[Edoardo]

Quote:

I haven't found that high end audiophiles give a damn about frequency response. They generally use brute force measures like room treatment to deal with frequency imbalances and refuse to use equalization that could give them control enough to match professional audio. They often argue that flat doesn't sound good. Instead they focus on splitting their fractions into tiny bits by optimizing electronics that already performs perfectly.
 
Also, I have found that a lot of professionals who work in small home studios don't go the extra mile to get flat response. In fact, I have met a few who insist on mixing to small bookshelf speakers because "that's what people at home have".
 
Flat response is undervalued in general.

Yes, that's my point, 
I didn't want to be picky: even generalizing a lot, audiophiles would not be at the centre of the graph.
 
Go to audio events, read magazines, blogs, forums, whatever: Audiophiles don't give a damn about fidelity in general, they look for "Euphonia", "PRaT", "Musicality", and much more nonsense which mean more or less saught-after emphasis or distortion on this or on that point of the spectrum.
Here on Head-Fi we also have people who look for warm amplifiers, headphone with more bass, liquid mids and stuff...
 
My small experience with sound engineers has been more satisfying though.
 
 

 
Quote:

Would an extremely rich audiophile wish to reproduce George Massenburg's Studio?
 

 
 

 
Playback'ing music does not need all that gear... That's the point! You can get a studio-level playback'ing system for a fraction of a studio-level monitoring room. But most audiophiles prefer wasting theit money in WWII tubes, giant horns and the like.
 
By the way... why do I see a lot of 3.0 monitoring systems around the web? How do you mix the central channel and what's their point?
 

 

[RexAeterna]

i don't see a point in a center channel at all. stereo speakers will give you accurate center imagery,and full 360 degree soundstage without the need of surround,side or center speakers. no need for extra speakers. 1 good pair is good enough. adding more boxes actually screws up imaging more then solves it.

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

i don't see a point in a center channel at all. stereo speakers will give you accurate center imagery,and full 360 degree soundstage without the need of surround,side or center speakers. no need for extra speakers. 1 good pair is good enough. adding more boxes actually screws up imaging more then solves it.

That's what I've always thought. The few monitoring systems I've seen, even in badass studios, were always in stereo. But Around the web I've seen many 3.0 systems as well so I started to think about it
 

 

[RexAeterna]

That's what I've always thought. The few monitoring systems I've seen, even in badass studios, were always in stereo. But Around the web I've seen many 3.0 systems as well so I started to think about it

i only been in once studio before cause i had to talk with an audio engineer about his courses for certification cause i'm trying to get into mastering engineering myself but had hard time locating local studios since they were always 2 or 3 hours away from where i live but i found one about only 45 minutes away and he teaches audio at local college as well. he only uses 2 speakers for monitoring.

from experience myself though messing around with speakers,rooms and positions, 2 speakers is all you need for a full 360 degree imaging and soundstage cause it all depends on the tweeters dispersion pattern on and off axis. more boxes will cause unwanted resonances and reflections which can screw up imaging big time.

 

[CEE TEE]

Center and two rear are for surround mixes only.

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

Center and two rear are for surround mixes only.

Where did they hide the LFE ? 

 

[quastar]

Great thread Lunatique!  Based on your graph and description, I'd say I'm more of a 'typical consumer,' but slowly creeping into 'low-end audiophile' based on my recent plunge into hi(er)-end audio gear.  In the past few weeks i've spent most of my free time reading and soaking up info on headphones and audio in general.  I'm usually way over my head on what I'm reading and this is no different.

 
 
I agree with pretty much everything you said about neutral/accuracy thing.  I share the same philosophy of striving for the most accuracy in my music/sounds with my system.  Having said that, however, unfortunately, being a total n00b in the audio world I really have no idea what accuracy really should sound like.  Going neutral for me means disabling most "coloring" affects in my sound-card control center software (x-fi crystalizer, EQ, 50% bass, treble, etc.) for my mp3s and FLACs stored in my PC hd.  I'm not sure that by doing that I'm really making it more accurate.  I've also yet to have an idea what these subjective adjectives like "warm," "smooth," or "laid back" sounds like nor know what I should be adjusting on the EQ to make everything sound more accurate.  
  

 

[bigshot]

For a newbie the best way to judge accuracy is to listen carefully to well recorded acoustic music. Chamber music is the best. Most of us have heard acoustic instruments in person so we can judge accuracy better than with electronic instruments that have undergone filtering and sound shaping.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Great thread Lunatique!  Based on your graph and description, I'd say I'm more of a 'typical consumer,' but slowly creeping into 'low-end audiophile' based on my recent plunge into hi(er)-end audio gear.  In the past few weeks i've spent most of my free time reading and soaking up info on headphones and audio in general.  I'm usually way over my head on what I'm reading and this is no different.

 
 
I agree with pretty much everything you said about neutral/accuracy thing.  I share the same philosophy of striving for the most accuracy in my music/sounds with my system.  Having said that, however, unfortunately, being a total n00b in the audio world I really have no idea what accuracy really should sound like.  Going neutral for me means disabling most "coloring" affects in my sound-card control center software (x-fi crystalizer, EQ, 50% bass, treble, etc.) for my mp3s and FLACs stored in my PC hd.  I'm not sure that by doing that I'm really making it more accurate.  I've also yet to have an idea what these subjective adjectives like "warm," "smooth," or "laid back" sounds like nor know what I should be adjusting on the EQ to make everything sound more accurate.  
  

 
Disabling all the features that will color the sound is very important. I just recently wrote a review about the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium, and in it I talk about how fake and gimmicky those features are:
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/about_me/wordpress/?p=1508
 
The only audio altering/enhancing plugins you should use are ones that address the sonic signature of the headphone/speaker you're using directly, catering to the exact needs it has, instead of some arbitrary preset created by some guy in a lab who has no idea what kind of headphone or speaker you are using. Those factory presets with generic descriptions are completely useless--whether it's factory EQ presets like "rock," "classical," "dance"...etc,  or environment simulation presets like "club," "hall," "bathroom," "cave," or whatever (why would anyone want to listen to music in these acoustically ridiculous settings?). Just don't touch any of that, period, unless you are sure you want a colored sound that skews how the music is supposed to sound according to the original intention of the recording artist/mastering engineer.
 
When you use EQ, you must address the deficiencies of your headphone/speakers directly by doing proper measuring and analyzing of the frequency response. Never use presets created by someone else, unless it was created to address the exact same model of headphone/speakers you are using, and the person has authoritative knowledge in how to EQ properly for accuracy/neutrality. You need to see and hear proof that they guy knows what the hell he's doing.
 
Other than EQ, crossfeeds/HTRF effects are also useful and they benefit the overall experience more than harm it (such as Isone Pro, Redline Monitor, Smyth Research Realiser). Yes, they might introduce coloration, but they aren't really coloration--more like part of the natural sound of a realistic listening space, as opposed to the dreaded headphone listening experience of "inside your head" (which is not what we're built for physiologically). 
 
But even with these products, you can't just randomly dial in settings and expect things to sound good--you have to follow the instructions in the user's manual and aim for accuracy/neutrality in the settings. For example, you can't just take Isone Pro and randomly dial in some crazy room simulation setting and expect it to sound good--it has to be logical and make sense, and always with accuracy/neutrality in mind. For example, there's no reason for you to dial in a gigantic room with the speakers set 10 meters away--that's just pointless and counterproductive to good sound. 
 
In the end, it's all about education yourself and using your common sense. Read up on related subjects via credible online sources or publications like magazine articles and books. Learn about pro audio mixing and mastering. Learn about acoustic design for studios and listening spaces. They all add up and help you become more informed. 
 
 
 
 

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

For a newbie the best way to judge accuracy is to listen carefully to well recorded acoustic music. Chamber music is the best. Most of us have heard acoustic instruments in person so we can judge accuracy better than with electronic instruments that have undergone filtering and sound shaping.

In principle, that's good advice, but in practice, it's too vague to be of any real help, since there are complicated factors involved, such as:
 
-We have very short hearing memory, so it is totally unreliable. 
 
-The environment in which you heard the acoustic instrument varies--from someone's bedroom, to street performances, to small pubs, to large concert halls. They all sound very different from one another, and most of the time, you are hearing crappy acoustics, since acoustically ideal environments are expensive to build. Even if you attended a prestigious concert with million-dollar acoustic construction, you might have purchased the cheaper seats, and those seats will sound very different from the front row expensive seats.
 
-The actual instruments you heard in person is likely very different from the ones you are listening to in the recording. A different model/brand of instrument can sound drastically different. An ovation guitar is going to sound nothing like a Martin guitar, for example. Also, most people have no clue how specific instruments are supposed to REALLY sound, unless they are seasoned orchestrators, arrangers, composers, musicians, recording/mixing/mastering engineers who live and breathe these instruments day in and day out. 
 
-The way the instrument is recorded can vary a lot--from the choice of mics, mic positioning, mic pre, various audio effects like compression, EQ, and even the way the music is mastered. 
 
Because of these complications, the advice become almost useless.
 
It's better to measure/test the headphone/speaker and address its deficiencies directly. 
 
 

 

[Edoardo]

Quote:

For a newbie the best way to judge accuracy is to listen carefully to well recorded acoustic music. Chamber music is the best. Most of us have heard acoustic instruments in person so we can judge accuracy better than with electronic instruments that have undergone filtering and sound shaping.

I partially agree.
 
Of course, unplugged instruments are a benchmark, but IMHO an electronic analog synth or an electric guitar can also be as harmonically rich, and if everything is set in the "right way" a rock band can also give so much to your ears!
 
IMHO, attending concerts, if you have the chances, rules. It's not as obvious at it sounds. Looking for the perfect rig can be as biasing as getting used to some crappy digital samples meant for crappy boomboxes is.

 

[Edoardo]

 
I'm quoting here not instead of Bigshot, who I guess will give his own reply somewhen else, but just because having I given the "go to concerts" suggestion as well, I just feel to do so.
 
 
Quote:

In principle, that's good advice, but in practice, it's too vague to be of any real help, since there are complicated factors involved, such as:
 
-We have very short hearing memory, so it is totally unreliable. 
 
 

From an Audiophiliac point of view, I'd say you don't go to concerts to memorize anything. Just to get used to it. 
You don't remember how to ride a bike, do you? 
 
 
 
Quote:

 
-The environment in which you heard the acoustic instrument varies--from someone's bedroom, to street performances, to small pubs, to large concert halls. They all sound very different from one another, and most of the time, you are hearing crappy acoustics, since acoustically ideal environments are expensive to build. Even if you attended a prestigious concert with million-dollar acoustic construction, you might have purchased the cheaper seats, and those seats will sound very different from the front row expensive seats.
 
-The actual instruments you heard in person is likely very different from the ones you are listening to in the recording. A different model/brand of instrument can sound drastically different. An ovation guitar is going to sound nothing like a Martin guitar, for example. Also, most people have no clue how specific instruments are supposed to REALLY sound, unless they are seasoned orchestrators, arrangers, composers, musicians, recording/mixing/mastering engineers who live and breathe these instruments day in and day out. 
 
 

 
I fully agree with you when you say room acoustics give up to 50% of what you are hearing, especially in a stereo loudspeaker setup, and I agree that
 
 
Quote:

 
the way the instrument is recorded can vary a lot-from the choice of mics, mic positioning, mic pre, various audio effects like compression, EQ, and even the way the music is mastered
 

 
 
But yet I can't follow the rest.
I've been in millionaire and theatres/halls/villas well more than once and yes, different seats sound different.
But a theatre or a villa are not a piece of gear. There are NO seats that sound better nor more "realistic" than others.
 
Then, I don't get what you are meaning in the lines I've underlined.
Being right next to any instrument when they are playing it's undeniably unbeatable experience. As for seats, there are no instruments that sound more real than others, a Martin does not sound better than an ovation, and having listened to a Martin does not make you feel an Ovation is not a guitar or viceversa... And IMHO having spent some time in a school band is fair enough to tell what should sound like what. 
 
Futhermore, the only person in the hall who is listening to the orchestra as it is meant to, is the Director himself. No one else on Earth does.
In the big orchestras, even some musicians can't hear the whole thing, that's why a direction is needed.... But then we must say that the Maestros do not play for the sake of the public...They play for their own pleasure and let intruders in.
So IMHO unless you seat on the director's shoulders, being in the front left corner of the hall is not less "hi-endish" then being in a corner of the orchestra, and I prefer the last row of the Muenchner's Gasteig to any rig. Unfortunately, I can't afford going to Munich that much.
 
 
Quote:

 
It's better to measure/test the headphone/speaker and address its deficiencies directly. 
 
 

measures have always been on paper, but they have never stopped the "warmth!", "euphonia", "PRaT", "I want moar bass" manias....

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Then, I don't get what you are meaning in the lines I've underlined.

 
The recording you're listening to used specific brand/model of instruments, and were played with a specific set of techniques/articulations suitable for the piece of music. It is also recorded with a specific set of mics, positioning, mic-pre's, and were mixed/mastered in a specific manner. That results in a very individualistic sound, unique to that recording. It's not going to sound like another acoustic recording, because other recordings have totally different instruments, gear, and talents behind them. There isn't one "universal truth" in any of it because recordings are the results of CREATIVE decisions. They are shaped to sound a certain way, and they are not test tones and pink noises--they are artistic expressions. 
 
Then, on top of all those factors, you are trying to match your live listening experiences to all those different recorded material with highly variable circumstances. You might have heard acoustic guitars before, but do you which brand/model of guitars you heard? Do you remember what type of acoustic environment you heard those guitars in? Do you remember the playing style and articulations used to play those guitars? Do you know what, if any, amplification was used, and what those gears were? If not, then how can you match your impression of those highly individualistic live circumstances to recordings? They might all be guitars, but they could sound totally different--be it different brands/models, different types of strings used, different playing techniques, different acoustic environments, different amplification/recording gear...etc.
 
And let's say if you were listening to an ovation guitar of a specific model in the recording, would you know that? How many typical music lovers even know what the Ovation house sound is, or how it differs from other acoustic guitars of different brands/models? What if you have never heard an Ovation before in a live performance, and now you're hearing one in a recording, but you have no point of reference as to how an Ovation sounds live? Then you can only compare it to other acoustic guitars you've heard live before, but Ovation guitars sound nothing like typical acoustic guitars. How are you to make judgment about the recording or your audio gear then? This goes for all different instrument types, brands, and models. A Yamaha C7 sounds nothing like a Bösendorfer. A Ludwig Vistalite sounds nothing like a Sonor Designer or a Tama Starclassic. Having heard certain brands/models played a certain way in a certain acoustic environment and amplified a certain way does not mean you then can match up those varying factors to any recording and then make critical judgments. 
 
It is NOT as simple as having heard acoustic performances before and then be able to listen to a recording and all of a sudden be able to match up the two totally different circumstances and then conclude that what you're hearing in the recording indeed matches your live listening experience, thus being able to make critical judgment about your audio gear. 
 
Of course, the more experienced you are in general when it comes to all subjects related to audio, the better off you are, but this whole "just listen to lots of live acoustic performances and use them as benchmarks" thing is too vague to be directly helpful. You might be able to form a general impression based on your listening experiences, but it is an amorphous and vague impression without reliable particulars that you can trust completely, and it is also missing lots of information you don't know a thing about. 
 
That's why in addition to "simply listen," you must also measure and compare and use test tones to "build your case" in your assessment. 

 

[Edoardo]

 
Quote:

 
The recording you're listening to used specific brand/model of instruments, and were played with a specific set of techniques/articulations suitable for the piece of music.
 
It is also recorded with a specific set of mics, positioning, mic-pre's, and were mixed/mastered in a specific manner. That results in a very individualistic sound, unique to that recording. It's not going to sound like another acoustic recording, because other recordings have totally different instruments, gear, and talents behind them. There isn't one "universal truth" in any of it because recordings are the results of CREATIVE decisions. They are shaped to sound a certain way, and they are not test tones and pink noises--they are artistic expressions. 
 
 
 

 Actually, I am well aware of everything you have written here, and fully agree with you: I just think that you are underestimating many listeners, as if it were hard to spot the difference from a piano and an harpsichord, or as if anyone expected to hear a banjo playing a Baroque Suite.
 
Of course the choice of any instrument, both in its materials and in its playing technique, and even the performance location, if you can afford it, is expected to be coherent with the heritage of the composition you are playing. 
Of course the miking technique is essential in delivering the environment of the performance: recording a guitar with a couple of cardiods in a venetian villa or through a piezo in any toilet-sized recording room are not the same thing, but we trust both the performers' and the sound engineer's opportunities, abilities, musical/historical culture and sanity!
A sound engineering process is a surely a creative one, but a sound engineer also must have his bounds as well: it seems you are assuming that a sound engineer always has a larger musical culture than his listeners, which would make them unable to judge its creation, regardless of its respect or coherence towards the composition and the performance.
 
 
Going to concerts - that is my humble suggestion - also means listening to different instruments, noticing different techniques, enlarging your knowledge of the history of each instrument, experimenting different acoustical environments, and everything comes in handy when it's time to judge both a performance and its recording. 
 
Real listening, as I mean it, implies attention and interest to the history and peculiar sound or technique of each single instrument, genre or style.
Therefore anyone with a decent musical cultures can say that an Ovation steel-stringed guitar would be a disputable choice for recording a Flamenco dance, (if anyone can play a flamenco on steel strings), even though he's listening to it for the first time in his life and blindfolded.

 

 

[bigshot]

Room acoustics aren't coloration or a distortion of the response in classical music. It's part of the music.