[bigshot]

What about when you play music with it.

 

[Phishin Phool]

Not sure I understand the question.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I really enjoy listening to my KRK 8" Rokit G3 monitors over my headphones, though I have absolutely no room treatment and have no idea about the frequency measurements.  I don't have an EQ at all, and my only modest options are a +/- 2dB adjustment for LF or HF settings on the back of each of the speakers.
 
My problem is that I really don't have a good space for an audio system.  I'm currently using a dining room nook for my office where I use these speakers, and this is an open design that has a kitchen and family room in the same space.
 
The point is that my opinion on the sound quality is absolutely subjective and quite possibly very wrong.  I'm only using my ears and comparing the results to a limited number of references.  Without measurements, I'm no better off than someone else claiming that they just know that 24-bit music is audibly superior to 16-bit music because they believe they hear a clear difference.
 
I was messing around with room treatment options and found some great resources, many of them way over my head from a technical perspective.  The calculator tools at the following site are fantastic and incredibly detailed.  
 
http://www.jhbrandt.net/  (go to the RESOURCES section and then TOOLS)
 
The complexity of these tools really helps to drive home just how far someone can go to really tweak their audio systems.  
 
For me, I'm still dealing with a set of bowls occasionally rattling around in the kitchen cabinet, so this stuff is way beyond my means at the present time, but I find it all very fascinating.

 

[cel4145]

You can get one close enough for human ears by using human ears. It's like anything else in audio. You can split your fractions forever using measurements, but ultimately, all you are going to hear is what your ears hear. The other thing is that a flat response isn't flat all over the room. A measurement is from one point in the room. That is great if your room is just for one listener. But if you have multiple seating positions within the room for groups of people, or if your acoustics are slightly different when you drop a screen, or if you have issues in parts of the room that can't be dealt with through room treatment, or a bunch of other exceptions to the rule, you need to be able to compromise and develop workarounds.

Besides the problem with your claim that the human ear is a more effective measurement tool, you are setting up a false dichotomy. A measurement mic is just like your head. You can move it to other points in the room to take measurements just like you can your ears. And as I have pointed this out to your previously in the last few weeks, even some auto EQ room correction software (e.g. Audyssey MultEQ and YPAO multipoint) is designed to take measurements from multiple positions. And furthermore, one who is taking the measurements themselves and manual eqing can use REW to average the graphs from multiple positions to aid in arriving at a correction that assists the various positions--the human brain can't do that.

A lot of people think that the sound of the room should be eliminated and cancelled out. I don't like that kind of system. I like it when the system works *with* the room to create an even, balanced sound that is natural for the sound of the room.

The only "natural" sound for a room is no EQ. What you are imposing is your own perception of what sounds good, whether that's a tendency toward flat or some kind of house curve.

My sound engineer buddy who helped me with my system is really good at walking into a club, auditorium or arena and quickly figuring out speaker placement and EQ to give an overall sound to the entire audience, not just the position of his mixing board. He helped me a lot with understanding the variables that needed to be taken into a account in my particular space. Every space is different and requires different approaches. You can follow acoustic principles, but some things you just have to try and see if it works.

Whether or not your friend was able to help you achieve what you believe is good sound is not evidence that taking measurements is an inferior method of system calibration over tuning by ear.

Just because my friend who is a chef likes to bake cakes in his commercial gas oven, and I bake one cake in my home gas oven and it turns out good, it does not mean that gas ovens are superior to electric ovens. All it means is that I like the cake that I baked in my oven.

I'm also working within the limitations of a five band parametric equalizer. It would be great to go down and smooth out every tiny bump and dip, but I have to work with five bands to create an overall curve. If I get too focused on small details, the overall won't be covered properly.

Which is why it's illogical to dismiss the advantage of timbre matched speakers. A 5 band PEQ will have enough trouble trying to produce a decent response in a living room across a wide seating area. If your speakers were better matched to begin with, in all likelihood you would end up with a smoother response. Same with the advantage of well placed dual subs over a single sub for creating a smoother response though a wide seating area. With only a single sub, there is more to correct.

The nice thing is that it all works and the sound in my room is great. Come by and hear it if you ever get to LA.

There are plenty of expensive interconnect cable fans who say the same thing. I suppose that just because they and their friends who have heard their system with their expensive cables think it sounds better, that's proof enough, based upon your arguments.

 

[cel4145]

I assume seeing as I asked politely twice that you just refuse to answer what type of unit you use for DSP.

He has already stated he uses a Yamaha receiver. PEQ was a feature on Yamaha receivers several years back (I don't think it still is). Plus, he's indicated his receiver only takes a single measurement point, so it can not be a newer mid-level/high level Yamaha receiver with YPAO multipoint.

 

[bigshot]

RXV671 is the number of it I believe.

 

[Phishin Phool]

  RXV671 is the number of it I believe.

Thanks - As I stated I am not against DSP but as far as room set-up I was goin gto suggest trying the AVR calibration vs by ear and see what you think if you had it. My old Onkyo w/ Audyssey XTdid 8 and could be expanded to 32 sample points IIRC and On my Pioneer Elite it uses Mcacc with multiple measure points and several memory presets for different tweaks or profiles if you desire. Not sure which I like better and no experience with YPAO.
 
 
 
 
Something else I read regarding Audyssey and Mcacc
 
Time and Frequency Correction:

• The time domain is where many of the problems are. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
• Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands doesn't matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." That's why, after thirty-plus years of trying this method, most people don't like the results. And they turn it off.

 

[RRod]

  Thanks - As I stated I am not against DSP but as far as room set-up I was goin gto suggest trying the AVR calibration vs by ear and see what you think if you had it. My old Onkyo w/ Audyssey XTdid 8 and could be expanded to 32 sample points IIRC and On my Pioneer Elite it uses Mcacc with multiple measure points and several memory presets for different tweaks or profiles if you desire. Not sure which I like better and no experience with YPAO.
 
 
 
 
Something else I read regarding Audyssey and Mcacc
 
Time and Frequency Correction:

• The time domain is where many of the problems are. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
• Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands doesn't matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." That's why, after thirty-plus years of trying this method, most people don't like the results. And they turn it off.

 
What are these many problems in the time domain? And how are they a greater problem than not having a flat frequency response at your listening position? Honestly wondering because people seem to just through out the term "time domain" like it's some fancy demon, when in fact they just mean "the samples themselves."

 

[Phishin Phool]

That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question
 
http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency
 
also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear.

 

[RRod]

  That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question
 
http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency
 
also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear.

 
I know what the time domain is; it's the plot of your specific sample points. My question was, for an uncalibrated system, what are these time domain problems that need time-domain DSP algorithms to correct, and why would you worry about these fixes more than achieving a flat frequency response with frequency-domain DSP?

 

[bfreedma]

Quote:Originally Posted by Phishin Phool That was from the Audyssey website itself but here is info that may answer your question http://www.erzetich-audio.com/knowledgebase-05-time-vs-frequency also Phase shift and polarity aren't things you are going to ascertain by ear. I know what the time domain is; it's the plot of your specific sample points. My question was, for an uncalibrated system, what are these time domain problems that need time-domain DSP algorithms to correct, and why would you worry about these fixes more than achieving a flat frequency response with frequency-domain DSP?

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Why not correct both when the tools allow for it?

Agreed that if you can only correct for one, I would target FR first.

 

[RRod]

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Why not correct both when the tools allow for it?

Agreed that if you can only correct for one, I would target FR first.

 
I agree it isn't either-or; the language of the blurb makes it seem like the author thinks that time-domain issues are the greater concern, that's all.

 

[Phishin Phool]

That I do not know - just relaying some info that I came across as perhaps some users may find it pertinent. I was intriguesd by the statement that PEQ causes  issues to remain which come across as ringing and smearing and adjusting just the FR isn't enough. I agree - correct both.
As I am happy with my multi point Mcacc room calibration which addresses Speaker Adjustment, Equalizer, Phase Control,Speaker Polarity Check, Standing Wave Control, Subwoofer Equalizer, Independent Dual Subwoofer Output, Full Band Phase Control. I have then checked the SPL level at various points in my room and am satisifed with both what I hear and measure. I am certain I can't achieve that by ear alone.

 

[castleofargh]

but then what it the objective? to remove the room(by compensating for all the reflexions changing FR and phase) or mimicking some ideal room?

 

[bfreedma]

That I do not know - just relaying some info that I came across as perhaps some users may find it pertinent. I was intriguesd by the statement that PEQ causes  issues to remain which come across as ringing and smearing and adjusting just the FR isn't enough. I agree - correct both.
As I am happy with my multi point Mcacc room calibration which addresses Speaker Adjustment, Equalizer, Phase Control,Speaker Polarity Check, Standing Wave Control, Subwoofer Equalizer, Independent Dual Subwoofer Output, Full Band Phase Control. I have then checked the SPL level at various points in my room and am satisifed with both what I hear and measure. I am certain I can't achieve that by ear alone.

Good to hear the new version of MCACC is working well on your subs. The previous version didn't EQ subs properly or anything under 63hz for that matter.

That's what drove me from Pio to Denon. Then ended up buying an Audyssey Pro kit so I could tweak the curves a bit more to my preference.