Why tune your system with exotic cables rather than DSP room correction and equalization?

[Ralf11]

Are they aiming?  Or is a 'house sound' simply a side-effect of a designer's focus on solving a particular problem with speakers?

[jabbr]

18 hours ago, cjf said:

IMO, I would only attempt to use room correction or eq if it took place entirely in the digital domain before the DAC Input. There are several devices on the market that include DSP in a DAC/Pre hardware combo but none of them IMO use hardware that is transparent enough or of high enough quality to match their separates competition as of yet.

 

ROON's latest attempt is promising but still has bugs to work out before its ready for primetime I feel.

 

For these reasons I would prefer to continue to use cables as a tuning option over DSP.

 

HQPlayer allows you to load a correction kernel.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 hours ago, cjf said:

IMO, I would only attempt to use room correction or eq if it took place entirely in the digital domain before the DAC Input. There are several devices on the market that include DSP in a DAC/Pre hardware combo but none of them IMO use hardware that is transparent enough or of high enough quality to match their separates competition as of yet.

 

ROON's latest attempt is promising but still has bugs to work out before its ready for primetime I feel.

 

For these reasons I would prefer to continue to use cables as a tuning option over DSP.

I do not disagree at all with the premise that digital audio, including any DSP processing like room EQ, should be kept in the digital domain with only one final conversion to analog in the DAC.

 

But, that is exactly what I have been doing for 10 years, first via HDMI from player to prepro.  Now, for the past three years, I use Dirac Live on a PC with JRiver via USB to a DAC.  I myself am not a Roon fan or follower, but it might impose its own compatibility requirements.

 

But, you seem to equate tuning via cables with DSP Room EQ as though they were somehow equivalent. They absolutely are not! Your room is undoubtedly imposing swings of +- 10, 15, 20 dB on the signal you hear at your ears due to modal variations.  Meanwhile, the effect of cables is virtually unmeasurable.  If you doubt me, make measurements yourself, and you will see what I am talking about.  Otherwise, you are just engaged in wishful thinking that cables somehow have any equivalence to room EQ.

 

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Are they aiming?  Or is a 'house sound' simply a side-effect of a designer's focus on solving a particular problem with speakers?

Same thing, to an extent. If a designer chooses horns, say, it is probably because he favours their characteristics.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Same thing, to an extent. If a designer chooses horns, say, it is probably because he favours their characteristics.

 

Right.  The fact that people have so very many different ideas about what sounds right is why I would prefer a solution that left these sorts of changes to the end user rather than imposing the same non-flat uniform response curve on everyone at the recording end.

 

(If you eventually want to make an analogy to MQA....)

[esldude]

You can pick your own target curve in most of these types of software.  I have done a lot of this.  I often ask other people what there is about the sound they like or don't like or if they wish something were different with their favorite recordings.  You an tweak the target a bit to make them happier.

 

When with quality speakers with pretty good response you set the target curves, you find the slightly sloping ones suggested are very close or even turn out to be the one most preferred.  The verdict on which to use becomes close to unanimous.   The biggest differences in my experience of doing this are below 200 hz and the exact slope going into the treble.  For instance a speaker without a ton of low end that cuts off at 50 hz might take an extra db or two slope by 20 khz to sound nicely balanced.  One with ample and deep low end response might balance well with a db less slope by 20 khz.  The best target otherwise doesn't seem to vary out of a narrow range.  And flat for your target is not the one to use.

 

Now I am not sure why this is. Never developed an explanation that seemed good enough or convincing.  The discussion of why such curves seem better might make for an interesting thread topic.

[Ralf11]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

Same thing, to an extent. If a designer chooses horns, say, it is probably because he favours their characteristics.

 

well, aim implies an intent -- my thought is that house sound is more of an uninteded consequence

 

OTOH, it makes sense ot have a house sound so people who liked your mid-priced speakers will be tempted to upgrade later on

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

well, aim implies an intent -- my thought is that house sound is more of an uninteded consequence

 

OTOH, it makes sense ot have a house sound so people who liked your mid-priced speakers will be tempted to upgrade later on

 

Though house sound doesn't always equate to frequency response curves.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

Though house sound doesn't always equate to frequency response curves.

What is it if not?

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, Jud said:

Right.  The fact that people have so very many different ideas about what sounds right is why I would prefer a solution that left these sorts of changes to the end user rather than imposing the same non-flat uniform response curve on everyone at the recording end.

The recordings have to be made to some common standard. Otherwise how will you be able choose your preferred response?

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

well, aim implies an intent -- my thought is that house sound is more of an uninteded consequence

 

OTOH, it makes sense ot have a house sound so people who liked your mid-priced speakers will be tempted to upgrade later on

 

I suspect that for everybody but start-ups, house sound is one of the most important requirements from any new product(s) and is very intentionally designed in.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

I suspect that for everybody but start-ups, house sound is one of the most important requirements from any new products and is very intentionally designed in.

You're probably right. However, an established house sound may in part be the result of a designer originally choosing a technology based on arbitrary philosophical ideas about how things ought to be rather than how they actually are, e.g. "tubes are inherently superior to transistors."

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

What is it if not?

 

Read the Vandersteen literature about time and phase alignment.  This produces certain imaging and soundstage properties that are recognizable over the several speakers in the line I've heard.

 

I don't know whether electrostatic or magnetic planar drivers may be different than dynamic or horn drivers in characteristics other than frequency response.

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, mansr said:

The recordings have to be made to some common standard. Otherwise how will you be able choose your preferred response?

I mentioned this already.  Have someone choose what they consider their best recordings.  Despite some people preferring rock, or orchestral or chamber music I have seen them all prefer a very similar shallow slope to the response.

 

Now you might think people just like a slightly rolled soft sound, and wrongly think it is more natural.  If you go with a flat curve instead it simply isn't better.  It is way too bright.  Can one find recordings that aren't too bright this way?  Yes, but they aren't ungimmicked minimalist recordings they are odd clearly unbalanced recordings.

 

Also, what seems perverse and backwards to me, is listening very nearfield with good flat monitors so that room reflections aren't nearly so much an issue, flat or much closer to flat does sound right.  I would have guessed the reverse.

 

Listening to unprocessed acoustic recordings I have done these sound most like they did in person with this same slope.  Something I had in mind, but never done is to set up some speakers outdoors.  Then see if without room effects and reflections the need for a slope disappears.

 

We do know our sense of even frequency balance is not just direct sound, but also early reflections, and to a lesser extent later reflections.  Yet speakers generally droop in the treble off axis (unless 1st order xovers then they may peak off-axis in some directions), reflections usually absorb higher frequencies more than lower frequencies, both of which would make you think a downward slope would be wrong.  Of course some low frequencies leak out of most rooms while higher frequencies bounced around for awhile before dying out.  Maybe that has something to do with it.  

Power response instead of frequency response is usually a very slight downward slope vs on axis measures for flat responding speakers of a conventional type.  So why would we need an extra slope added?  Don't know. Maybe someone does and can explain it.  The research at Harmon indicates a preference by most trained listeners for a bit softer than fully flat on axis response with off axis sloping downward above 300 hz without off axis dips or bumps.  Along with controlled directivity that doesn't excite reflections too very much. Having heard a few of their designs they seem to be onto something.  Which to me indicates somehow reflections cause our ears to hear brightened sound from a loudspeaker quasi point source.  So other than that is just how it works I don't have a good explanation.   I suspect it is related to reflections in room.  But why would reflections from a speaker be heard with different balance than real sounds in the same room?  I can conjure up a few hypothesis for that, but they don't really pan out upon investigation.

 

 

[esldude]

Here is where Harman tested some room correction devices.  You can see in slides 23 and 24 which slopes were perceived as flat.  Again I am less than comfortable with preferences as 'scientific' proof.  But preferences if they hold up for nearly everyone are at least an indication of what people like even if they are wrong.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97zTRsdcJTfY2U4ODhiZmUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4/view?ddrp=1&hl=en

 

Sean Olive suggests it is room gain we are used to hearing in our small rooms responsible for this.  So hearing a distant recording in a different space lacks the room gain and we need to rebalance it or reproduction sounds flat and thin without it.  I don't find this idea convincing or really to have much explanatory power. 

 

Oh, and the most preferred slope at the listening seat:  almost exactly the 3db/decade Walker talked about.  A 9 db drop from 20 hz until you reach 20 khz. How did he come to this conclusion without any of these tests?  Was there some technical aspect of speakers in a room he knew to explain it or did he just try different things until it clicked for him?  That idea was also why he tried to create tone controls in his preamps that took a central point and tilted response up or down.  He found it more effective for re-balancing the desired sound. 

[esldude]

https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf

 

I believe this old AES paper by B&K might be where Mr. Walker got the 3db/octave idea.  Look at page 5.

 

In short in this paper they estimate a listener at distance in a large space will experience an effective slope of 6 db/decade due to dispersion and absorption of highs.  A front center concert goer sitting closer is experiencing 3db/decade from those effects.  An up close perspective would experience near flat response.  Speakers in most domestic sized rooms would prefer the front center perspective and are too close to the speakers to get much change in the response tilt.  So for a general purpose contour the 3db/decade slope is a good one for most recordings.

 

I have seen where people doing live sound in large auditoriums/churchs say you don't need much slope.  That fits with the above idea. With DSP each of us choosing our slope for our particular gear/room/preference obviously makes plenty of sense. Having the ability to switch curves or actively control the slope for various recordings in use makes sense as well.

[audiventory]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Here is where Harman tested some room correction devices.  You can see in slides 23 and 24 which slopes were perceived as flat.  Again I am less than comfortable with preferences as 'scientific' proof.  But preferences if they hold up for nearly everyone are at least an indication of what people like even if they are wrong.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97zTRsdcJTfY2U4ODhiZmUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4/view?ddrp=1&hl=en

 

Sean Olive suggests it is room gain we are used to hearing in our small rooms responsible for this.  So hearing a distant recording in a different space lacks the room gain and we need to rebalance it or reproduction sounds flat and thin without it.  I don't find this idea convincing or really to have much explanatory power. 

 

Oh, and the most preferred slope at the listening seat:  almost exactly the 3db/decade Walker talked about.  A 9 db drop from 20 hz until you reach 20 khz. How did he come to this conclusion without any of these tests?  Was there some technical aspect of speakers in a room he knew to explain it or did he just try different things until it clicked for him?  That idea was also why he tried to create tone controls in his preamps that took a central point and tilted response up or down.  He found it more effective for re-balancing the desired sound. 

 

I like the experiment description. Also it is cool that it is created as coloured presentation - easy read.

 

Conclusion (2) reaffirm again that accuracy correlated with blind subjective quality perception.

 

Though, I can't understand conclusion (3). I seen to the picture "Perceived versus Measured Spectral Balance". There most preferable red line. It looks like most flat. But under the picture written that "Flat in-room response is not the preferred target". What is mean? May be blue line is more flat than red one?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

I like the experiment description. Also it is cool that it is created as coloured presentation - easy read.

 

Conclusion (2) reaffirm again that accuracy correlated with blind subjective quality perception.

 

Though, I can't understand conclusion (3). I seen to the picture "Perceived versus Measured Spectral Balance". There most preferable red line. It looks like most flat. But under the picture written that "Flat in-room response is not the preferred target". What is mean? May be blue line is more flat than red one?

 

 

If I understand the question correctly, look at page 14 of that slideshow.  The middle depiction of what they asked people to do is there.  While playing they were asked to select the spectral balance they were subjectively perceiving.  So for 9 bands they put the slider either above or below the line.  If they thought the bass around 50 hz was too much they indicated that on the slider control for 50 hz. Those sliders didn't control or alter anything it was just a survey of how they perceived it.

 

So two questions were answered.  Is flat in room response perceived as flat and even by listeners?  The answer was no.  So which spectral balance was perceived as spectrally flat? So that picture "Perceived versus Measured Spectral Balance" is showing the perceived balance on top of the sloped balance being tested.  The top red slope is the one heard as most flat and even spectrally.  And yes the blue and green one were nearly as good.  So what they are saying at the bottom with the comment is flat in room response is not heard as flat.  Gently sloped response is heard as if it were most flat by human listeners. So perceived flatness is the goal, and a gentle slope is the way to get to that goal.  Flat in room measured response is not heard as flat.

[STC]

" So what they are saying at the bottom with the comment is flat in room response is not heard as flat."

 

Did  they say that?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

" So what they are saying at the bottom with the comment is flat in room response is not heard as flat."

 

Did  they say that?

Read it for yourself.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

 

 

If I understand the question correctly, look at page 14 of that slideshow.  The middle depiction of what they asked people to do is there.  While playing they were asked to select the spectral balance they were subjectively perceiving.  So for 9 bands they put the slider either above or below the line.  If they thought the bass around 50 hz was too much they indicated that on the slider control for 50 hz. Those sliders didn't control or alter anything it was just a survey of how they perceived it.

 

So two questions were answered.  Is flat in room response perceived as flat and even by listeners?  The answer was no.  So which spectral balance was perceived as spectrally flat? So that picture "Perceived versus Measured Spectral Balance" is showing the perceived balance on top of the sloped balance being tested.  The top red slope is the one heard as most flat and even spectrally.  And yes the blue and green one were nearly as good.  So what they are saying at the bottom with the comment is flat in room response is not heard as flat.  Gently sloped response is heard as if it were most flat by human listeners. So perceived flatness is the goal, and a gentle slope is the way to get to that goal.  Flat in room measured response is not heard as flat.

 

So human perception of overall frequency response spectrum is not accurate.

 

Did they try, or are you aware of experiments that have tested, humps or dips in various areas of the audible range?

[STC]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Read it for yourself.

It says " Flat in-room response is not the preferred target".

 

How did you come to the conclusion that it was not heard flat? And which one of the graph there is flat ? 

 

 

 

 

[audiventory]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

So human perception of overall frequency response spectrum is not accurate.

 

If we listen a acoustic instrument, we perceive it as "natural".

 

When record of the instrument play, theoretically, flat response must be perceived as "natural" too.

 

Below several points, that may be reason of the phenomenon of "distorted" perceiving.

• There is difference - distorted spatial information.
• Ear have non-flat amplitude response.
• Participants listen record without comparing with original. They compare with "original" in their heads.
• Also we know nothing about record frequency correction.

 

[wgscott]

18 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

But, you seem to equate tuning via cables with DSP Room EQ as though they were somehow equivalent. 

 

No.  My point was that many of those who claim to use cables to obtain a particular sort of sound (rather than simply as a status symbol) are also against using something like DSP that could alter the sound in a well-defined, predictable, and measurable way, and that could be tailored to an individual's need.  (In other words, it should be a simple matter, with DSP, to obtain the same sound qualities one seeks with cables, tubes, vinyl, or whatever.)  

 

Personally, I am far more interested in erasing any coloration imposed my room, my speakers, cables, amp or whatever, using DSP.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

No.  My point was that many of those who claim to use cables to obtain a particular sort of sound (rather than simply as a status symbol) are also against using something like DSP that could alter the sound in a well-defined, predictable, and measurable way, and that could be tailored to an individual's need.  (In other words, it should be a simple matter, with DSP, to obtain the same sound qualities one seeks with cables, tubes, vinyl, or whatever.)  

 

Personally, I am far more interested in erasing any coloration imposed my room, my speakers, cables, amp or whatever, using DSP.

 

I agree entirely in principle -- in practice there appear to be subjective differences between DSP systems that probably need to be better characterized -- biggest reason is that the factors than make cables cognitively popular are entirely opposite from DSP : you just plug them in -- they are anti-measurement -- DSP requires measurement