I just listened the same track right now...
Money of Pink Floyd...
No sophisticated EQ, only 3 tone controls on my cheap but good tube preamplifier ....
😊
Guess what ?
The guitar solo is almost beside me at my left out of the speakers and the soundfield encompass my listening position OUTSIDE of the speakers by right and left and almost behind me ...( in nearfield listening with my 150 bucks speakers heavily modified in a controlled acoustic corner with some crosstalk mechanical control too )
Morality :
EQ so good it is dont replace vibrations/resonance control, nor acoustic room disposition nor electrical noise level control nor in my case a good tube pre-amp and a good dac...EQ does not replace my job when i modified the rear porthole of my speakers and the tweeter waveguide and EQ could not replace it at any price even with yours ...
And you had listened the BACCH on another system not on yours...😁
Me too it seems listening Pink Floyd i can live WITHOUT the BACCH filters...
Tonight i listened my headphone K340 with a SPEAKER LIKE SOUND OUT OF MY HEAD...
The point is the BACCH or EQ will improve any system but will not replace the gear design not the acoustic room control nor compensate for the electrical noise floor level, EQ nor BACCH will not repair the damage done by uncontrolled speakers vibrations and resonance......
I doubt any EQ can replace the BACCH filters if we look at how work EQ and how work the BACCH filters... There is no relation they are completely different beast one is an acoustic revolution the other a useful tool ...
No EQ can compensate for the loss of spatial information by crosstalk in any stereo system at any price...
I dont need sophisticated EQ it seems listening Pink Floyd Money as you described ..
I need the BACCH... 😊
Pink Floyd Money was one of the BACCH highlights. I’m listening to it now on my loudspeaker system, of course with Charter Oak PEQ1 analog EQ. The guitar l solo in the middle. I closed my eyes and the guitar is emanating from 2 feet left of my left speaker. EQ off and it’s more veiled and 1 foot left of my left speaker. AND I’m tone shaping bass and treble to my heart’s desire. I add more treble than usual to this album. It’s slightly dark. Yes, I prefer my setup to the BACCH any day. But…what if I had both?…
|
Thanks...
Very honest review and i believe you...
By the way i understand you , because i enjoy already a stunning soundfield with spatial qualities to some relative level as described by BACCH reviewers... ( my embeddings controls works well for me + modified speakers+mechanical crosstalk limitation)
But i want to buy the BACCH to really achieve it to a really complete level...
But as you i can wait...😊
You review confirm my reading studies of it : this is the real deal...
I am going to be brief, because I’m tired. But the BACCH preamp is the real deal. It didn’t envelope with regular records as much as I thought it would. But it was something else with binaural Chesky recordings of voices and various sounds. However those recordings were impressive in their panning and sound field anyway even without the BACCH in circuit. For regular music it did a couple of things. It widened considerably the soundstage with the beginnings of a wrap around effect, but never really got behind you. Was nonetheless the less impressive and easily noticeable in vs out. It also seemed to open the music and the dynamics. Kind of took a veil off to make everything sound better. This was a smaller change but still easily noticeable. Can I live without BACCH? Yes, because while it does things differently I get equal amounts of improvement/fun from my studio grade analog EQ. If I didn’t have that I’d probably be buying a BACCH preamp. Mine is a lot easier to use and a lot cheaper though at 2700 dollars 😊
|
Happy new year and thanks for your interesting posts ...
We wait for your impressions for the BACCH ...
😊
|
Great post! thanks
very much for the car acoustic as an example...
|
In this video the reviewer prefer a chinese EQ with tube to the Lokius...At less than half the cost... 130 bucks versus 299 bucks ...
Diverse needs and diverse opinions indeed ...
My system cost speakers,amplifiers,dacs, headphones all included is way under 1000 bucks... I am not interested to pay for a 1000 bucks EQ nor to buy a Lokius at his actual price ... The T8 seems better option at his cost and FOR ME and my system the best option ...
Each audio system has his potentials...Mine is limited even if it is already so good i dont need upgrades at all cost ...I am on the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...
It would be ridiculous with my system to buy a Manley EQ at 10,000 bucks ...The owner of the Manley own a system aimed toward what i called : the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...
Proclaiming that a Loki Max is all "ANYONE" needs is a bit presumptuous. You could have just said "is all I need". Other people may have different needs, or sense of aesthetics. The Loki Max would look stupid in @tattooedtrackman beautiful system. The MQ112 looks perfect!!
|
Most problems many audiophiles solve by "upgrading" at high cost, can be solved by room acoustics, tonal analog control and DSP as the Choueiri BACCH ...
These three aspects of one solution have something in common : they are ground in the human hearing specifics... They are not tool you use once for the gear pieces ... They are permanent acoustics elements integrating all the others factors in one hearing experience ...
|
Not all music is fabricated in studio...
I listen classical and jazz and Persian and Indian mostly and a bit of Africa ...
i cannot support most commercial and rock pop and anything too much artificial ...
i use analog tone control , even EQ for my headphone optimization Harman curve ...
I prefer acoustic instrument as a piano with a well done recorded timbre by a talented sound engineer ...
Studio music created by mixing , no thanks ...
I would have tinnitus ...
Music heal or kill say my body to my brain ...My heart listen ...
Pretty much every track we ever listen to gets run through something like this dude before we ever hear it. So why would a little EQ in the home listening room upset any purists?
I don’t get it.
|
No more bashing either. They both can play a role in augmenting the audiophile listening experience
It is so true that analog/digital coupling is fundamental that one of the greatest genius in A. I. just published a paper about self learning artificial consciousness self learning without human programming and they are analog machine first and foremost ... Digital is a tool not a ground ...
The territory cannot be mapped nor the map cannot became the territory save in an organism able to go from one to the other levels at will without being prisoner of one level ...
Analog and digital are both fundamental in their own way ...We need a tool as we need a ground ( our body is the two at the same time ) ..
These complementarity is even at the basis of mathematics with Grothendieck teachings as it is with meanings and semiotics with Peirce teachings and at the basis of all symbolic forms with Cassirer teachings ...
|
And you obviously do not understand digital signal processing. A number has meaning, distortion does not. That number represents amplitude, nothing else. When you change that number you change amplitude in a specific way. Distortion in meaningless. DSP changes the numbers in specified patterns to achieve a specific result. Can you change the numbers to replicate distortion? I’m not sure although I do not see why not. A number can not be distorted, it can only be changed.
Mirolab is right ...
As usual mijostyn conflate the Fourier map and the territory of hearing ...
Signal processing is grounded in psycho-acoustics research not the reverse ...The ears /brain science rule the technology modalities not the reverse ...
"DistortionS" in the analog flow is at the plural , not at the singular, some are welcome others not so much ... And the linear design of a non distorting optimal electronical component is not the same as the design of our non linear ears/brain workings ... it is why psycho-acoutics exist to study and to bridge the gap ...
We cannot decipher timbre with only numbers by the way we need ears/brain ... Even Choueri DSP filters so revolutionary they are are grounded in psycho-acoustics measurements of the non digital non linear brain -ears/head..
The brain work at complex simultaneous levels between analog and digital flows of translation and filterings in the two directions at the same time and this at way lower levels than the neurons , only mijostyn brain work perfectly in a singular digital linear way as a chip it seems .. I apologize for my bad joke ... It was too tempting ...😉
|
You will see that scottwheel is right on this and he own it ...😊
Me i was only able to read the Choueiri science paper ... it is convincing when we know what Choueiri talk about... I made some simple mechanical experiment with crosstalk already and so imperfect and with no comparison at all with designed filters it is it was amazing ...
Me i will buy it when i could even without hearing it with no doubt ...be happy and feel lucky to be able to hear it...
Anyway for this software to do what it’s supposed to do but still meet the toughest audiophile standards for SQ is a tough challenge! Can’t wait to hear.
|
It is the stereo system that trick our brain because they are all flawed ...
The BACCH filters DSP dont trick the brain , it help the brain to recover spatial musical information which is already there in the room and in the recording in particular but is lost by the crosstalk effect ... Then this DSP help the brain to do his natural working... Because as said Choueri when we listen a bird in nature singing , there is one bird ,not two as in stereo ...
It is amazing to me that the digital algorithms have advanced so far that we can “trick” our brains, OUR brains, not the average casual listener brain, that well. One would expect we would hear SOME form of err or seeming misrepresentation, be it timbre related, or phase temporal blur, image specificity or what have you. Just the slightest SOMETHING. That we’ve come that far creating this enveloping 3-D with 2 channels is amazing.
|
Analog is the enemy of signal purity. Again, most music is recorded digitally. Keeping it there until the final conversion to analog at the listeners DAC is the only best way to deal with it. A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed.
Digital Signal purity is not the ultimate goal in acoustics...
Signal purity is an abstraction...Not the acoustic territory ... The ears brain is not a mere digital computer ...
The analog measures Choueiri takes are not secondary , they are the core of the thing for using his filters for specific ears/brain ...
About analog, and the superiority of analog computing in the next decade read that( i underline my point ) :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4386/ad0fec/pdf
«Deep learning computers are revolutionizing human
civilization optimizing user-conceived solution paths
accurately, figuring out the shortest path by extensive training
to reach the expected solution [1]. Hallmarks are switches and
circuits. Demands are increasing speed and resources by
compromising nature with enormous toxic waste. The next
revolution would bring computers that synthesize new deep
networks, invent learning protocols in a single shot or without
training. Hallmarks would be new data structure, software
free, circuit free, fully analog, reusable hardware adaptive to
changing environment [2]. Demands would be fixing the
computing speed and resources irrespective of complexity
while compromising the user’s control. Realizing all, we
present organic nested deep learning network, ON2.»
This Indian genius is the first to prove the quantum properties conservation and transmission in microtubules.. He work in japan laboratory and is the main co worker with Hameroff the microtubules specialist and co-worker with Penrose Nobel physics prize and the creator of the ORCH model of consciousness ,,
He wrote a book astonishing one in 2020 , one of the deepest and more revolutionary i ever read..."nanobrain" ...
Then it is not amateurish speculation ... Go see his site and youtube channels and twitter ... Geniuses are not a crowd ...
|
But thinks about it: it is as said scottwheel very well , an acoustic revolution not a new toy ... Not an illusion of Hi-Fi at high cost either ...
Anyone with already a decent room and a relatively good system can only buy that ...
The only equivalent upgrade will be old wax roll or disc compared to stereo vinyl ...
You know this if you had read Choueiri articles as acoustician scientist not as a marketer ... Scottwheel is right about what he said and own one ...
What will be expansive is buying anything else ...
People budget is limited, audio sellers dont goes bunker with this revolution because it will kill for many the upgrading high end market ...
If you own an already good amplifier, what is better for the S.Q. improvement to buy one 15,000 bucks more costly or buy the BACCH filters and keep your 5,000 bucks amplifier ?
Same reasoning about speakers ...
Any upgrade will be thin compared to this crosstalk compensation set of filters with no degradation but improvement in timbre experience and all the spatial characteristics ... No brainer...
The only thing as best as these filters and necessary, with them or not ,is a dedicated acoustic room ...
Theoretica is the only company, right? Yeah,hardware version sp horribly expensive
|
I have experience only with mechanical room tuning not electronical...
I will use a dsp as a tool for room correction but not and never as the main acoustic corrections ...
Then i believe your friend Ed ...
No acoustician work a room with only a DSP correction ...
No DSP can replace room acoustics mechanical controls, only refine it thats all ...
There is a scientific reason for this : the ears/brain work in their own way which workings cannot be replaced by a Fourier set of linear maps ...
This is as i already said why i believe you about analog EQ over purely digital EQ ...
I am not an expert for sure but i know how to tune my room ..
Regarding DSP for speaker and room correction:
The following is from Ed to me at Audible Images in Melbourne FL. I have heard the best sounding system of any showroom in FL at Ed’s. I trust his judgment and his ear absolutely implicitly. The following is what he said. It leaves open the question of the newer forthcoming DEQX vs Trinnov. It seems Trinnov is the best he’s heard. Here it is:
“ Tim,
I have tried room EQ with several different products. Audessy, DIRAC , Room Perfect and the Trinnov. In my opinion the room correction is more destructive than corrective. The Trinnov was impressive in its capability to manipulate the sound in every way. However it did not sound very good. We consistently prefer the sound with the room EQ disabled. I can hear the sound quality change for the worse when it is engaged. I typically hear some grain added and slight glare overlaying the sound. I tend to push my customers into letting me place the speakers and subwoofers where they sound best so I usually do not end up with major issues to deal with. I have used the EQ in some subwoofers in certain circumstances with decent results.
Thanks
Ed ”
|
Sorry if I get so intense here. But I’m very very passionate about my approach.
I like passionnate person if they are of good faith and open mind as you are ...
And @mahgister , your aptitude in articulating psycho acoustic theory blows my mind! Indeed there are so interesting folks here!
I am not an acoustician... Just a dude experimenting for an acoustic room designed with no money...But i am fascinated by the relation between physical acoustics, psycho-acoustics and not only music but speech and mathematics ...I advised students on reading as a job 😊 ... I was always more interested by links between fields than by too specialized details ...You cannot advise on reading a mathematics student and a poetry student or a linguistic student without making links between their subject and a question connected to a complete other fields to interest them in a book out of their field to stimulate them ...For a mathematic students for example i can use egyptian mathematic to blew their mind or the Archimedes method or many others questions ...
If you were a student in medecine for example i will recommend to you a book not too far from medecine but out of it, and the book would be so surprizing you will be motivated more and you will fall of your chair reading it born again to medecine ... It could be a book on seeds or why not morphology ... Or a method about observing nature ...Or a book about perception .. etc
Retirement was a punishment for me... And here some pay the price of my isolation ...😊
|
We are so different that i am sure we will learn from one another in person...😊
Then dont take my passionnate love for discussion too much personal...😁
Difference in thinking are a + if they are born from a common ground ( music ) toward a common goal (music )😉
By the way my first loves are : mathematics, poetry, linguistics and music... I just figure out lately how acoustics include them all in a unique way ...
@mahgister
I assure you I have normal (nothing special) ears. I am a very careful, organized listener and certainly I do not use my nose to do that. As I said above, I have my own house curve. I wonder how I developed it. Must have done it with the third toe on the left. I also do not wax poetic about analog equipment. I am not a romantic.
tl and I agree that having EQ capability is an important asset. We go about it differently. That is why Howard Johnson’s made 28 flavors.
|
@mahgister
I do not use the term room tuning. The most significant part of acoustic management is designing the room specifically for sound reproduction then you touch up with treatments as needed. The only acoustic treatment I use in my room which was designed for sound reproduction is 3 floor to ceiling rows of 4" acoustic tiles behind both loudspeakers.
The fact that you use or did not use the expression "room tuning" will not change the fact that passive material treatment are not to be confused with Helmholtz resonators grid tuned for the needs of a specific system/room/ears ... It could be professionnally integrated in the walls by a pro acoustician or by anyone at low cost for his needs...it is room tuning in the two case ... This is a word necessary to distinguish absorbing-reflective-diffusing panels of various materials from mechanically tunable devices as are the resonators who can modify the pressure zones distribution in the room if well located ...
Then room tuning exist in architecture too ...It can also inspire some homemade music lovers as me to experiment with it to learn acoustics with his own ears... This is what Helmholtz did with his ears and the correlated computations of parameters and his ears/brain perceptive experience ... It is called Helmhotz theory of hearing Egyptian priest were masters in this room tuning ...
Then room tuning exist...
The quality of music reproduction is not subjective.
The quality of music experience must be also subjective and not only determined by objective parameters ... Guess why ? Without human brain/ears with a heart there is no perceived qualities only a statistical chaos at best ... The word "qualia" refer to subject not to a dead object ...
We may have different ways of trying to describe the experience and there is considerable variation to the live experience, so it is a moving target.
Here you confuse a moving target with a moving hunter... Because the acoustic target is there and not moving because it is defined by all parameters in acoustic and psycho-acoustics... Even if two maestro dont have the same subjective musical experience they generally most of the times agree about what is musical in acoustic experience ...They differ not by so much...The same is true for acoustician who can agree about the best sonic space , or recording engineers accord about what his a good recorded playback ...
Gear obseesed people call the goal a frustrating moving target by ignorance , musicians and acousticians called " the hunter" moving toward a standing target : a training session for his ears ...
The best test for imaging is the string quartet. Attend a live one to get a reference. Then play any one of the Luigi Cherubini string quartets performed by the Melos Quartett Stuttgart. Nr 1 in Es-dur is my favorite. If you can close your eyes and feel as if you are at a live performance you have a great system.
I agree with that...
And i am happy to say that with Beethoven quartet by Talich for example the imaging is pin point but with a soundstage out of my head as if i was listening speakers ... My headphone modified and optimized are the AKG K340 ... An hybrid never replicated about which Kennerton representative said to me that it will cost too much to make one with a good profit margin because of the complexity of the design and the cost of this research ... They thought about it and renounced ... This does not means that an hybrid will not exist someday...
But myself i guess that with BACCH filters and any top magneplanar or dynamic headphone or a top electrostatic we can create a soundfield out of the head very easily at no further costs and better ... Then there is a strong probability that a new AKG K340 will never be born again ... It will not be necessary ...The Choueiri DSP will create in a much precise better way the same out of the head impression.. but for now it is my reference 100 bucks system with my 300 bucks Sansui alpha ...
|
Same for me ...
I learned a lot about the difference between analog EQ and digital EQ ... Thanks to @tlcocks
For sure i cannot afford this product for my low cost system ... Anyway i am happy with what i had ...But i am interested in this discussion because i like to learn ...
Still mulling it over and appreciative of @tlcocks listing brands to look at.
|
For mijostyn hearing is only a subjective illusionist...
Psycho-acoustics depth knowledge for sure dont go with this simplistic objectivist claim accusing people for example of super power about their "golden ears" ...
Analog EQ is designed for the ears which stay at the command control; digital EQ is better for him on all counts because for him all aspects of sound are reducible to asbtract Linear Fourier maps ...And with digital EQ most of the time we can put our ears in the back seat ... We "listen" to abstract frequencies plot more than to the concrete music which anyway is misinformed and plagued for objectivists by hearings subjectivist illusions in all case ...😊 It is not even wrong as opinion because for sure ears must be trained by experiments and learnings for acousticians as for musical maestros to be used with trust and confidence ...No need for "golden ears" here only training ...
Most people resort to simplistic ideology because it is easier... Especially educated people when they advocate for a theory over another one...Transhumanism is the better possible exem-ple after materialism and scientism ... This is so because true science is too complex for most people with or without doctorate ... True science must be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in a way or in another... Specialization good for technology and technocracy may kill knowledge in the long run or create perfect specialized workers slaves for corporations ... There is an epistemic trade-off here... I will stop here ...
|
i believe you ,even if i am not used it, that digital Eq and Analog EQ are not only different but can be helpful for some task the other cannot do so well... As mechanical room control can be useful and work in a way the other two could not do so well ... They are all tools which must work together when it is possible ...
And i believe you because hearing is not completely understood and Fourier maps so useful they could be technologically and they are in hearing helps devices for example , thanks then to Fourier methods of mapping for all modern audio tech; , but so useful it is hearing cannot be reduced to be a Fourier engine anyway and it stay not so well known territory to explore with many competing theories or ways of mapping it ...
After all, Choueiri investigation in stereo system hearing flaws and his own correcting filters solutions for example did not have more than 15 years ....
@mahgister , I don’t believe he has tried what Miro and I have tried. I am pressing him for a specific answer because Miro and I are really on to something and I want others to try and he is blanket discrediting us with his snide comments about digital being better than analog for ALL applications. It’s just not right. It’s just not true!
Audiophiles are fearful of treble boost because of people like @mijostyn discrediting without trying the studio proven methods that really really work well in the home too. How can I get my passion and experience with this one topic out there for others to try when he keeps running it down without personal experience? It’s not right.
|
😁😊
Mijostyn is a good dude relax...
But he is obsessed by digital EQ as more than a tool as the most important solution ...
You pointed to him that analog EQ play a role as much important to no avail...
I pointed to him that yes DSP can even be more than a tool : BACCH filters is an acoustic revolution , he doubted it for sure obsessed by his own gear ...
He negated long ago that no "room tuning " exist , but he change his tune few post above, then keep hope and cool , he will understand soon ...
Most audiophiles are fetichist of the gear "taste" , as subjectivists, many are tool measuring fetichists as objectivist... The two groups focus mainly on the gear and electrical tool ... I am interested by acoustics science where the interrelation betwwen subject and object is the gound of experience and experiments and with psycho-acoustics the ONLY ground of audio ...
😊
Christ, as Miro said pages ago, you think you know something the sound engineers that make your recordings shine DONT know?! You think they are full of it and wrong when they say for finishing touches and air band in the mastering studio that analog sounds better? You think Mark Levinson’s cello palette discussion is poop?
Give me a f*cking break!!! Oh and Rob Watts is an idiot too. @mahgister , now I’m mad! As I’ve said earlier, directly answer the question!!! WHAT SPECIFIC ANALOG DEVICE DID YOU PUT IN YOUR CHAIN?!
|
It does not matter how good your ears are if you have not experienced the best. Try explaining what Foie Gras taste like, you have to try it to understand.
Your sentence make sense for consumers focussed on buying gear "upgrades" , even costly one, not knowing by personal experiments in a dedicated room , what is timbre control and what is timbre , what is imaging and soundstage and how to acoustically modify them, what is crosstalk and how to limit it or control it ,or especially what is the relation between the sound source dimensions and location and the listener envelopment what is called ASW/LV ...What are the factors of immersiveness in acoustics science?
Because those who know that , and i know a little of that , understand why and how there exist superior system to their own and can easily imagine why and how about any acoustics factors ...
Then your sentence contain some truth but hide some ignorance about how acoustics basic concepts ,and not only mere panels on a wall, can make a so deep impression about what is a good audio system , not the "best" because there is no absolute best and some of the best implicate dedicated controlled room mechanically and electronically anyway not only gear price ...
Also mechanical control of vibrations and noise floor levels qualitative impact could not be described save for those who experience it , then you are right gear pieces cannot be described for their qualitative impact if they are not experienced first ... But my point here is that mechanical, electrical and acoustical working controls together impact so much any system at any price that it cannot be imagined too , unbeknownst to most people ...Most people think about a costly gear upgrade to go toward what they imagine the best ,ignoring this triple impact which is and could be the basis of audiophile experience for most people with a limited wallet and even for the costlier gear system in the world ...
By the way it is not about how good my ears are , it is about how much acoustic experiences they lived through...
A deaf sensing sound qualities through his hands go through a revealing acoustic experience , it is not about how good are even his inner ears, it is about how he trained his inner ears ... The adjective "golden ears" is an insult coming from a deep ignorance about what is hearing by the way ...
A good natural timbre like foie gras cannot be described qualitatively , but we know for sure how to change each factors implied in foie gras recipe and in timbre 5 acoustic factors ... When you have experienced it and tried to control them we know it ... Then the designer of an amplifier himself must listen his amplifier with a controlled set of mechanical,electrical and acoustical conditions ...The sound of an amplifier change with these changing conditions independently of his design ...Then buying a piece of gear and owning it is not enough to know his qualitative acoustic potential , which is what you suggested ...This piece of gear must also be well embedded mechanically,electrically and acoustically for the ears, with the room and among the other pieces
I know how to make my low cost system acoustically satisfying ...These rules apply to any system at any price ...Then most audiophile cannot go anyway for the best with the costlier gear, they must settle for the essentials: mechanical,electrical and acoustical working controls of the embedded pieces in the system/ears/room ...
Price tag means little compared to that for most of us ...Owning a piece of gear is not enough to know...
|
I appreciate that you come back of what you already said like "room acoustic mechanical tuning" does not exist , to be fair you said exactly said "room tuning" does not exist few days ago ...
But how could we call mechanical tuning of each Helmholtz resonators integrated and specifically located in a room acoustic control design which ask for more than just panels on a wall , diffusive or absorbing or even reflective one distributed in some way ?
I called it room tuning and you said that this does not exist , not conscious that the mechanical ancestor of electronical EQ, is the prehistoric Helmholtz resonators existing even in ancient Egypt for what is called "room tuning" ... This is what inspired my simple experiments ..
Anyway thanks for recognizing fact...
I myself recognise evident fact as the utility of electronical equalisation tools being it digital or analog because i use the two for my system as necessary ...
My only point was that these tool not being mechanical dont solve all acoustic problems and do0nt replace room acoustic but participate in it as tools integrated to the system or not ...
😊
@mahgister
Theories are just that. In the end people decide and they are not rushing to get one of these systems. I never said that "mechanical control", more appropriately called acoustic control of the room is not important, it is very important. Without it you are finished in terms of creating the best system.
|
By the way, the BACCH concept is fascinating but would have to hear to believe in it of course.
For sure you are right ... ...
But the explanation by Choueiri well understood without replacing the listening experience is enough to understand why this is an acoustic revolution for playback system , not a mere toy or gadget ... Choueiri wrote scientific papers in acoustics not marketing articles for digital equalization 😁... His DSP is patented and unique and grounded in psycho-acoustics ...
Anyway when i will bought it it will be without any hearing experience before because i cannot travel and will not be able to go where i can test it ... But i understood what he talk about and it is enough for me ...
|
tlcocks dont be upset ... 😊
read what mijostyn said :
NO analog EQ unit can claim ANY of this. There is literally no comparison. You might as well use an abacus rather than a computer. There is no frequency that analog EQ is even remotely equivalent. As Rob himself suggests, it is the kind of distortion some people find Euphonic. I do not.
Mijostyn dont understand that we can use an analog electronic EQ or a mechanical control of the room , which is a way using tools to transform an acoustic situation to another one by LISTENING as the main guide ...Or we can use a tool and forgetting the territory as he do , confusing it with the map, because we never trusted our ears to begin with and we will never trust them ....Mijostyn brain is mandated to perceive as real the maps he created with his toys ... I myself as you do use some tools to correct and refine our own hearings which stay always at the command post ... We trust our ears ... Not mijostyn, he distrust his ears ...
Not only mijostyn dont understand crosstalk as i demonstrated in the post above , he really believe that spatial information encoded in the sound perception is only a subjective illusion , forgetting how evolution trained the human ears for tracking the sound sources information at the cost of our survival and forgetting that precise speech sound modulations perception is also mandatory for our survival ...
He does not know that evolution did not use only Fourier mapping tools to do this but more complex tools unknown to us in the brain ... It is the reason why hearing can beat the Fourier limits 10 times and more ...
The Fourier limits resulted from the constraints imposed by the linear mapping of the audible territory in a linear abstracted time domain with abstract concepts as frequencies,phase amplitude etc instead of the real perceived qualities , and the ears/brain beat the Fourier maps and cross over them in identification of frequencies because the brain works non linearly in his own time domain...
The brain hear the real qualities it was trained for by evolution , not abstraction ; and the brain is more than a Fourier machine ...From the works of J.J. Gibson in visual perception , Science going toward more ecological theories of perception had established that visual and audible perceptions are not maps created by a computing brain , but participated interacting phenomena not reducible to abstracted linear maps ...
Read this :
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
«We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of 'ecological theories of perception' in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.»
|
In all your post above mijostyn you accused me of not having listen to a good stereo system in my life , as the one you claimed to have heard yourself younger with your friend who ignorant as you said he was, anyway assembled one by pure chance ... Sorry but very good stereo system dont exist much among ignorant consumers by mere luck in their living room with no electrical, no mechanical and no acoustical control...I know this for a fact ...
Then you claimed to correct me but instead you are saying a falsity : crosstalk FOR SURE exist between the speakers as TWO competing sound source for the ears/brain , and is a perceived effect because the two PERCEIVED speakers interacted as i said and the ears/brain loose spatial information because of this interaction differential time between the ears from the incoming waves competing between the 2 speakers ... You did not understood my post and you patronized me saying falsity , me i used a simple mechanical device experiment to sense the difference between more and less crosstalk as i said , then i know the destructive effect of crosstalk first hand on the imaging ... But it is impossible to suppress crosstalk mechanically as i did for syre but only play with it ... It takes the Choueiri Filters to suppress this competition between two sound sources differently perceived by the brain through the two ears canals .... Crosstalk dont cancel as you claimed ....read about Choueiri here ...
You said erroneouly that crosstalk will cancel in stereo system misunderstanding the problem completely because crosstalk is not only a phenomena explained by the two ears differential time difference as you said but also by the competition between two sound sources ( the speakers) as in all stereo playback ... In a live natural environtment as said Choeiri there is not two birds to be heard but one bird ...
Then you misunderstood completely what is crosstalk ...
The crosstalk you mention is not between the speakers, it is between your ears and this remains the same regardless of the sound source. live or reproduced. The effect cancels out.
Now this is what Choueiri explain :
«There’s a problem, Choueiri and many others maintain, with the way that stereo recordings have been played back for the last 70 years or so. “If you go out in the forest and you hear a bird singing, it’s not because there are two birds singing,” Choueiri explained with his characteristic intensity. “There’s one bird singing.” Stereo only creates the illusion of localized sound by manufacturing a phantom image “and your brain doesn’t believe it.” In life, a sound is precisely localized because of a slight difference in the arrival time at the right and left ears, as well as slight differences in amplitude and tonality that are attributable to the physical presence of the listener’s head and the shape of his or her ears. With reproduced sounds emanating from two loudspeakers, these relationships are considerably degraded, especially if the listening environment introduces reflections. Each ear isn’t hearing what it’s supposed to—inter-aural crosstalk is spoiling the party.»...
«the BACCH filter aims to solve the major well-known shortcomings of previous XTC schemes. Choueiri developed a sophisticated head-tracking mechanism that considerably enlarges the “sweet spot” for the primary listener and obviates the need to sit in your chair as though rigor mortis has set in. More critically, the BACCH filter doesn’t introduce any coloration to the signal. How is it done? At the most basic level, Choueiri found a way to shift XTC processing from the amplitude domain to the more “subliminal” phase domain, a manipulation of the signal that the brain is less likely to notice. The BACCH filter is the central feature of Theoretica’s commercial audiophile products.»
As you can understand Choueiri filters is not to be confused with any XTC scheme ambiophonics or others and has nothing to do with your equalisation decvice at any price ... You cannot suppress stereo crosstalk between the two speakers with conventional equalisation , mechanical or electronical ... Read more Choueiri to understand ...
Now what you said about headphones is not false but not true either ... Why? Because unlike your simplistic claims, all headphones are not equal ...
Anyone who has been to a live modern music performance like NIN or Tool knows this. With headphones it is missing entirely, like taking a shower with a raincoat on. Your opinion manifests because you have never heard a state of the art system that can image at the highest levels.
my AKG K340 gave me a speaker-like imaging out of my head , for sure it is recording dependant , but the imaging is there with holographic depth ... If you want to know why read the Dr. Gorike patent as i did before optimizing my K340 ... I succeeded after 6 months of experiments ...
Me i gave arguments i dont attack people ad hominem as you did claiming there is no audiophiles who listen with headphones or accusing me to have never heard a true imaging , but claiming at the same time that your past friend did that by pure luck with his system created by ignorance and randomness ... Did you perceive the absurdities in your post ?
|
EQ alone cannot give perfect natural timbre experience ...Physical acoustics is needed too ...
EQ alone cannot give perfect imaging and spatial soundfield without timbre degradation .. Physical acoustic here is needed too but is unsufficient ...We need BACCH filters crosstalk correction because all stereo system sound unnatural because of crosstalk ...Dr. Choueiri claims and proved experimentally ...
Now between EQ methods be it digital or analog, be it mechanical or electronical , there is differences that are not purely technical but related to the way we may and must use human hearings in audio controls ... Psycho-acoustics studies are not purely grounded in A.I. yet,😁 then human hearings is the object of study and had not be replaced yet even and must have the first and last word governing DSP applications ...
This imply that EQ so useful it can be can never be enough ...
The Fourier linear maps cannot be confused with the human hearing territory so useful they can be as a tool and they are for sure ...The map is not and never will be the territory...
All that above is why your post and experience and opinion could make sense to me ...
My approach to all this would remain digital for room correction (mids down). Digital or analog for bass tone shaping/ bass boost. ANALOG ONLY for treble tone boost.
|
Stereo system imaging is for all intents and purposes a surrealistic characteristic and not commonly heard in live performances.
I underline the word i will comment about imaging ...
It is true to say "surrealistic" because because ANY stereo system at ANY price is defective because of inevitable crosstalk between the two speakers ...There is a loss of spatial information ...It is a fact in acoustics ...
Only the BACCH filters of Choueiri can correct this defect ...No need to own one to read his acoustics papers and understand why this is so by the way ...
I decreased a bit my crosstalk level mechanically with my small speakers on my desk and the imaging improved a lot ... I keep this not esthetical device between the speakers so good it is now ...I cannot recommend it as a permanent device but for an experiment ...Then i verified what Choeuri talk about ...
I know pretty well what a good imaging is with my AKG K340 , because of their acoustic resonators and their two cells which act as speakers +subs, their imaging is better by a great margin over any other headphone i listened too ...No comparison with my 2 Stax, nor my magneplanar nor with any of my others dynamics one ...
Then my dear mijostyn i doubt that your system with no crosstalk DSP correction as the BACCH filters , i doubt that your experience of imaging make you the expert on this because you own a good EQ system ...And because as you said no true audiophile own headphones which is preposterous claim in itself especially when we know what some headphone can do a few TOP among them ...
And i remember you claimed in a post above that among the 4 better system you heard in all your life the first was set together without pro EQ and by randomness and no knowledge of audio by your friend at the times ... The meaning of this anecdote say a lot about your imaging expertise to me ...
It is impossible to experience a very good imaging by chance in a living room with speakers system picked by someone knowing nothing in audio ... There is too low probabilities ....
i never experienced a good imaging before understanding a bit not only of acoustics basic but electrical and mechanical control of the system workings and even more less well known facts about audio system ... And it was true when i listen the other audio system i listened too from average people not bothered by acoustics using even magnepan system ...
There is imaging the average imaging , and there is a more pin pointed and better distributed imaging in space with some holograohic volume for each instruments , and there is the BACCH filters more perfect imaging and spatial soundfield making good headphone and good speakers no more distinctive in their spatial acoustic qualities ... i never experienced myself the BACCH filters this is easy to imagine if you dare to read what it do and if you experiment with a mechanical even slight decrease in crosstalk as i did or if you go from speakers to TOP headphone where there is less crosstalk effect spatial information increase a lot as with my AKG K340 ...
|
I just described what not to do with images...
I described what to do with words ... It is so simple that you dont need an image of my speakers ...
And my skin is thick but when troll hurt the same spot for years even crocodile skin reacted to this after few years ...
I am not a crocodile ...
If you want the right way to do my experiment i described it exactly ...
If you want only image of my speakers porthole by curiosity i am sorry ...😁😉😊
@mahgister oh Dang! on my request
I guess my skin is thicker than yours? : )
|
Sorry but i dont post any image of my system here anymore ...
But i will explain to you with photos what you must not do ...
https://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/195983/straws-stuffed-in-the-ports
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/ported-speaker-mod-drinking-straws-cut-to-length-in-port.912757/
here you have two images of what you must not do ..
The bundle of straws must be of different lenght or different volume ... You tune your speakers by ears to fine tune the needed volume/neck lenght ratio as with the Helmholtz resonators mathematical formulas but no computing is needed if you use your ears ...Mine had in this bundle of 17 straws 2 set of straws for example each set consist of 3 strwas inserted in one another almost 2 feet lenght behind the speaker ... Some others straws are shorter and longer than normal straws ... You play with the lenght and tune by ears ... Very easy and fun... My hertz extension go from 80 hertz now to 50 with no boominess and no impeding resonance as it was the case without this redesigned porthole .....Pick foldable straws by the way to help break the main resonance in smaller one , then use the complete straws or if you cut it the foldable parts ...experiment it is fun and paid a lot acoustically ...
I was harassed non stop by idiots here for years with some openly mocking in the regular threads not only in the comments with photos of my "crazy" unesthetical room ... And i never dare to put my 100 resonators in any photos by chance because it was too much ...😁
Now i lived with smaller speaker in my acoustic corner ...i put standard image of my components not of my room sorry ...No need for an image whit what i just described anyway ...
And please try to understand my position ...
By the way this idea comme from a speaker designer very knownnot from myself the "tin foil hat" for some here :
Neville Theile
«In these enclosures, the rear radiation is utilised to boost the bass response below the loudspeaker driver’s resonant frequency. The combination of the enclosure volume and the vent length and diameter form a Helmholtz resonator, which (when done properly) reinforces the low frequency response without creating excessive bass and/or poor transient response.»
@mahgister I would, personally, like to see a picture of your acoustical straw thing!
And, I say: f#&k those who don’t have respect for your ingenuity! ... I do.
And I’m quite certain that there are many Lurkersout there, that really dig it, too, because I was one of them for years before I becamse brave enough to even comment. ha ha ha ha
What stimulating conversation. : )
@mahgister will you post that picture, please?
|
First it is impossible to reach the description of imaging you suggested by sheer luck with usual level components bought by someone who have no idea of what he was doing ...
I know because i listened to all possible systems of people like your friend , and i was one of them at some point most of my life , and there was no imaging as you described , no soundstage around the room with holographical volume for each instruments and listener envelopment and immersiveness in any of the system i heard by sheer luck or by the magical power of the gear with no room control ...
it is impossible to do it with the wrong synergy between components , but impossible to do without a control over vibrations and resonance and a minimal control over the noise floor level of the system and of the house and especially impossible to do in a non dedicated non controlled room ...
With low cost components but very good one you can have an imaging , soundstage and holography relatively near but only relatively near the maximum acoustical satisfaction threshold for sure but you must know what you do to reach this point and learn it...Not by sheer luck because no piece of gear works magically at his optimum level without mechanical, electrical and acoustical control , Sorry ...
It takes very high end components to do it crossing the maximum acoustic threshold satisfaction but many people owning high end system dont know how to do it anyway and their costly system sound not right nor musical nor holographical ...Read people who visit showroom or visit one ...
And EQ tool is not enough to do it , it help because it is a useful tool but thats all ...The only DSP able to do it is the BACCH filters by the way , no other one ...Read Choueiri to understand why he is a physicist and know acoustic ...
But you are right on this point it takes deep bass control to go over the minimal satisfaction threshold level to go the maximum or top level ...
It is why i enjoy fully this imaging , soundstaging and holography at a satisfying level with my headphone which beat everything i listen to by a big margin ...they go near 20 hertz by design and clearly by optimization ...
But my low cost small speakers work well and beat most headphones but they lack deep bass control, then even if i enjoy an imaging very good with a soundstage completely out of the speakers plane , even if i am near the musicians playing, in spite of that the soundfield is not in the same realism level than with my headphone but trust me it is a very good one, but me, in the opposite situation of your past young friends i know how and why i did it and it was not by luck , which is impossible to do , but by experimenting and studying ..
...
No one can do this by luck, guess why ? Compute this probability ...
Add all the factors at play, all the acoustic factors and there is more than a dozen factors at least which must works all together toward some necessary balanced way , and they all must be synchronized ... Even the best EQ without any acoustic controls cannot do it ... The only DSP with measures of the inner ears and HTRF that can do it , taking into account the owner physical being measures , his location , and the speakers/room specific acoustic state interrelation characteristics is the BACCH filters ... Any other DSP or EQ cannot control the crosstalk phase loss in any stereo system even with an EQ at any price ...
Forget going there by luck, as your friend did , with modest gear from decades ago even with top one as my Sansui alpha and AKG K340...mythical vintage design... It takes HTRF measures, inner ears measures, very good gear in a controlled room and the BACCH filters ...
But certainly you know better than me if you had heard it from your friend system created by luck and magical unconscious power ... 😊
In all probability one of us, you or me had not experienced what is a good imaging, soundstage and holography, a natural timbre with immersiveness all together ...
Probably i know too much in my head or get all wrong and lack the luck of your past friend ...😁
That comment was not meant to be condescending tl, it is an unfortunate fact of life. Very few systems image near the state of the art or have the level of detail heard in even moderately priced headphones. I lived with such systems for decades. I have heard four systems image at state of the art levels in 60 years. The first one was at age 21, the system of a high school teacher. The funny thing is that he had no idea what he was doing, it was shear luck. That system made my life a lot more expensive searching for that level of performance.
Imaging is not just right to left differentiation and a false sense of 3 dimensions generated by artificial echo. It is the generation of the space the recording was performed in and the sense that instruments are 3 dimensional objects standing in space. Really large spaces breath at very low frequencies and you have to be able to get down to 18 Hz flat to replicate that. Most systems are lucky to get to 40 Hz flat. Loudspeaker specs are very misleading. What a speaker does at one meter is a whole lot different than what it does at 4 meters in a room. Gunnar Olsen’s bass drum should kick you against the rear wall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnEqnvz7Qkc. What a machine, one of the very best drummers alive, Carmine Appice with style.
|
EQ digital or analog is a tool among other tools ...No singular tool alone is the solution...
The solution is complex and implicate all tools: room mechanical controls, speakers controls by analog and/or digital tools and the necessary revolutionary BACCH filters too which can regulate for the best the relation between speakers/room and ears/brain ...
No tool replace the other tools ...
For the time being there is no audio A.I.
It will come soon anyway ...
|
For sure you are right !
I will trust more analog EQ too than this panels behind my ears...These panels are like my wood foldable screen, a device i used in my room , i could not use it without a balance between absorption-reflection-and diffusion in the room and on the foldable screen... ...
And hearing aids use digital EQ for creating tailor made hearing aids for specific frequencies loss...
Psychoacoustics rule audio in any form...
I would think high quality EQ would be very useful in this use case. Might sound more natural than compensating with a hearing aid. I admit to knowing more about EQ than hearing aids though! I believe some hearing aids utilize digital EQ, if I’m not mistaken
|
My system low value and performance satisfy me right now...
But once said i will buy it immediately if i had another more high end system for which it can be justified... It is interesting , i spoke about this Michelangelo ... 😊
I know enough about acoustics to be a bit more enlightened than a "purist" ...
|
😊 I can imagine...
Anyway in your case i exclude a pathology...Fixation is not a pathology only a part of a possible one and anyway i am pretty fixated myself...
@mahgister 1+ on the sanity issue. Beta testing the DEQX is already putting a strain on mine and it is only two days old.
|
Great summary !
But i think that with patience and basic studies we can enjoy a low cost system and put it over his marked limits on the S.Q./price ratio level by electrical,mechanical and acoustical optimization...
And this level reached is not a stopgap at all....
For sure i live with small speakers in near field listening...and headphone...
my system is top for his low price and even shame more costlier one... But we all differ by our desires and needs...
I only post this to motivate people like me to study basic acoustics concepts to begin with electrical noise floor control and EMI shielding and vibration/resonance control...Dont upgrade BEFORE learning that save if there is a failure in the basic system synergy ...
And for sure equalization had help me if i want to stay in the limit of this thread....
Digital Audio sound enhancements- the Good and the Bad
The Good: it’s great to have many choices, at all price points, to enhance one’s sonics. Products such as DEQX, audiophile switches, filters, LPS, master clocks, routers, BAACH+Mac…did I miss any?
The Bad: it causes havoc on my wallet…and my sanity…
|
I hate headphones by the way. I do not like the way the music is presented. It is very unnatural. It is interesting to note that people with the very best systems do not use headphones. I should also note that people who live in apartment buildings might have no choice. I’ve been there and hated it, I suspect my neighbors also hated me😈
I dont like headphone too ... Save my AKG K340 modified and optimized the only one hybrid design ever working for 45 years ...It is like owning a set of speakers with subs... If the recording is good the sound create an out of the head experience and the timbre is completely natural which 2 aspects were not at all in any of the other headphones i used in my life ...And anyway with the BACCH filters the headphone experience will not be far behind the speakers experience ...The K340 give me a bit of it already with his 2 innovative technologies inside the complex shell chambers ...
Room acoustics are very important and most rooms require some sort of management depending on the type of speaker used.
Room control is a misnomer. It is really speaker control. It repairs and adjusts things that are totally immune to room management like group delays and the variations in frequency response between the two channels. Then there is making the system sound the way you want it to.
First acoustics is way more than just room acoustic controls , especially more than room acoustic thought by the average consumers ...
Room control is not a misnomer , because it is not to be confused with the speaker control ... You forgot that the room could be transformed optimally in his acoustic content with not only diffusive surface and reflecting or absorbing one but also with Helmholtz tuned resonators distributed on specific pressure zone and you forgot that we can modify the geometry and modify the topology related to some specific chosen gear and listener position ...This is room controls ...It serve not only the speakers specs by optimizing them but the Ears/ head/ brain location ...
Dont forget that the ears/brain live in his own non linear time domain in a room and this time domain concrete territory is not exactly the same as the linear one of the Fourier mapping ... The ears/brain dont obey Fourier laws but infringe on them as revealed by their own workings when measured ...Room acoustic controls and equalization controls go then together, ONE DO NOT REPLACE THE OTHER ....But even these two are not enough ... we need more controls than speakers and room controls ...
And room control implicate even some DSP as the Choueiri BACCH filters which cannot replace room control but can optimize it from specific listener position and his mandatory inner ears and HTRF measures ... Any stereo system is FLAWED... Not because the speakers are flawed or the room is flawed but because one aspect of any stereo speakers is UNCONTROLLED : crosstalk ... This crosstalk between the two speakers impede all spatial acoustic information transmission for the two ears/brain of the listener in his specific ideal position as measured in room acoustic control ... The BACCH filters work correcting not the speakers control but the relation between speaker controls and room controls and listener location ...
Then all is not in the world as your obsession with one form of equalization dictate, the one you bought 😁 ... Room controls exist ( mechanical equalization with tuned distributed resonators among other devices ) as exist speakers controls with EQ and as exist some DSP as the BACCH filters correcting the relation between the speakers and the room various controls and the listener ears/brain location and dimensions ...
|
Thanks very much for your understanding and kindness ...
You are right for your observation about the "cat" in my book ...😊
@mahgister , I found your last post very interesting and informative as well. More than one way to skin a cat!
|
I use electronical equalization only for my modified headphone to reach nearer the Harman curve ... I equalize the headphone itself setting the EQ. once for all not the recordings ...I want to hear the recordings the more possible as it was intended bad or good , or not bad nor good as it is often the case through my headphone or speakers as i intended to design them first once for all by my modifications tailor made for my ears filters ...
I use mechanical "equalization" for my speakers by varying the number of straws made of plastic or bamboo inserted and folded into one another varying then their volume and lenght from few inches to 2 feet out of the porthole of my speakers ... The tuning process is analogue to a piano tuning process by ears ... 😁 total complete transformation of the speakers on ALL ACOUSTIC FACTORS ...It change even the measured original specs from 80 hertz to under 50 hertz ...Tuba sound is gorgeous in Gabrieli music for brass ...I will not need a sub for my small acoustic room in near listening ... Each one of us has his needs and musical choices for sure ...
I will not deliver a photo because some brain who ignore acoustic will mock me as a "tin foil hat" as it was the case in the past here ...😁
My post is to submit to the purist that the root of any equalization, analog or digital is grounded in Helmholtz mechanical work .... Even speakers are resonators ...
My post is also that we audiophiles are not just subjectivist or objectivist fetichist, but we can also experiment with our ears/brain with basic acoustics concepts at no cost ...
My system astoundingly good for his price cost for headphone+speakers+2 dac
+1 amplifier a total of 700 bucks ...And each component is well chosen and well embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically ... ...
I will not need an equalizer costing double the price of my system at all then to play with because i dont need one ...I equalize the gear once for all never the recordings ...
Then the right question is not about using or not using equalization... The right question is : where do come from the electrical/electronical process of equalization ? It comes from some hearing theory and from some mechanical experiments ...We must know that and learn that first ...And use it as experiment ... It is what i spoke about when i say that acoustics rule the gear not the reverse .... And our ears structure and working are part of the acoustics science by the way ...Knowing Fourier theory by reading the manual of an Eq. is not enough ...Because our ears/brain filters trained by his evolutive history biases work in his own non linear time real territory domain ...Not in the linear Fourier maps so useful are they technologically ...
|
To be clear, nobody can be against or in favor of the hammer ...
A hammer is a tool we must learn how to use ...Understanding craftmanship as we must learn acoustics...
Hammer and saw are no more craftmanship than EQ. is acoustics ...
We cannot be against or in favor of a tool ...😊 We use it in the right circonstances in some way...
The question about using or banning EQ. as tool is meaningless because beside the acoustic central questions where all tools are necessary at some time in some way with some problems ...
|
EQ. is useful as a tool not as the only solution , only a part of it ...
The phase relationship is potentially or actually compromised for a reason very deep not many understand well : human hearing was shaped and trained and biased in a certain way by evolution and live in a non-linear time domain of his own which cannot be reduced nor perfectly captured by the linear Fourier tools using abstract concepts which are linearly related (frequencies,amplitude and phase among others) and cannot describe COMPLETELY some aspects of concrete experienced qualitative sound qualities which are perceived in REAL time in specific environment ...
It is why it was proven that hearing beat the theoretical Fourier uncertainty limit more than 10 times times for trained musicians ...
Then you are right there is a trade-off here using EQ. which can be a benefit for sure as any tool but also an impediment or a mask for other acoustic problems waiting to be solved otherwise ...
I then concur with this sentence :
Has anyone mentioned the elephant in the room? Eq’s destroy the phase relationships in the signal. There can be rare times when the benefits outweigh the downside.
|
To all. All good points, but please don’t mistake my Charter Oak for a surgical mixing notch EQ. It is a broad Q tonal adjustment device with broadly overlapping bands used in a mastering setting. It is quite appropriate in a home hi fi playback setup. It is the best tonal adjustment device that I’ve ever heard. Inboard or outboard. I’ll attach a graphic. It’s broad overlapping curves are like classic Baxandall EQs which are the basis for basic bass and treble onboard controls, a 2 band EQ.
And don’t forget that I’ve heard BOTH in my hi fi system. Y’all really cannot criticize my approach until you’ve done the same. I’m telling you a 2700 dollar pro EQ sounds FAR BETTER than the Loki max. Both in speaker chain and headphone chain.
I just want to say first that i believe you completely ...
I will never try it because my system is totally satisfying and cost me 700 nucks ...
The price of this device which seems very pro is 3 times the price of my system which anyway has no evident defect to my ears on headphone or on speakers ...
But i want to thank you for the information which is interesting ...
|
i think you had made good observations cundare2.....
Eq. is a tool , a means used for an acoustic problem but not the solution but only an element of it at best ...
For example i used Eq. for my headphone to push them nearer the Harman curve but without my other modifications this will be useless ...EQ. cannot replace material acoustics...If it is not a cherry on a cake , we mistake the cherry for the cake ...
Also EQ. work with precise frequencies window, unlike other tool which work on all the wall of sound at once ...I use low cost small battery Shumann generators , cheap one , located at specific points and they work amazingly well to made more organic all the soundfield ... Why ? i dont know ...😊
Welcome to you by the way ...
|
Eq is a useful tool but generally not a solution .... Eq. generally dont adress the trade off it create to "improve" something , decreasing or impeding something else ...
And our ears/brain dont work as a linear Fourier tool anyway... And physical acoustic controls cannot be replaced by DSP and in some room/system well embedded there is no need for DSP E.Q.but sometimes as with the BACCH filters some DSP is irreplaceable by anything else ... Life is complex sorry ...
|
Equalizing each albums reflect an acoustic problem not related to your ears/room/system so much perhaps if your system is well done , than related to the bad recording and studio bad work and bad pressing often cumulated together in commercial music ..,.
I equalize to compensate some of my gear limitations , i could do it to optimize my room acoustic also , but never for the albums sake : for example to compensate for the AKG K340 design and my modifications limits i used equalization ..
After that hearing with the K340 the acoustic recording condition of each albums was a pleasure but i listen not to popular commercial music , it is true ... In the case of popular commercial music i can imagine why we must equalize each albums ...I offer you my deepest sympathies ...😊
Try jazz and classical ....
I apologize for the ironical tone ...
If we love some kind of music it could be indeed a problem and EQ will help... Purist can go sleeping...
|
The bashing of equalization as a tool is ignorance but the use of equalization as a solution is ignorance too ... Equalization is a useful tool not an acoustic solution ...It help alleviate some problem but do not solve any acoustic problem by itself alone ...
I use EQ after establishing the right equalisation levels with my modified headphone because so good they are , they are not perfect, no headphone is , and can be too far at some spot from the Harman curve and my ears ask for such slight improvement ... It could be the same thing in a room for a form of DSP , the best DSP is the BACCH filters , eveybody needs this one knowing it or not because this DSP is an acoustic solution with no trade-off ...
|
EQ is a tool for a specific goal but never a solution by itself alone ...
I use it for my headphone to go nearer the Harman curve ...But it does not replace the electrical,mechanical and acoustical necessary controls and treatment i also used and put in place with my headphone and speakers/room ..
|
