@mijostyn appreciate your honesty in that you really haven’t tried what I’m talking about. Regarding playing around with various midrange frequencies I , again, prefer to adjust TONE, meaning bass and treble via the principles laid out in the Stereophile article about Levinson and his thoughts on playback EQ as well as the cello palette. I believe once you are with a good room and with high end gear and cabling that you don’t mess with the mids. So I don’t. I prefer to leave THAT to the sound engineers in production, as our gear far more likely to render flat (what artist intends us to hear is heard) in mids. Rolled off issues in treble though, I love to correct with my high end analog EQ. By the way, if one ever DID want to EQ in the mids or presence regions, good studio analog gear does it GREAT. the sound engineers who reviewed my CO online RAVED about how beautiful the 3 K dial sounds. In fact they raved that you can’t make the music sound bad with any dial adjustments on CO. I actually do often dial in a touch of mids on the 1-2 k some.
listen…@mijostyn…I respect you and your experience and your approach. I bet you’re great at dialing it in digitally. We all have different sound preferences too. Please respect my approach and thoughts. I am a huge advocate of high end treble augmentation when needed (record dependent), and quite honestly I consider myself to have struck gold here with certain analog pieces. And Miro has commented on said analog air band and its beauty as well. Just please don’t make assumptions about gear you’re not that familiar with. I’m careful not do that with you. Indeed, because I love this hobby so much, I’ll likely get my hands on a DEQX and really learn how it sounds and what it’s good and not so good at so I can be more experienced.
Equalizer in a Hi Fi system
Just curious to hear everyone’s opinions on using an equalizer in a high end hi fi system. Was at work tonight and killing time and came across a Schitt Loki max $1500 Equalizer with some very good reviews. What are some of the pros / Benefits and cons in using one. Just curious. BTW. I’m talking about a top of the line. Hi end equalizer. Mostly to calm some high frequencies and some bad recordings.
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 ...
|
Studio gear is certainly not overbuilt as some home HiFi is. It is certainly more reasonably priced. I use commercial sound reinforcement amps to drive my subwoofers and I use a studio digital switcher with DAC and ADC capability. There is absolutely nothing special about studio gear and in many instances it is inferior to home equipment. This is particularly true of loudspeakers (monitors). The very best speakers are not studio monitors. That is not to say there are not some very good ones like the old LS3 5A. Put a subwoofer under the LS and cross at 100 hz and you will swear you are listening to Wilsons. I also would be willing to bet most studios are using digital equipment at this point. The analog stuff is being or has been phased out except in specialty studios dedicated to analog of which there are a few, not including MoFi😏 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. |
@jtcf , happy to be of help. Word of caution on Charter Oak. I have a lot to say about older generation CO vs newer ones made in CA. The Deming era ones are better sounding. I’ve had both in my rig. I returned a new CA made Charter Oak to get an older gen one used from Austria on Reverb. There is still one used one with the right age serial number on Reverb but its volume pots are now detented/modded. Deming himself told me he’s not sure that one’s a good one. Otherwise you’re buying new and not the same. I wish Mike still made them but he doesn’t. It’s worth your while to go back and read earlier in this thread everything that @mirolab and myself said about this piece. If I were buying right now, I’d trust Mirolab’s judgement and buy the Vintage Audio Skyline piece. |
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 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 ...
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 ...
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 ... |
I am a gladly retired FP. The shop I use to work with was Sound Components in Miami, FL when Peter McGrath owned it. Peter was heavily into recording and we had all kinds of professional equipment in house including equalizers. I have not used one in my current system. I do not have access to one and I certainly am not going to buy one. Flat is boring and usually too bright. I have my own "house" curve that I use. How many target curves have you drawn and listened to? What happens if I boose 4 kHz 3 dB. What happens if I cut 125 Hz 3 dB. What happens if I do both? With a low Q? With a high Q? 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. These kill the back wave of the ESLs above 250 Hz. Because they are line source Dipoles that is the only first reflection point. There is no rear wall. The room is open to the rest of the house. The nearest solid wall is 75 feet away. The quality of music reproduction is not subjective. 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. If I blindfold you and walk you into a media room and you think you are at a live performance, that is a great system. This only works with certain types of music and requires a live recording. Studio recordings are fun and can sound great but they never convince me that I am at a live performance. 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. |
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 ...
|
I just took a look at the Charter Oaks equalizer.Interesting and it actually looks very attractive. Somehow I expected a more industrial appearance. Plus they sell them online and Mac online retailers do not,which is important to me being nowhere close to a retailer.I'm not motivated enough to spend most of a day driving back and forth to listen to the Mac with unfamiliar equipment. After doing as much as I can with my room it might be just the thing for a few minor adjustments.Still mulling it over and appreciative of @tlcocks listing brands to look at. |
Exactly @mahgister ! |
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 ...
|
Analog is FAR from antique and its use is alive and well in recording studios across the globe. IT’s technology has advanced too. Just like digital. I’m sorry @mijostyn , but on this one topic you just, frankly, don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. |
@mijostyn do you realize the build quality of these high end studio components actually always has set the benchmark and the bar for quality for audiophile gear? Where do you think home hi fi is spawned from? THE RECORDING STUDIO! |
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?! |
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...
|
The ONLY system I’ve ever heard that I preferred flat over miy setup EQd (and I’ve heard many) was in Audible Images dedicated showroom which Ed meticulously crafted to be as close to perfect as possible. The system was Dan d’Agostino amplification driving Sonus Faber Olympica III’s. The end to end full spectrum extension was unrivaled. The sound reproduction was more pristine, detailed, airy, dimensional, tactile, dynamic and FUN ENGAGING than anything I’ve ever heard. It’s the ONLY system that caused me to take pause with mine. The ONLY. @mijostyn i am willing to BET you have not tried certain renowned for air band professional mastering applications in a home hi fi. I KNOW you haven’t because after 6 f@cking pages of this you refuse to comment on the specific topic. You have had a lot to say, but I’ve never heard you say “I have tried adding air to my recordings” with a Knif Soma or a Manley Massive Passive or a classic Pultec design EQ or a Charter Oak or a Maag or a Skyline or Chandler, Maselec, Millennia, Avalon. The list goes on. Until I’ve heard you specifically say it, then you haven’t done it. So stop being arrogant in putting down things you haven’t tried. |
@mijostyn have you tried in your extensive and impressive past putting a professional mastering equalizer in your chain? You said you tried analog but didn’t elaborate. What analog EQ did you try? As you well know, not all analog EQs are created equal. Incidentally I am a doctor too. I’m a family practitioner. What are you? |
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 ... 😊
|
I am 70 years old and have been doing this since I was 4 years old when my dad got me a Zenith portable for my 4th birthday. He already had a serious system for the day based on Bozak B302A loudspeakers. He had an Ampex tape deck and over 100 pre recorded tapes. I paid my way through medical school installing high end systems in the homes of very rich people. I got all my own equipment at salesman's comp. I have already been through every permutation you can think of including analog equalizers. I am one of 120 people who are going to beta test the Pre 8 (we get one at 1/2 price). It should be showing up any day. If someone wants to bring a Skyline to my home I would be happy to plug it in. I am certainly not going to buy one. Progress does not like going backwards and I am not sentimental. Knowing what a state of the art system/room is capable of is totally a matter of experience. Many of us have heard some very expensive systems and most of them do not perform at the level I am talking about although they may be very impressive. I might also add that the very best systems I have ever heard were not hyper expensive except one, an HQD Levinson system. 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. 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. Most important to acoustic control are the dimensions and configuration of the room. The room has to be designed for sound reproduction to get the best results, although using something like a DEQX or Trinnov can help a lot there are problems they can not manage. For instance, great bass throughout the room is very difficult to achieve. The DEQX and Trinnov can only give you great bass at the listening position. Every place else there is either too much or too little. With a good room and the right speakers you can get very even bass throughout the room varying only a few dB. The less these units have to correct the better. We all love music. The love of music has little to do with being an audiophile. Most music lovers are not audiophiles. Most music lovers are not hyper acute listeners. Most audiophiles do not have a lot of experience listening to multiple systems. Maybe they have gone to a show, but not one of the best systems I have ever heard was at a show. Like most things in life, experience is everything. tl, there are always better ways, it never stops. There are also a lot of dead ends like 8 track tapes. Analog equalizers are one of those dead ends. Like vintage turntables they are going to show up on the market and sentimental people will buy them hopefully at a good price. I'm sure they can make some systems sound better, but they are nowhere near the last word. I am extremely adventurous, a very early adopter. I have been using DSP in my system for 30 years. I have been using subwoofers since 1978. Both are now exploding onto the market as all good things will. |
I will “buy and try” so long as a return policy for full refund. |
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 ...
|
I’m not mad at all. Just adamant that I know what I hear is universally true. I’ve had too many people tell me my stereo sounds absolutely surreal to believe otherwise. You will never ever hear Pink Floyd Echoes from album Meddle cause your friend who’s an avid concert goer to sit bolt upright and state “oh my god, it sounds like you’re in the studio with them!” |
tlcocks dont be upset ... 😊 read what mijostyn said :
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.» |
Now we are going circular argument, dog chasing tail. . I won’t try to convince you further. Please though, we must not conflate room correction digital EQ with tone control! You have already said you never boost treble with your digital applications. So I know in that all that I need to know. (Namely that digital treble boost is quite audibly inferior.) I DO like that you attempt to get your amp loudspeaker synergy to a measured flat out to 20khz. That’s obviously ideal for treble extension. The less EQ the better, of course. However, you are just another audiophile who knows everything there is to know about room correction/ phase/timing corrective applications (which is great), but will never know the joys of the analog air band boost. That’s ok 😊. At least Miro knows! incidentally, I believe digital “tampering” with all these variables creates unnatural sound and more problems than good. Get a good listening room and tonally adjust with an MQ112, Vintage Skyline, Charter Oak or whatever the analog choice and THAT delivers the best sound! I’ve compared my home experience with 100,000 dollar systems in perfect rooms and prefer mine with EVERY recording, good or bad. |
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 ...
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 ...
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 ?
|
You are parroting ambiophonics stuff at me. My old Tact had all the necessary filters for an ambiophonics system which I set up. There was a more stable image across the field, but it paled in comparison to what you have at the listening position of the best stereo systems, you do lose it of axis. 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. Headphones of any type present another (different) surrealistic presentation of a performance and IMHO it sucks. Why, you might ask? Music is also a visceral experience. 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. Why is EQ so important? You locate sounds by volume and phase. As for phase most systems mess this up because of the positioning of the drivers or issues with crossovers and electronics. This is one of the reasons people are attracted to full range speakers. As for volume, all you have to do is mess around with your balance control to see what happens. Identical speakers in different locations have different frequency response curves. I just recently measured a set of Magico S7s in a very symmetrical room and there was an 8 dB variation between to at 300 Hz. I was asked to measure it because of a poor image. The two channels do not have to be flat, but they do have to be identical from 100 Hz to 12 kHz. The only way to accomplish this and phase/time accuracy is with digital signal processing. I discussed these comments with another designer of digital audio equipment. Now, I have stated any number of times that acoustic treatment of the room is actually more important when using digital room control for several reasons. Room control can do nothing with echos, only amplitude. If a room is really bad at a given frequency the DSP will not be able to correct it all the way without clipping filters although the new floating point processors are much better at this. I have been using DSP for 25 years. The paragraph beginning with ," I am afraid I do not know," is honest and correct. As volume decreases the resolution does drop which was a problem for the older units. At low volumes they could easily drop below CD resolution. This is not true of a 64 Bit floating point processor almost down to it's noise level which for the processor in the DEQX is 130 dB down. For the entire unit it is 120 dB down. In other words, noise is no more of an issue than with any other high quality piece of equipment and is totally inaudible at even quiet listening levels. Then Rob presents the opinion of lay users of the Mojo which is totally worthless. People always support the equipment they own, especially if it is an inexpensive "miracle solution." What you do notice right away in a high power system is the improvement in dynamic range with a "traditional processor," which Rob avoids entirely. I suggest you ask him. "Conventional EQ is subjectively flawed." No sh-t Sherlock. Both analog and digital EQ are trying to do the same thing, adjust amplitude at specific frequencies at a given Q. Your choices via Analog EQ are extremely limited in comparison to digital EQ where you have essentially an infinite choice of frequency (down to 0.1 Hz) and Q which is infinitely adjustable via GUI slider. All this without any significant phase, IM or harmonic distortion. 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. |
“Treble may be easier in a digital EQ implementation environment (from a programming viewpoint? I am only a tweaking audiophile, no engineer. But from my perspective on the hi fi playback end, treble EQ in its final sonic resultant SQ is HARDER to get right. I spent years to find the best audiophile listening solution to rolled off treble recordings. Your Mojo 2 is the best digital solution I’ve ever heard. Will you be implementing it in pricier desktop non portable designs? The best analog solution for treble roll off for me for the last 10 years remains a Charter Oak PEQ-1 in both my loudspeaker chain and my headphone chain. It leaves the whole frequency spectrum unmolested while creating the most beautiful air lifts that really breathe life into the appropriate recording. I think the studio engineers quite honestly are on to something.” Above is my response to Rob Watts |
“EQ alone cannot give perfect natural timbre experience ...Physical acoustics is needed too ...”. agreed!! |
His response is interesting: ”I am afraid I don't know the answer to that for sure - apart from knowing conventional EQ is subjectively flawed. I know a lot of recording engineers prefer analogue desks (using DACs and ADCs with analogue EQ), saying they sound better. How much is down to preferring distortion, or how much is down to digital EQ being poor, I don't know. I suspect it's a mixture of both. |
“So Robb. Can I infer here that digital is not all the way there yet when it comes to tonally adding a treble boost, as compared with best studio analog hardware? Specifically talking about treble boost here, the “air band” “ The above is my follow up query to Rob Watts. I will post his response as soon as it becomes available. |
“The problem with 64 bit floating point is that as the signal gets smaller, the resolution changes, and this creates noise floor modulation. OK so we are talking about over 300dB of innate resolution, but this is subjectively significant noise floor modulation and is audible. Moreover, as a signal disappears into the noise floor, it will be treated differently whether there are larger signals present or not. Now you may argue that these errors are very small but at the end of the day, it's about sound quality, and to me these errors are very significant subjectively. And you only need to look at the Mojo 2 thread to see the very positive comments about the EQ compared to traditional 64b FP EQ. @mijostyn the above is just released post by Rob Watts himself on Watts Up?… thread on Head Fi in which he responds directly to my query…and to you most importantly, as I pasted what you said there
|
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 ...
|
The short second paragraph quoted also suggests that digital EQ just isn’t all the way there yet. The treble frequencies are hardest to EQ right, and while I’m no electrical engineer I’d be willing to bet they’re the one section of the frequency band that digital still doesn’t do justice to in a boost situation. |
i found the following post on Head Fi by Rob Watts himself. Founder of Chord Electronics: ”PC's normal calculation is by 64b floating point (FP). There are serious perception problems with floating point as it innately creates noise floor modulation (and other problems too) - and even though the modulation is technically very small, it has in my opinion very serious subjective consequences. This is the primary reason why many Mojo 2 users have commented very favourably on the improved sound quality of Mojo 2's UHD DSP against conventional EQ. In my case I use aggressively noise shaped fixed point architecture, and this innately has absolutely zero noise floor modulation. Going from 64b FP to 128b FP will get you closer, and 256b FP almost converges to fixed point noise shaped operation. |
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 ... |
It is difficult to describe what state of the art imaging sounds like. Obviously, we are all use to hearing our own systems and how they perform. Many of us think they sound really good. Stereo system imaging is for all intents and purposes a surrealistic characteristic and not commonly heard in live performances. Only a live acoustic performance can generate such an image under the right circumstances. Thus many of us have not experienced this type of imaging. It is something you have to experience. What does being Tasered feel like? You have to be tased to know. The problem for audiophiles is getting to that level of imaging performance is really hard. Having EQ capability is a vital part of it as no two identical speakers have the same amplitude curves and they have to be identical to generate the best image. |
Your link set off my virus alarm. Let's assume 104 bits is correct. The DEQX has a 64 bit floating point processor. Regular processors like the one that is in your Mojo can only work in integers. Floating point processors can calculate down to infinitely small fractions. This gives them much higher accuracy and with DSP a much higher dynamic range. The higher dynamic range is essential in DSP to maintain decent resolution at low volumes and to prevent boosting filters from clipping. They are also a lot more expensive and run hot, too hot for a small unit like the Mojo. Against any floating point processor the additional bits in the Mojo do not mean much as the formats it is working with are either 32, 24 or 16 bits as it can only generate a fixed number of values, whereas the floating point processor can generate an infinite number of values. |
Another anecdote. My wife is Peruvian. We had a couple visiting from Peru and the husband was a lover of mountain folk music as well as the Mexican rock band Mana. I played some of the first by his guidance on Qobuz. He was deeply impressed by the realism and natural timbre he heard. Then played Mana MTV Unplugged. I very well recorded live acoustic set that we both knew well. He and his wife were practically in tears raving about how good it sounded. They both asked me to toggle on and off the EQ. Both said they could believe the improvement it made. The wife did finally say after 3 songs that she was ready to go outlet mall shopping with husband, as planned. She got a little upset with the husband because he refused to get up off the couch and go until the record was over. Don’t knock it til you try it. |
To all claiming to chase the unobtainable unicorn, you can get good enough with the right high end AND processing choices. Case in point. My small family of 3 had the good fortune to experience NY Phil play Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in the relatively new and well reviewed David Geffen Hall in NYC last Xmas. Once home, I pulled up the soundtrack on Qobuz and played it. Made some quick Charter Oak PEQ1 treble and bass adjustments until it sounded most realistic to me. Then put my 15 year old son (who produces music) and my wife (who heard the treble spike on my Fostex) in front of the system. Played at approximate level as our live experience. Within a minute or two both of them said wow it sounds like the real thing. I asked if much of anything was lost over the real thing and their answer was a resounding no! Guys, the right studio analog hardware EQ gets you closer as one piece of the puzzle than each of the other myriad of variables expounded upon so eloquently here. Obviously address all or as many of the other solutions as are needed. But my way is biggest bang for the buck. I will keep exploring though. That’s the fun of the hobby. I truly believe the magic analog air band puts one closest to the mythical unicorn. I swear by it. I put as many in front of my system as I can and get the same kind of wow statements every time. |