2. misc-audio
  3. 183325-84411

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...

128x128johnread57

Showing 1 response by minorl

minorl
1,015 posts
 

I'll chime in here as well.  

I'm sure others have touched on this.

First off, Flat Response refers to how the piece of equipment (amp, pre-amp, etc.) is designed to reproduce signals.

in other words, if the amp is designed to amplify signals from 20 hz to 20 Khz for example, then you definitely want that amp to have a absolutely flat response between 20 hz and 20 khz.  a 20 hz signal should have a particular gain/response level from that amp.  a 1 khz signal should have the exact gain/response level from that amp.  A 20 khz signal should have the same gain/response level from that amp.

That is a flat response.  The amp, pre-amp, etc. isn't adding of subtracting (missing) any information to the signal.  it is not adding a signature of it's own.

However, many designers design to add additional bass or high frequency response to their equipment.  This most definitely not a flat response.

I want my equipment to reproduce the signal exactly as it came in, flat from 20 hz (or lower) to 20 khz (or higher).  Anything else is cheating and is adding a certain "sound" which is not accurate in the slightest.

Now, if the amp is designed in conjunction with a particular speaker for example, then there may be a need for some wave shaping circuitry to correct for the speaker's issues.  many speakers require this wave shaping correction.  However, it is typically in the crossover and not in the amp.  my point is certain equipment is designed together to correct for issues from other equipment from the same manufacturer.  This why as a system they sound great, but when used separately with other equipment, not so much.

thanks, enjoy

More to discover