't
really want what I want? odd idea.


Scott

wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right?

In this context yes. fact is if they overload the room they will not
sound real in the way we want things to sound real.



Umm...I'm going to let everyone chew on that phrase for a second: "they
will not sound real in the way we want things to sound real."


What's to chew on? Anyone with substantial experience with live music
knows exactly what I am talking about.

Okay, well, I've got "substantial experience with live music" and I
either still don't know what you're talking about, or (more likely) I
know that the semantics of your sentence are problematic. "The way we
want things to sound real" has nothing to do with the "real" part, and
is entirely about "the way we want things to sound". In fact, if you
had just written "if they overload the room they will not sound real in
the way we want things to sound" I wouldn't have even bothered
replying; that's practically axiomotic, a perfectly resonable sentiment
to express. But you wrote "they will not sound real in the way we want
things to sound real" and that rightly should set off all sorts of
warning flags in any discerning reader...especially one who has
"substantial experience with live music". "Real" is what it really
sounds like, regardless of whether it's overloading the room. "The way
we want things to sound" is personal, subjective, opinion, and we're
all entitled to that. "The way we want things to sound real" is just
wishful thinking.


You put an instrument or an ensemble in a room that is
not big enough to handle the sound then you will get a sound that is
not the way we want it to be.

Agreed. (For the most part...I can think of a few exceptions, but for
the sake of brevity I will agree 100%.)

So you will get a sound that is both real and completely wrong.

Disagree. Reality can't be "wrong" if the goal of music reproduction is
to reproduce the original event. If we don't *like* the sound of the
original event, that's another issue entirely.


The basic problem most audiophiles face is affording what they want.

LOL! Okay, I will happily concede that point!


Big diffence between realism and
reality when reality sucks.

The only difference is that one presumably doesn't enjoy the reality
which sucks. That doesn't make it less real, just less enjoyable.


The realism I seek in audio is that of live
music played in a good acoustic space. Is this idea new to you?

That's not realism you seek, that's just how you define a goal you
seek. An admirable goal...at least if the source material is live music
played in a good acoustic space. But what if the source material is
computer generated music that was never "played" in an acoustic space
at all? What if the source material is found snippets of conversation
recorded on a noisey subway platform? What if the source material is
good music played in a not-so-good acoustic space? If you claim you
seek realism, then you must accept the reality of those sources. On the
other hand, if you want all those sources to sound like live music
played in a good acoustic space, you don't seek reality, you just seek
a specific personal sort of euphony.


Wanting what one wants isn't reality? Please explain. you mean I don't
really want what I want?

See above. I mean that this thing that you want is not the "reality" of
the original performance, it is an idealized event that potentially
never took place, and hence is "unreal."

And I do believe that you really want that, I'm not questioning your
motivations.

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Imagine hiring a piano quartet or similar to come to your home and
perform in place of your system. Would they sound real or not? Stupid
question, right?

In this context yes. fact is if they overload the room they will not
sound real in the way we want things to sound real.



Umm...I'm going to let everyone chew on that phrase for a second: "they
will not sound real in the way we want things to sound real."


What's to chew on? Anyone with substantial experience with live music
knows exactly what I am talking about.

Okay, well, I've got "substantial experience with live music" and I
either still don't know what you're talking about,


I thought it was pretty clear, live music in a space that does not
serve the quality of the sound. It's both real and undesirable.


or (more likely) I
know that the semantics of your sentence are problematic. "The way we
want things to sound real" has nothing to do with the "real" part,


No it has everything to do with the real part. I want realism but i
want good quality realism. Live music in a poor acoustic space is real
but it is not a desirable sound. Live music in an excellent acoustic
space is both real and excellent. That is what i want to hear. Now
plese pay attention, I said i want realistic sound just of a certain
quality. That *excludes* unrealistic sound. Does that clear things up
at all?



and
is entirely about "the way we want things to sound".

No it's not "entirely" about the way we want things to sound except
that "we" (I) happen to want realistic sound of good music played in a
good acoustic space for that music. See, realism never leaves the
picture of what *I* want. Please don't try to twst my words to say
otherwise.


In fact, if you
had just written "if they overload the room they will not sound real in
the way we want things to sound" I wouldn't have even bothered
replying; that's practically axiomotic, a perfectly resonable sentiment
to express.


Unless one did want unrealistic sound. Clearly some do. if one likes
the sound of playback splashed all over a lively room from drivers
pointed in every which way for the sake of gbgger than life imaging and
reverb then one does like things to sound unreal. Some people do like
this.


i don't. But you wrote "they will not sound real in the way we want
things to sound real"

Yes i know what I wrote. i was being very specific because the previous
poster was advocating an aproach to playback that IMO will lead to
lesser realism but possibly greater spectacle. Some people may want
that spectacular sound despite it's ledder realism. So I dino leave it
open to that possibility. OTOH I was trying to close the door on the
idea that realism is desirable even if it sounds bad. For me it isn't.
If someone records a drum kit with mics that a re six inches away from
each drum I don't want to hear that realistically. Hence real the way i
want them to sound real. that would be in a good space from a dsirable
distance

..
and that rightly should set off all sorts of
warning flags in any discerning reader...


IYO. I'd say they were not 'rightly" set off at all, especially in the
context of the thread and the specific post i was responding to.


especially one who has
"substantial experience with live music". "Real" is what it really
sounds like, regardless of whether it's overloading the room.


Did I say otherwise? No. The issue is whether that is what you want to
hear. Is it what you want to hear? Music played in all the wrong
places? Is that the sound you seek as an audiophile? Not me.


"The way
we want things to sound"


who are you quoting? not me.


is personal, subjective, opinion, and we're
all entitled to that.


Who said otherwise?



"The way we want things to sound real" is just
wishful thinking.


No it's not. It's an intrical part of the process of making music.
Maybe you think venues are chosen randomly by musicians and recording
engineers. i think otherwise. it is not just wishful thinking. some
people actually make it a reality and I, as an audiophile, am most
grateful for those people. maybe you don't care and any sort of realism
pleases you even the sound of music in an overloaded room. It doesn't
please me and i am entitled to that opinion.



You put an instrument or an ensemble in a room that is
not big enough to handle the sound then you will get a sound that is
not the way we want it to be.

Agreed. (For the most part...I can think of a few exceptions, but for
the sake of brevity I will agree 100%.)

So you will get a sound that is both real and completely wrong.

Disagree. Reality can't be "wrong" if the goal of music reproduction is
to reproduce the original event. If we don't *like* the sound of the
original event, that's another issue entirely.

Well if we don't like the original event, events like music played in a
poor space then we think it is wrong no? All I was saying is that.





The basic problem most audiophiles face is affording what they want.

LOL! Okay, I will happily concede that point!


Big diffence between realism and
reality when reality sucks.

The only difference is that one presumably doesn't enjoy the reality
which sucks. That doesn't make it less real, just less enjoyable.


Exactly. and if you go back and look at the context of my comments
maybe they will make better sense.




The realism I seek in audio is that of live
music played in a good acoustic space. Is this idea new to you?

That's not realism you seek,


Whoa, way out of line. Do not speak for what i want please. It is the
relism I seek. don't misrepresent what I want.


that's just how you define a goal you
seek.

Whah? Realism of music played in a good space *is not* what I seek but
it *is* a *goal* that I seek?


An admirable goal...at least if the source material is live music
played in a good acoustic space. But what if the source material is
computer generated music that was never "played" in an acoustic space
at all?


Then i don't have any standard by which to judge it. i simply take it
for what it is. I don't use that kind of music alone to judge fidelity
of playback systems for a good reason. I figured everyone would
understand that i was speaking of live acoustic source material
strictly in my comments.


What if the source material is found snippets of conversation
recorded on a noisey subway platform? What if the source material is
good music played in a not-so-good acoustic space?

In both cases the original event, the reality, will not be the most
desirable sound.

If you claim you
seek realism, then you must accept the reality of those sources.

I suggest you read what exactly i claim to seek.

On the
other hand, if you want all those sources to sound like live music
played in a good acoustic space, you don't seek reality, you just seek
a specific personal sort of euphony.

Again, you seem to fail to see the differences between realism and
reality. Yes I seek a subset of realistic sounding playback, that of
good sounding realism. If the reality is bad, I'd like the artists and
enginees to try to make it better.




Wanting what one wants isn't reality? Please explain. you mean I don't
really want what I want?

See above. I mean that this thing that you want is not the "reality" of
the original performance,


It is if the reality was right to begin with.


it is an idealized event that potentially
never took place, and hence is "unreal."

you assume that the ideal is unreal. it isn't. The best soundng music I
have ever heard was real. That set of experiences does frame my
reference for judging playback. No "idealized" events that "never took
place" are a part of my reference for ideal sound of playback of live
acoustic music.



And I do believe that you really want that, I'm not questioning your
motivations.


people believe all kinds of things.



Scott

Scott, you get points for tenaciousness, but you still seem to be
conveniently ignoring the gist of my comments. All I'm saying is "the
way we want things to sound real" is not the same thing as "the way
things really sound". It is however exactly the same as "the way we
want things to sound", so there's no reason to add that additional word
"real" as if it were a qualifier. If anything it only obfuscates the
point.

Buster Mudd wrote:
Scott, you get points for tenaciousness, but you still seem to be
conveniently ignoring the gist of my comments. All I'm saying is "the
way we want things to sound real" is not the same thing as "the way
things really sound". It is however exactly the same as "the way we
want things to sound", so there's no reason to add that additional word
"real" as if it were a qualifier. If anything it only obfuscates the
point.


I respectfully disagree. one can want unrealistic sound. So there is a
reason to add the word real. It is a qualifier. And it should clarify
things. IMO people who are splashing their playback all over the
listening room , basking in the reverb and enjoying it, want
unrealistic sound. That was the jist of my original point. I'm not one
of those people. I think listening rooms are critical and are in no way
analogus to envirements made for the playing of live acoustic music.
And don't forget it is quite possible and unfortunately fairly common
to get real sound that is not what we want in the way of sound.



Scott

wrote:

I respectfully disagree. one can want unrealistic sound. So there is a
reason to add the word real. It is a qualifier.


But all it qualifies is the "wanting", not the "realism". As I stated
in an earlier post, this is probably a semantic issue.

emfbi, but...

There is really no such thing as real sound in a listening environment
except in the original environment where the sound or music was created.
Consider the argument in Plato's discussion of "the cave" in The Republic.
People in the cave saw shadows cast by their fire, thinking those shadows
were the reality, not the people or forms whose shadows were being cast.
It's the same thing with music reproduction. We may have an ideal of
"reality", but all we can achieve, no matter how good, is a "shadow."
Clearly, no matter how fine the equipment and room conditions, there is no
way a 100 piece symphony orchestra is going to sound "real" when squeezed
across a 15 foot wall. Now, if you are talking dynamics, timbre, sound
frequency, that is something which existing high end audio equipment can
come very close to reproducing. But, even that will only be an approximation
of an original sound source.

Sherm

wrote in message
...
Buster Mudd wrote:
Scott, you get points for tenaciousness, but you still seem to be
conveniently ignoring the gist of my comments. All I'm saying is "the
way we want things to sound real" is not the same thing as "the way
things really sound". It is however exactly the same as "the way we
want things to sound", so there's no reason to add that additional word
"real" as if it were a qualifier. If anything it only obfuscates the
point.


I respectfully disagree. one can want unrealistic sound. So there is a
reason to add the word real. It is a qualifier. And it should clarify
things. IMO people who are splashing their playback all over the
listening room , basking in the reverb and enjoying it, want
unrealistic sound. That was the jist of my original point. I'm not one
of those people. I think listening rooms are critical and are in no way
analogus to envirements made for the playing of live acoustic music.
And don't forget it is quite possible and unfortunately fairly common
to get real sound that is not what we want in the way of sound.



Scott

Sherman Kaplan wrote:
emfbi, but...

There is really no such thing as real sound in a listening environment
except in the original environment where the sound or music was created.
Consider the argument in Plato's discussion of "the cave" in The Republic.
People in the cave saw shadows cast by their fire, thinking those shadows
were the reality, not the people or forms whose shadows were being cast.
It's the same thing with music reproduction. We may have an ideal of
"reality", but all we can achieve, no matter how good, is a "shadow."
Clearly, no matter how fine the equipment and room conditions, there is no
way a 100 piece symphony orchestra is going to sound "real" when squeezed
across a 15 foot wall. Now, if you are talking dynamics, timbre, sound
frequency, that is something which existing high end audio equipment can
come very close to reproducing. But, even that will only be an approximation
of an original sound source.

Sherm

wrote in message
...

Buster Mudd wrote:

Scott, you get points for tenaciousness, but you still seem to be
conveniently ignoring the gist of my comments. All I'm saying is "the
way we want things to sound real" is not the same thing as "the way
things really sound". It is however exactly the same as "the way we
want things to sound", so there's no reason to add that additional word
"real" as if it were a qualifier. If anything it only obfuscates the
point.


I respectfully disagree. one can want unrealistic sound. So there is a
reason to add the word real. It is a qualifier. And it should clarify
things. IMO people who are splashing their playback all over the
listening room , basking in the reverb and enjoying it, want
unrealistic sound. That was the jist of my original point. I'm not one
of those people. I think listening rooms are critical and are in no way
analogus to envirements made for the playing of live acoustic music.
And don't forget it is quite possible and unfortunately fairly common
to get real sound that is not what we want in the way of sound.



Scott


Or, to put it more succinctly, the best we can hope for is the most
realistic interpretation of the actual performance.

CD