or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by YCH

  What are the dominant factors you have found to produce the most consistently + accurate emulation results?   I guess symmetry would be one. I think I get better results with deeper mic locations too. Would like to hear your take on this.
  Ok; I notice that the accuracy of the emulation is very dependent on the mic fittings, and despite me having done it almost a dozen times myself now I still don't have it down to a science. I'm going to ask Lorr to give me some pointers on that in person, hence the LA locations (where he's able to go help).   Once I get good at putting the mics I'll consider going to other cities.
I've been away for almost a year...was supposed to go to AIX and Mi Casa but apparently Mi Casa is no longer an option. AIX is still an option, so that's good.   Anyone have suggestions for good studios/locations to visit in the LA area?
  That's because there's an important distinction between loudspeakers and headphones, even for as simple a thing as achieving a flat frequency response! Let's examine that.   For example, if person A set up a room with a particular set of loudspeakers and tuned it til it's frequency response is flat at a listening position, then if a mixing engineer mixes at that position and produces a recording based off that, and person B else sets up another room with a flat...
  Do you agree that the ideal headphone design would be one that was designed specifically for an individual? If so, then dummy head based design is by definition flawed, since it will not match everyone. It is a necessary evil of making a one-size-fits-all product like headphones.   Reply to #1: The manufacturer target I mentioned in my post includes field equalization. I should have made it clearer. But each type of equalization is also only truly valid for a certain...
  I have a fundamental disagreement with the point-of-view that any audible changes to the headphone audio path must be bad, because the underlying implication is that the original audio path cannot be improved in any way. See my posts above about calibration for more details.
  Do your own PRIRs sound like the loudspeaker system/room you were measuring from the seating position in which you measured it? If it does that well, then that's mission accomplished from the Realiser's point of view.
The tech behind the Realiser is very sound (heh). One way to think about it, away from the nitty gritty of it is this:   If you believe in TV color calibration, then the approach to the Realiser is fundamentally similar. It's trying to calibrate the system to a certain reference. Most HDTV calibrations work by calibrating it to the professionally accepted ITU-R BT.709 recommendation. There's no similar professionally accepted, highly specified recommendation for...
  I think one reason some of the headphiles don't take well to the Realiser is that it involves tons of DSP processing to the audio signal. To some, having any DSP processing corrupts and makes the signal less pure, and necessarily reduce quality, so they ignore it.
    Interesting read sort of, but this part is quite wrong:         Mathematically impossible. Dither has to be added pre-quantization in order to yield signal-to-noise perceptual benefits ie "hearing further into the music". Otherwise it just means the person prefers the noise of the water added to the music.   .......
New Posts  All Forums: