Is a FLAT response the IDEAL?
Sounds in nature are not a flat response, quite often, there are natural attenuators, accelerators and amplifiers, including horns (caves), wind and water, let alone reflections, absorption and diffraction.
Similarly the holy grail (one of them) of recreating outdoor, concert or live music, and so on, abound with these shifts in the environment or context where the experience happens and the recording takes place. Are we depending on the mic positioning, and mic performance, along with mixing equipment, format and so on, to enable recreation of the environment when moving to playback. How does a flat response curve help?
Of course, we have DSP. For Club, Hall, Rock, Indoor, Outdoor and may other shifts to music recordings. And mastering adds reverb as another way to create a 3D version of context/venue. These are averaging processes that apply universal shifts to shape a standard curve across the music stream continuously.
So why is it that we pursue flat response curves? Or DSP generated fixed curves? How does flat recreate that live ’being there’ experience.
When designing equipment including components, such as DACs, and speakers, most seek to judge against a flat frequency response.
Mind you, how on earth can we allow other than flat. Turntables as most here know, use the RIAA curve to fix the problems of hearing that itself is not flat. But even that is aimed to deliver a flat hearing response.
I don’t understand. If we are trying to model or capture the original event, how does flattening everything help? And, what are the alternatives? How do we achieve close to the venue or location, given so many unique variables, that our approximations just don’t seem close to the original. It’s no wonder... Have we selected flat because it is the best average we’ve got?
Do immersive audio methods of sound reproduction do it better? Some prefer pure stereo, some like DSP, some multi-channel and multi-speaker methods including ambiophonics.
Where does the ’flat curve’ fit into the equation here, vs say cross-over design or powered speakers or upgrades as a priority? Should we care about it?
Well that’s enough to launch this inquiry...
@kenjit
Me neither. So I did it (to) myself, haha. |
1) Sure, flat response is ideal. But as what expense to GET flat F-R? Meaning what other things are being lost in that process? Are they more important or less? Depends on what you value the most. 2) I made the unpleasant discovery that tweaking my speakers made a singer sound flat, sharp, or even not like the same person! And with no reference to go by, which one was correct? 3) Flat speaker response may not correlate to flat in-room response. The solution of course is to get Genelec’s speaker which, at the press of a button, eq’s the speaker so that in-room response is flat. And if that is so great, why isn’t anyone other than recording engineers buying it. 4) Then there is the debate about what is "flat"? Thiel speakers have "flat" treble but for many people that is unlistenably bright. kenjit
A good lesson to learn. I got a DEQ to fix in-room FR. Having that kind of power became a horrible compulsion to EQ every song so it sounded "right". |
