SACD: Is it worth it? - Page 7

*Applauds*

As I said before, timing and phase are important in 5:1 setups, because you can create synthetic ambiences by playing around with the relationship of the speakers and how that affects the space between them. It's also important in PA systems because the distance between the drivers can create phase cancellation, making the sound different in different spots in the hall.

But with a 2 channel setup in a living room with the speakers properly placed, timing correction just isn't necessary. Timing involves the space between speakers. So the only area that timing correction could even affect in a stereo rig is the 8 foot gap between speakers. That's the extent of your soundstage in a stereo rig. There's no way that a timing adjustment to one channel or the other would make a lick of difference in the rest of the room. And if your speakers aren't in proper phase sitting 8 feet apart from each other, you need to check the polarity of your wiring.

An equalizer provides the best bang for the buck of any stereo component. Even inexpensive ones are clean and transparent. The advantage of more expensive ones is more controlled correction. Cheaper eqs tend to have a little spill above and below the range of the pot. They can also drift over time, requiring occasional retweaks.

As for "embracing ignorance", that's done on a regular basis in this forum! That's what gives this place its personality. Personally, I find the regurgitated high end stereo doublespeak and outright hoodoo entertaining. I always enjoy reading comments like, "if you haven't heard this particular cable/black box/magic pebble, you can't say it doesn't work!" and "To my ears it has a softly veiled analoguish sound that is reserved like silk yet aggressive in a teal blue sort of way." Arguing that timing errors of fractions of milliseconds are more important than balanced frequency response is right up there too.

See ya
Steve

That's great in theory, but there isn't a microphone or speaker made that comes even close to having a flat response. If you adjust your speakers' response to flat according to a microphone's response, it will sound stone flat... to the microphone. Whether it sounds flat to your ears is a different story. There are fundamental differences between the way microphones hear and the way we humans hear.

There's a psycoacoustic principle called "frequency masking" that can have a huge impact on how we hear the relative balance between two frequencies. A small imbalance in one frequency can mask a frequency an octave up the scale, and to a diminishing degree, the harmonics above that. You can't adjust one part of the scale without affecting the first and second level harmonics further along. A microphone and analyzer just can't measure and compensate for the way masking affects what we hear from our stereo systems, because masking isn't at all linear in its effect. A boost of as little as 2 or 3db at one frequency can create masking at the first harmonic that our ears perceive as a much bigger imbalance than the almost imperceptible imbalance at the fundamental.

The only way to get it to sound flat to your ears is to calibrate your system to your ears. The way to do this is to run several tone sweeps of 20 to 20 smoothing out the bumps as you go and increasing the volume level with each pass. Three or four passes, ending with as loud as you can stand will result in a response that is clearer and more even than anything a microphone and analyzer can achieve.

See ya
Steve

I've done that many times. I can isolate each correction independently. My findings still stand. All are important.

Your love for ignorance is astounding. If you are in the industry it is a scary thought. Do you have that big of a chip on your shoulder that you can't accept that something with which you clearly have no experience, might actually make a significant difference?

You are correct that room correction is beneficial to a 5. 1 system, but not for just creating "ambiance." Frequency repsonse adjustments can affect that. Nevertheless without proper time and level alignment in a 5.1 setup., imaging becomes completely distorted.

Nowhere did I argue that a fraction of a millisecond is significant for anything. I said the equipment is capable of correctly time aligning within milliseconds, however corrective adjustments might require more than such a small adjustment. Do you not understand the difference?

Again, educate yourself. Advanced room correction has nothing to do with audio voodoo. If you can't even understand why low frequencies and mid/high frequencies would benefit from separate time alignment, you are hopeless.

Furthermore if you think "the only area that timing correction could even affect in a stereo rig is the 8 foot gap between speakers" I guess you believe the room and resulting reflections have no impact on what you hear?

I never said timing is more important than frequency response. If anything, I said I said that timing affects proper imaging more than frequency response. Advanced room correction affects more than just timing, or have you completely overlooked that fact?

You forgot the room. Flat mic, flat speaker won't get you flat response in a room made of glass.

You know... I think you need a break. Get out. Read a book. Look at the clouds. This is a friendly suggestion.

See ya
Steve

Take your own advice. You are my break from the relatively reasonable people I deal with most of the time. It's clear you have an unwavering point of view and that you don't want to bother actually reading and responding to what is actually written. I wasn't trying to waste anyone's time and now realize that your choice of screen name is quite telling.

Tell that to Jim Thiel or Richard Vandersteen.

Most important factors in getting good sound (in order from greatest to least):

1.) recording quality
2.) speakers
3.) how the speakers interact with the room (could actually be tied with #2)

Digital room correction one way of dealing with the room. It's not the only way, but it is effective, allows you to run pretty much any type of speakers you want, and doesn't make your house look like a recording studio with tons of acoustic treatments everywhere. Only problem with it is that it's really freaking expensive at the moment. Doesn't have to always be so...it's not too much of a stretch to imagine a scaled-down version of the TACT system available someday in every mass-market receiver.

Biggie - I'm completely with you (as you probably already know) on the inanity of the many tweako products marketed towards audiophiles, but I can assure you that digital room correction is not in that camp.

Exactly. I advocate using a reasonable amount of acoustic treatment and using room correction for the rest. It isn't cheap to build an excellent room and the aesthetic factor is often an issue. Room correction also allows you to use setups (eg. corner load subs) that you simply couldn't do without correction of time, level and freq. response.

The cost of room correction is something that frankly sucks. It requires significant computing power, which makes it difficult to implement in current consumer products. Nevertheless, without awareness and a greater demand for it, the prices won't go down. I'm trying to do my part indirectly and directly because I do believe it is the one technology (other than new speaker technology) that will truly change the way people think about achieving "perfect sound."

I'm not saying that it doesn't work. I'm just saying that with a 2 channel system in a normal living room, you can get to essentially the same place, or even better, with an inexpensive analogue equalizer and some careful listening and adjusting.

Timing issues become more important, the more speakers you add and the larger the room is. Small room/two speakers in front=not much problem... Big room/lots of speakers all around the listener=big problem. It's not like I'm saying anything outrageously complicated here. It's self evident.

See ya
Steve

How do you come to the conclusion that it can be done better by ear when you haven't even tried the gear? You do realize that when you are drawing your own target curves, you are making manual adjustments? No amount of manual adjusting is going to get cornerload subs to work without room correction. Do you even understand the potential benefit of cornerload subs? Why adjust for freq. respnse only, when you can also adjust other factors that will improve the sound?

Low volume listening with limited range monitors.. no problem. Pretty much anything else would benefit. Once you try it, you'll see what is really self-evident.

I'm not sure why you hold steadfast to beliefs that are backed by nothing but your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are right... you aren't saying anything outrageously complicated...unfortunately along the way, you are providing plenty of misinformation and proving yourself to be fairly narrow minded.

I'm talking about 2 speaker stereo in an average living room.

chill. think positive thoughts.
See ya
Steve

That descripition could cover a wide range of listening environments, most of which would benefit from room correction. Why backpedal now? Most average living rooms are horrible acoustic environments. Furthermore, a full range speaker is quite typical and could greatly benefit from independent correction of low and mid/high frequencies.

Sorry, but you and your completely misguided opinions don't elicit positive thoughts.

Argumentativeness is counter productive. We could drift around with each reply being less and less related to the ones that came before until the whole discussion becomes irrelevant, but what's the point of that? I recommend that you try your hardest to enjoy every second of your life. If you can do that, you won't be so aggrivated and perhaps your discussions with others who may not think exactly the same as you do will become more focused.

See ya
Steve