Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I had a quick look at the article, saw your crucify yourself choice of room target curve and lost any interest in reading whatever you might say. I caught the word analog though, guess that anything taming your crucify yourself room target curve will be a relief.

 


 

HQP Embedded  (REW + RePhase created convolution filters for correcting frequency and time domains for the actual results presented below/IIR/Wide/overlap-ADD/ [email protected], mqa lp @ above Frequency Rates/DSD5EC) on a cooled mid 2012 15" rMacBP > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet> Airport TC > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet > NAA (Miska's image on UP NUC)> 2.0 certified Supra USB > Green Regen > TEAC UD 501> (balanced output) >Cardas Golden Cross> JRRG all balanced pre> Cabasse 4 ways 8 amps active system played at realistic SPL (key factor IMO). MCH files (matrixed to Stereo) on an attached HDD, the rest on a G-Tech HDD attached to the AirPort and WIFI accessed, as Qobuz, via Audirvana fronting HQPlayer Embedded.

 

 

 

Proofing B&K C @ -9 copie-Modifier-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I have no idea what you just said. 

 

 

Really? For a better understanding just ask Mitch Barnett to provide u with corrections files following the target curve chosen by Michael Lowe (cf https://accuratesound.ca/testimonials ). You have obviously chosen to target an almost flat response curve. Unless you're listening only to records mastered on monitors tuned to that very unnatural response curve you are boosting highs way above the intention of artists/producers/engineers that would have done nothing to tune their monitors (then they had natural downward slope at Listening Position) or of artists/producers/engineers following Industry standards operational room response curves (cf https://accuratesound.ca/standards)

 

Maybe you assume that you do a better reviewing job by inflicting yourself very unnatural listening conditions but I personally wish and avocate that records be mastered with Industry standards operational room response curves and so that gears should be judged and reviewed accordingly, not in artificial highs stressing, unnatural conditions that necessarily call for unwanted tricks to best perform in said artificial conditions such as the one you promote


 

HQP Embedded  (REW + RePhase created convolution filters for correcting frequency and time domains for the actual results presented below/IIR/Wide/overlap-ADD/ [email protected], mqa lp @ above Frequency Rates/DSD5EC) on a cooled mid 2012 15" rMacBP > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet> Airport TC > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet > NAA (Miska's image on UP NUC)> 2.0 certified Supra USB > Green Regen > TEAC UD 501> (balanced output) >Cardas Golden Cross> JRRG all balanced pre> Cabasse 4 ways 8 amps active system played at realistic SPL (key factor IMO). MCH files (matrixed to Stereo) on an attached HDD, the rest on a G-Tech HDD attached to the AirPort and WIFI accessed, as Qobuz, via Audirvana fronting HQPlayer Embedded.

 

 

 

Proofing B&K C @ -9 copie-Modifier-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Measurements at 6 Finnish concert halls


The measurements at 6 Finnish concert hall were the measurements of direct and indirect sound. What you want is measurement at your listening position to be like that after applying whatever position, room treatments, DSP, EQ , convolution filter and etc etc. 

 

But that doesn’t mean all your albums would sound good. Concert hall slopes are best for classical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, STC said:


The measurements at 6 Finnish concert hall were the measurements of direct and indirect sound. What you want is measurement at your listening position to be like that after applying whatever position, room treatments, DSP, EQ , convolution filter and etc etc. 

 

But that doesn’t mean all your albums would sound good. Concert hall slopes are best for classical. 

Good points. 
 

Makes me wonder what slope should be used for recordings that never existed in real space. 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been looking at this subject quite a bit this morning and the “discussion” has helped me understand a bit more about the topic. 
 

I definitely had some wrong assumptions. Fortunately Mitch has been extremely helpful in designing the convolution filter and guiding me over the last couple months. Now I see why he had me listen to several slopes using many of the standards (settling on EBU 3276).


 

 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Good points. 
 

Makes me wonder what slope should be used for recordings that never existed in real space. 

 

You have to try all of them. I do not use any kind of DSP to alter the original sound. The original sound as in the recording still comes out from the speakers untouched with any process. The slope is shaped by the room ambiance using the 30 speakers. There too the theoretical Harman curve and reality is very different.  Anyway, here after my input will be not useful for your purpose. I just hope you have a better understanding what the Harman curve is all about because many literally think that's how the response of the speakers should be.

 

Sorry if this is OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

You have to try all of them. I do not use any kind of DSP to alter the original sound.

 

I though that you were using some kind DSP processing software to create 3D spatial effects.


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve been looking at this subject quite a bit this morning and the “discussion” has helped me understand a bit more about the topic. 
 

I definitely had some wrong assumptions. 


 

 

Good. I then accept your rewriting of history and pseudo creation of the topic by myself. It's perfectly covered by Mitch (see infra)

 

"A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the rom gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist."

 

Sean Olive, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html

 

In bold is the point I wanted to make


 

HQP Embedded  (REW + RePhase created convolution filters for correcting frequency and time domains for the actual results presented below/IIR/Wide/overlap-ADD/ [email protected], mqa lp @ above Frequency Rates/DSD5EC) on a cooled mid 2012 15" rMacBP > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet> Airport TC > Cat 6 UTP Ethernet > NAA (Miska's image on UP NUC)> 2.0 certified Supra USB > Green Regen > TEAC UD 501> (balanced output) >Cardas Golden Cross> JRRG all balanced pre> Cabasse 4 ways 8 amps active system played at realistic SPL (key factor IMO). MCH files (matrixed to Stereo) on an attached HDD, the rest on a G-Tech HDD attached to the AirPort and WIFI accessed, as Qobuz, via Audirvana fronting HQPlayer Embedded.

 

 

 

Proofing B&K C @ -9 copie-Modifier-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Computer Audiophile  Thanks for including your in-room response and making this a thread.  There are now a few custom prepared room correction / convolution methods available.  Maybe comparing them could be your next in-depth article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Dirac on Minidsp SHD Studio I decided I like the response of my speakers except for the boomy bass region. So I made the target curve follow the original curve. Smoothed it a bit and only really reducing the peak of the bass. The resulting target curve still has a downward slope but isn't straight. I like this better than the EBU and Harman curves I tried. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta peel Le Concombre first


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...