Bought a Radioshack SPL meter and

[pauln]

If the ear hears lower frequencies less well, isn't that the way those frequencies should be reproduced? To exagerate the bass so it sounds "the same level" as the rest is to mistake how we hear bass in the first place. All attempts to reproduce bass "at the same level" as the rest will of course sound artificial and wrong. Thank goodness for vinyl, SETs and LasScalas that keep this from happening to me!

Pauln

[michael hurd]

"If the ear hears lower frequencies less well, isn't that the way those frequencies should be reproduced? To exagerate the bass so it sounds "the same level" as the rest is to mistake how we hear bass in the first place. All attempts to reproduce bass "at the same level" as the rest will of course sound artificial and wrong. Thank goodness for vinyl, SETs and LasScalas that keep this from happening to me!"

You could argue the same for the reduced sensitivity to VHF frequencies as well, you might only want a tweeter to go out to say... 8 khz. [] How will a cymbal sound with no HF information?

Since the midrange can go out to 6 khz on your lascalas, possibly with a spike at 9 khz, you might as well disconnect the tweeters and sell them on e-bay or better yet sell them to me.

Fact: most all LF devices compress at high sound pressure levels, IE: the input does not match the ouput exactly. Maybe a "cheap" subwoofer can fill the bill for you, you might as well disconnect the k-33 in your bass bins, and sell them to me.

The low cone movement results in very low power requirments, and low thermal compression and mechanical compression IE: it is TOO linear as spl increases.

[pauln]

Actually, yes, its true for the high freqs too. The classic "HiFi" sound is extra bass and extra treble in order to make all the frequencies sound at the same level. That's why novice newbies immediately crank the bass and treble (and loudness) up to max for best listening pleasure... Since this is not the way you naturally hear these frequencies it is exciting and sells HiFi equp., but it does not sound natural - in time some figure this out more than others. To me, most folks like unnaturally loud bass and treble - I don't. Anyway,...

What do you mean that the horn loaded woofer is TOO linear? Are you saying it is louder at low freqs than it should be?

[mobile homeless]

That's why novice newbies immediately crank the bass and treble (and loudness) up to max for best listening pleasure... Since this is not the way you naturally hear these frequencies it is exciting and sells HiFi equp., but it does not sound natural - in time some figure this out more than others. To me, most folks like unnaturally loud bass and treble

This is an astute observation, even for many that have been into this for quite some time; although, I might not say unnaturally loud bass and treble as much as exaggerated. This combined with the ability to play loud rank as two of the basic tenets of "good sound" by more than a few.

kh

[michael hurd]

[] In case you didn't know, the above post was filled with sarcasm. You don't have to go ripping out your tweeters... lol.

But what I am trying to say is that without low frequency information, you aren't experiencing the full effect of the source, regardless of the methodology. IE: cd player, record, etc.

Same goes with VHF information. If you had both tweeters out, it wouldn't sound right, now would it?

I know we are getting off on a tangent, but bear with me. If the LF information is flat, at low volume levels, you might as well not have any, because even at 90 db, the human ear hears 20 hz at a level that would require 50 db of boost in order to be perceived flat.

At 110 db, we can hear 20 hz better, but it is still about 25 db down from what we hear at 1khz.

If you have noticed, Klipsch products seem a little "thin" in the bass at low volume levels, yet at high volumes, the bass is (too our ears) at a level that is more even with the mids.

Hence the bad rap that the products are "bright". I think they are more accurate then some others that are bloated in the bass. However, they may not necessarily sound the best at low volume levels. You may require additional LF support, or simply have a product that is wrong totally. EG: Klipschorns in a 10'x 10' room.

[michael hurd]

Maybe there is something with the bose approach after all. Nice fat bass that drops like a stone after 50 hz, that is bloated at low volume levels, and satellites that drop off at 10 khz. By the time the volume levels get up there, the "bass module" is way into thermal compression and also experiencing port compression. Same after the satellites get hot from the power you are dumping into them.

In a way, this acts as an "auto EQ". Unfortunately, this results in truly dismal "dynamics" and realism.

[michael hurd]

What I meant by the horn loaded woofer being too linear is that it does not start to compress ( falling acoustic output vs. power input ) until a level that is quite loud. That is great for dynamics, but doesn't match the equal loudness curves. Too match the curves, you might need some sort of auto "eq" to raise the output of the bass at low levels, and lower it at high levels.

That was the reason for the explaination about the bose approach. [] This could also be the reason some people prefer the bass from a Cornwall compared to a Lascala/Belle/Khorn. It goes lower, and with the increased cone movement, and reduced efficiency of a direct radiator, suffers from thermal and mechanical compression earlier.

[DrWho]

I'll try to be nice, but this constant misinterpretation of the equal loudness curves is a pet-peave of mine....

To put it simply, we do NOT want our loudspeaker to have the frequency response of our hearing. The idea is so flawed on so many levels it's not even funny.

Allow me to present an example: You're in the studio recording a cello. You adjust everything such that the recorded playback sounds as close as possible to the original live acoustic sound. Now you take this recording home....are you going to want to implement a -6dB filter at 80Hz on the recording? NO! If you do, it will no longer sound like the original live acoustic sound. The thing is, the equal loudness contours have already been compensated for by you in the studio - and therefore you MUST have a system with a flat frequency response if you want to have any resemblence of reality.

Now let's say you are in the studio recording a cello again....but this time you choose to monitor the mix at 70dB instead of the natural volume of the cello (let's call it 100dB because he's playing loud). You, the engineer, will still try to make it sound like a cello at the lower volume, which in the end will result in a mix with too much LF information. Now if you bring this recording home and listen at 70dB, you will percieve the cello as sounding most natural. However, if you crank it up to 100dB then it's going to sound bloated because the bass levels are percieved to be louder.

If the cello is playing at 70dB and you monitor at 100dB, then the opposite occurs at home (playing back at 70dB sounds bass light and 100dB sounds natural).

So allow me to stress the point....equal loudness curves are ONLY a concern when comparing the sound at different volumes. So how do we know how loud it was monitored at during the recording? Well the standard is to mix at 90dB where our hearing is most linear - regardless of the original live acoustic volume of the insturment in question. So if we are going to playback the recording at 70dB, we MUST ALWAYS implement an equal loudness curve in order for the instrument to sound like it really does at 70dB. (if the cello is playing at 70dB and monitored at 100dB, then the recording is going to be bass shy when played back at 70dB).

I deal with this all the time and can compare directly to the live acoustical sound of all sorts of instruments. If I monitor a 70dB source at 90dB and then playback at 70dB with no loudness circuit, then it most certainly does NOT sound like the original 70dB source (but it will sound like the original source if I playback at 90dB). If I monitor the 70dB source at 70dB and then playback at 90dB, then sure it will sound bloated on playback (but it will sound just fine at 70dB).

And again, how loud was it recorded at? We don't know, and that's why variable loudness filters are so important. The bass response on older recordings is so insanely varied....at least +-12dB throughout all the genres, and a lot of this has to do with different monitoring levels (which were usually too blasted loud - thus why so many old recordings are bass shy, not to mention the limitations of the storage medium).

If you don't like bass that is one thing, but the equal loudness curves do not in any way support the notion that a system lacking in bass is more accurate (in fact, they indicate quite the contrary).

[Parrot]

Well the standard is to mix at 90dB where our hearing is most linear

Are you referring to the normal overall signal being 90dB, or the

peaks? If average, this is much louder than I have read elsewhere.

[pauln]

Well, I like to listen at what I call 'loud' which is where the SPL at my listening chair set on peak hits up to 90dB occasionally, so I think based on what you say, I'm in the ballpark for a correct monitoring level match...? That would be reassuring because it sounds real good there.

[DrWho]

Are you referring to the normal overall signal being 90dB, or the peaks? If average, this is much louder than I have read elsewhere.

Average level...peaks will generally come in around 100dB when listening at 90dB. This would be on the hot end though - for longer sessions I usually monitor at around 80dB so that my ears don't get tired when tracking. I'll do my rough mixdown at 80dB, but the final mixdown and the initial tracking is always around 90dB. And it's not like I sit there with an SPL meter, but it's pretty dead on when I bust it out to show the guys that I'm training.

Btw, if you're listening at 90dB on a system without a flat response (ie, rolling off before 70Hz) then you're hearing less bass than the engineer intended.

[edwinr]

I'll try to be nice...

To put it simply, we do NOT want our loudspeaker to have the frequency response of our hearing. The idea is so flawed on so many levels it's not even funny.

The thing is, the equal loudness contours have already been compensated for by you in the studio - and therefore you MUST have a system with a flat frequency response if you want to have any resemblence of reality.

Don't try and be nice, Doc. It just ain't you. []

The ultimate aim of any audiophile worth his salary, is to have a system that reproduces what the audio engineer has presented us as perfectly as possible - warts and all.

How many of us have actually heard musical instruments in the raw? And how often? When my wife brings her violin out, the comments from guests are... "I didn't know a violin sounded like that!"; "It sounds kinda screechy". etc, etc.

[mobile homeless]

How many of us have actually heard musical instruments in the raw? And how often? When my wife brings her violin out, the comments from guests are... "I didn't know a violin sounded like that!"; "It sounds kinda screechy". etc, etc.

The difference between the edge of a violin played in a room and the edge of the reproduction chain run afoul is not in the same category in my view. Ditto with the detail provided in most high-end systems which still fails to capture this top end realistically.

[colterphoto1]

Excellent points on those last two posts. More live music should be the goal of any good audiophile.

M

[Parrot]

Most everyone I listen to is dead.

[ben.]

DrWho, I agree with most of what you're saying with regard to the whole Fletcher/Munson thing, but am I reading you correctly? You actually switch in a loudness compensation when working at 70dB?

[Parrot]

As for 90dB being an accepted standard, I offer the following, from

"The Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing

Recommendations For

Surround Sound Production"

3.5 Reference Listening Level

The recommended reference listening level for surround sound production is in

the range of 79 to 85dB C-weighted. However, it is important to check mixes at

varying levels, from very soft (as low as 40dB) to quite loud (not to exceed 92dB,

however, and only for short periods of time).

I realize this is for multichannel rather than stereo, but doubt very much if the listening levels are that different.

[DrWho]

DrWho, I agree with most of what you're saying with regard to the whole Fletcher/Munson thing, but am I reading you correctly? You actually switch in a loudness compensation when working at 70dB?

No, never...I set all my levels at around 90dB and then once I'm satisfied with the sound, I will bring the monitor volume down to around 70-80 so that my ears don't get tired. Heck, sometimes I just turn them off and go sit in the studio with the musicians to get a better feel for what's trying to be accomplished.

Btw, every engineer you ask is going to tell you a different level to mix at. And with a surroud mix you quickly run into "overloading the room" which makes 90dB of surround seem louder than 90dB through just a single pair. The only important thing here is to be aware that the volume at which you're listening dramatically affects the timbre. Once understood, it merely becomes a tool.

One thing that's very interesting is that most people will adjust the volume of playback depending on the apparent loudness of the source material. There are all sorts of things that affect the loudness, but one of interest is the bass response. People will naturally listen to a slightly bass shy recording at a louder level than a slightly bass heavy recording. And it has everything to do with the F-M curves and trying to achieve what would be percieved as a natural "full" sound. Of course other factors come into play (like the reverb of the room) so sometimes the trend doesn't always hold true.

[colterphoto1]

"Heck, sometimes I just turn them off and go sit in the studio with the musicians to get a better feel for what's trying to be accomplished"

very cool approach, when mixing live, I always like to spend some sound check time on stage, listening to their mix, the monitors, etc. It's important to have what the musicians hear in your head when you go back to the desk.

Michael

[Duke Spinner]

can pretty much duplicate that by standing next to stacked up horns with huge amplifiers in their living rooms.

You talkin' to Me, Willis ...????...............[]