Don Richard Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Does science really say sound should be flat? Is any great concert hall measured as flat? In the science/art of acoustical science is the optimum space considered one which is flat? I'm not up on the latest developments. If production is not flat under the best circumstances then why should reproduction be? As a sound wave travels it loses high frequencies due to absorption, diffusion, reverberation and other effects. If you are at the back of a concert hall listening to an unamplified orchestra you are not quite hearing what the conductor hears because the highs are attenuated. If the mics are fairly close to the orchestra the sound that is recorded will be brighter than what you heard sitting further back. It might be beneficial to roll the highs off in a reproduction system to compensate for these effects, resulting in a more natural sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 It might be beneficial to roll the highs off in a reproduction system to compensate for these effects, resulting in a more natural sound. Exactly! This is, in part, why many enjoy the sound of SETs, and why many users of vintage tube amps use the treble control to roll off the highs. Some of the appeal of speakers like the AR-3, and Rectilinear III, which offered the "New England sound," was because of the somewhat softer top end as compared with other speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Tone controls! (there I said it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 28, 2013 Author Share Posted February 28, 2013 Sorry but your are dead wrong... what we measure our gear with or our room is not a musical piece. Music can not be accurately measured.... Sweeps, test tones, and measurements are used to detect system alignment problems and solve them, that's what they are designed to do. Music is not designed to be used as a test signal for system alignment, it is made to be listened to and enjoyed. After my system was properly aligned according to the measurements the music sounded better than it did before, clearer and more focused. The system is more accurate as a result of measuring and correcting and the music is more enjoyable for me to listen to. So do you sit in front of your system and listen to sweeps and test tones? That is not measuring sound quality that is measuring specifications.... Music is not sweeps and test tones. They are indeed helpful to get a designer or room tweaker to a base line but the base line is just where the fun (tuning) begins. Sound quality of music can not be measured. After all this is all about music at least for most of us it is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennie Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Tone controls! (there I said it) Or, as I like to say... Season to taste! [Y] No shame in that! [] Dennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So do you sit in front of your system and listen to sweeps and test tones? Of course not, at least not since I got my loudspeakers correctly aligned 1 1/2 years ago. Music is not sweeps and test tones. Sound quality of music can not be measured. After all this is all about music at least for most of us it is... "Music is not designed to be used as a test signal for system alignment, it is made to be listened to and enjoyed." is exactly what I said. I'm happy to see you agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 1, 2013 Author Share Posted March 1, 2013 Hey if being childish is your MO that is fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 And exactly how am I being childish? We are saying the same thing in different words. Per the title of the post that you started I gave an example of how proper testing and subsequent correction of problems can enhance the enjoyment of music. Suggesting that means someone is sitting around listening to test tones instead of music is plain silly. Today we have better means of testing, with equipment that is far more accurate than what was around 30 years ago. We now look at the time domain as well as the frequency domain simultaneously with processing power that allows us to do so in real time. Of course one must be able to interpret what all of this means and what correction is necessary. My friend's SMAART rig has the ability to measure the output of a mixer or preamp and compare that to the output of a loudspeaker by overlaying the curves. This is often done with music as the signal source and is done as a final test of system accuracy once the system is aligned with test signals. And in my experience this correlates well with what I heard after he finished his tuning to the extent that I have felt no need to tweak anything on my system in the last year and a half. I believe that there is no way that this could have happened by simply listening to music, twisting knobs, and adjusting delays. That would be like visually looking at an amplifier circuit and knowing the voltages without measuring them, or knowing the exact air pressure in a tire by looking at it. So my answer to the post title, " Can sound quality be measured?" would be, "Better than we ever could before" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 If it measures good and you don't like it, what do you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 If it measures good and you don't like it, what do you do? Look for a new metric to measure. FR doesn't tell the whole story, you need to look at the time domain performance, as well as distortion, transient response, dynamics / power compression, as well as the complete power response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 If it measures good and you don't like it, what do you do? Look for a new metric to measure. FR doesn't tell the whole story, you need to look at the time domain performance, as well as distortion, transient response, dynamics / power compression, as well as the complete power response. Bingo! If measurements don't tell you what you want to know, you haven't measured enough variables. A classic example is using an RTA to measure frequency response and EQing the RTA to flat. FR is not the whole story but today we, the average hobbyists, have access to really good measurement systems that can give a more complete picture of what's going on. Tomorrow we will have even better and more accessible measuring equipment. I claim that it should be possible to measure audio systems and have those measurements correlate with what we hear out of those systems. Richard C. Heyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 When I said "measure", I meant anything that's measureable and correlates to our hearing. My point is this: everything correct from a technical perspective doesn't guarantee a person is going to like how it sounds -- and often what sounds good at first, has you grinding your teeth a month later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bracurrie Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 When I said "measure", I meant anything that's measureable and correlates to our hearing. My point is this: everything correct from a technical perspective doesn't guarantee a person is going to like how it sounds -- and often what sounds good at first, has you grinding your teeth a month later. Ok I just re measured and balanced the gain on my tweeters relative to my bass bins and then threw in a little EQ adjusting from room measurements. It sounds fantastic listening to jazz, organ and classical. Rock, pop and country feel a little lifeless now. So I would contend that a degree of slop from a measured ideal is more universally listenable than a measured and corrected system. But I still like it. I just have to figure out how to adjust for more processed content.I would contend that sound quality to a point can be measured, but subjective taste cannot be measured for. So beyond the basics, the attributes that takes a system to another level higher of perceived quality has a large subjective component that isn't easily measured. And because of this cable risers and all manner of nonsense can be fested upon those who want to believe and where no measurement can detect the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 But I still like it. I just have to figure out how to adjust for more processed content.I believe that is just what Mikebse2a3's "cello palette" settings (linked above) in your EQ unit is supposed to handle. I find that the issue isn't necessarily "personal taste" but more like "badly mixed and mastered rock, pop, country, etc. recordings. The cello palette is an effective way to correct these deficiencies disk by disk without having to re-EQ your system back to what you measured. Perhaps it's a cruel truth that so many of our favorite recordings from our younger years sound not so good on really good speakers...and the better the speakers, the worse they sound. Even Roy acknowledges that most of his favorite tunes from the 70s and 80s don't sound very good on the best speakers that he's worked on. However, Miketn's cello palette approach bridges that gap better than anything else that I've heard. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odysseyrevolver Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I don't employ measurements or Pythagoreanism when music doesn't sound good. I just drink more beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Bingo! If measurements don't tell you what you want to know, you haven't measured enough variables. A classic example is using an RTA to measure frequency response and EQing the RTA to flat. FR is not the whole story but today we, the average hobbyists, have access to really good measurement systems that can give a more complete picture of what's going on. Tomorrow we will have even better and more accessible measuring equipment. Yea we agree.... not. Find a well renowned audio engineer that does not use his ears as the final piece of test equipment. If measurments can do it all then we would all have indentical audio systems because they would all be built to these magical test results (that DO NOT EXIST). In the end all designers that are worth a shite tune to there personal prefernece to what they like to hear with the good old ears not test results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 In the end all designers that are worth a shite tune to there personal prefernece to what they like to hear with the good old ears not test results. That's because the recording and mastering engineers have mixed the recording to sound good to their ears on the monitors that were used in studios. For example, many recordings in the 80s were mixed using Yamaha NS-10s as monitors. Any recording mixed on those monitors will sound bright and edgy when played on a system with flat frequency response. If a loudspeaker has been voiced to compensate for that it will sound dull and lifeless whenever a good recording is played. I am of the opinion that a reproduction system should be as accurate as possible in the frequency domain and the time domain. When that has been accomplished all recordings sound better than they did before the system was corrected. If that is not sufficient the listener then has the option of correcting those recordings with cello palette or other EQ settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Bingo! If measurements don't tell you what you want to know, you haven't measured enough variables. A classic example is using an RTA to measure frequency response and EQing the RTA to flat. FR is not the whole story but today we, the average hobbyists, have access to really good measurement systems that can give a more complete picture of what's going on. Tomorrow we will have even better and more accessible measuring equipment. Yea we agree.... not. Find a well renowned audio engineer that does not use his ears as the final piece of test equipment. If measurments can do it all then we would all have indentical audio systems because they would all be built to these magical test results (that DO NOT EXIST). In the end all designers that are worth a shite tune to there personal prefernece to what they like to hear with the good old ears not test results. [Y] Pictured between a highly modified LaScala's are a pair of 1,6 watt SET EML45 amplifiers I designed with $3000 in parts with little more then a Digital Multimeter, calculator and some operating specs that I designed the circuit for. Later some spice simulations were done by an engineer that I work with which proved to be very very good. At first I didn't want this layout the builder came up with but in the end its his satisfaction that counts so I did the best I could with circuit layout and the amplifier was quite. In the end the builder claim the sound is beyond his wildest expectations. I designed it to have authority, breath and recovery. In the end the owner has said "you wouldn't know you were listening to a 1 watt anything" I did get a chance to hear it when I went to AKfest last year and it was astonishingly good and its harmonic presentation to my ears was one of the best that I have ever heard. Even better was when we added bridge tube rectifiers and a second paralleled mains power transformer. It goes to show the ears resolve. SET12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I tune my shit to AM radio, then I wipe and listen to music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I tune my *** to AM radio, then I wipe and listen to music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.