@erik_squires , I checked out your virtual system and we both use Mogami cables, Isoacoustic stands, and maple platforms. We also took care to treat the room and the ceiling, nice. If you are using ARC can you post the before and after of your FR in your system profile? If not, NP. It would simply be interesting to discuss.How were you able to dial in the placement of your speakers, are they higher than ear level on those stands?
@mikelavigne , you obviously have dialed in your room meticulously, did you use any dsp? I noted in another thread that we are both using Auralex diffusors. You are using the T-fusors on I think the first reflection point? I’m using the Gefusors backfilled with polyfil for some absorption on the ceiling above the MLP and on the ceiling in the rear corners of the room.
|
@mikelavigne , I agree that is a better question, asking if you have the frequency response that you want. To get that answer though you would have to measure it and compare it to a flat response to determine which is preferred. Some speakers are designed to take out the harshness around 2 to 4hz and build in a "gundry dip".
Marantz has a target curve within Audyssey, there is a "Harman" curve as well, good point. Let me rephrase and say that until you know what your desired FR curve is and have achieved it, spending money on new gear is rather frivolous. You still need to measure the FR and dial it in before new purchases to avoid the dangers of an audio money pit. However, you can’t really be too far off base with simply a flat curve to get started.
@erik_squires , I have done some research, here is a good foundation. Even if you don’t agree that flat is your preference, you need to get your preferred response before buying new components. Imagine not liking your speakers, buying new ones, and then finding out the real issue wasn’t the speakers but the FR of getting the speakers dialed into the room.
From "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems-1. Introduction"
Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems. Those that deviate significantly earn lower ratings in double-blind subjective evaluations. Although there is more to be considered, a flat direct sound delivered to listeners is the basis for most reproduced sound.
|
@erik_squires , great example of how you dialed in the FR you wanted before chasing gear to get better SQ. Did you use the mic that came with your receiver for your measurements or something else?
|
@erik_squires , nice job on the attention to detail :)
I was using audyssey and it was better than nothing. Then I used the room treatment method that Anthony Grimani discusses in that video I posted earlier and it was infinitely better. Got my MLP setup to the specs laid out by dolby required moving the MLP from the back of the room to the middle of the room. Finally I made the leap to the pro version of Audyssey, got the kit with the calibrated mic and the license upgrades and finally achieved what I wanted. All in it was much less expensive than buying a new processor.
|
@erik_squires , wow +10, nice article. I hope the other people reading this thread benefit from your wisdom here.
This proves a point I keep repeating: You have no idea what the lower cutoff of a speaker in a room actually is until you measure it. Because most audiophiles don’t do this critical step they usually get misled about what their next steps should be. The average audiophile needs to reset what they think they know about speaker specifications and what it means.
|
The pro version of Audyssey let’s you use 100% custom curves, the upgrade license is $200 and a calibrated mic about $50. Anyone with a D&M product that is able to use the $20 app can get a trial version of it at the Microsoft store.
|
@nonoise +1, hey, there is "wrong" way to do this hobby as long as you get what you want.
My post was directed at the members posting that they don't have what they want, and asking what to buy/try next. I think that this is what people who are not feeling satisfied should try first.
|
@wturkey , I am not a quant, we had quants in another thread, that take it to the ridiculous,
|
|
@wturkey and , you can check the measurements of my room in my profile.
|
@jeffrey75 , please post any links you would like to house curves. I think @mikelavigne rephrased the question properly, it is to get the FQ that is desired, but that doesn't mean it has to be flat.
I am saying that listeners are better off getting the FQ in the room they want (flat, or otherwise) by measuring and dialing it in before making new investments in gear.
|
@mrskeptic , that statement is based on the research paper I posted on page 1:
Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems. Those that deviate significantly earn lower ratings in double-blind subjective evaluations.
And in section 3.6
Double-blind subjective evaluations of loudspeakers conducted by the author and his colleagues for 35 years have shown consistent preference for those having flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, accompanied by wellbehaved off-axis response—i.e., a smoothly changing or constant directivity index ([1] chapter 18)
|
@asvjerry @nonoise Thanks for catching my typo, that should read.
There is no "wrong" way to do this hobby
@asvjerry You obviously get the point, congrats on the speaker build, must be nice to have the satisfaction of being able to literally build the speaker to fit your room. Most of us have to change the room to fit the speaker, nice job!
|
@duckworp , I agree that that once you have a flat frequency response component upgrades can provide many benefits you simply can't measure with one microphone and a computer. We listen with two ears so things like soundstage can't be measured. My premise is to dial in whatever your preferred FR is before trying to change other parameters.
DSP is very limited in what it can correct. According to the paper I posted in section 2.4 Room Equalization is a Misnomer:
Equalization is very limited in what it can “correct,” yet the notion that changing the signal supplied to a sound system consisting of an unknown loudspeaker in an unknown room can “equalize” or “calibrate” a system is widespread. In the context of a practical application where there is an audience of several listeners conventional equalization cannot: • Add or remove reflections • Change reverberation time • Reduce seat-to-seat variations in bass • Correct frequency dependent directivity in loudspeakers • Compensate for frequency dependent absorption in acoustical materials and furnishings. The exception is in the highly reflective sound field at very low frequencies.
|
@esarhaddon , let me say I don’t know how to get the sound of live musicians in my room, I likely need to start all over with a purpose built studio and a generous budget to achieve that.
However, I can share the most enjoyable way I have found to listen to live recordings. If you see my system you’ll notice a BIG screen in front. Plex now has about 10 live TV stations that play various types of concerts 24/7. I fire up one of those channels with content I enjoy and listen with an upmixer called Audyssey DSX. The emphasis today in multichannel listening seems to be height channels. For reproducing music wide channels are more important than height channels according to studies by Tomlinson Holman (THX). The wide channels seem to be an afterthought with Atmos and DTS-X. Read more about it here:
|
@esarhaddon , you make a great point. Are you hearing what the engineer heard when they mixed it. That is called the "circle of confusion" and is one of the topics that paper attempts to address. Check out the diagram (Fig. 1) on the second page and then the author states:
Significant uniformity throughout the process is needed if customers are to hear what the artists created. This is the “circle of confusion” shown in Fig. 1. For the system to function sensibly, mixing and mastering engineers need to experience sound that resembles what their customers will hear. Acknowledging that audio systems in widespread use are not necessarily very good, audio professionals in the music side of the business have often used “bad” loudspeakers to check their mixes. The problem is that loudspeakers can be “bad” in countless ways. The dominant characteristics of small low cost audio devices are a lack of bass and reduced sound output capability—a high-pass filter in the playback signal path is a practical way to simulate that. The author’s book [1] (chapters 2 and 18) illustrates the past and present situation in consumer and professional-monitor loudspeakers. Flat on-axis frequency response is clearly the engineering objective for most of these systems
|
@retiredfarmer , that is a little harsh to dis the whole country because of one anechoic chamber
|
@lemonhaze , you articulated that very well, the key is a "smooth" in room response which combines with both direct sound and reflected sound. This was the strategy I used in treating my room, I pretty much followed the panel distribution laid out in this diagram:
|
@liquidsound +10, you articulated the entire point of why I started this thread in your post, thank-you. I will order that book too, first I heard of it, thanks!
|
