Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

A little loudness compensation goes a long way

70.192.203.127

Posted on November 11, 2015 at 14:25:09
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8474
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023



Not a lot of boost, but it makes a dramatic difference for moderate level listening. I use the parametric EQ plug in to assist challenged recordings, the graphic mode is great for loudness compensation. Lee Ritenoir - A Twist of Rit already has good recording SQ.
Gsquared

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
In an upside down world at that! -nt, posted on November 11, 2015 at 19:15:20
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37580
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
.

 

Interesting.. Posted from my Iphone, posted on November 12, 2015 at 07:02:39
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8474
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023
the image is right side up in my photo gallery on my phone and it appears right side up when I view the post on my phone. It is inverted when I view it from my Macbook. Weird. This is the second time this has happened. It does add some spice to the post.
Gsquared

 

I've had similar issues before, posted on November 12, 2015 at 07:09:11
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37580
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
where an image looks fine on computer, but posts rotated 90 degrees!

 

RE: Interesting.. Posted from my Iphone, posted on November 12, 2015 at 07:11:16
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002
"....some software developers, including Microsoft, ignore the information that's stored in EXIF tags."


 

Not a lot of boost, but it makes a dramatic difference for moderate level listening., posted on November 12, 2015 at 09:14:50
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008
Have a look at the Fletcher-Munson curves and you know why this is working :)
The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: Not a lot of boost, but it makes a dramatic difference for moderate level listening., posted on November 12, 2015 at 10:37:04
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

Oh, we know why it is working and it's a shame that some audiophiles have an aversion to 'tone controls'. However, this is not a traditional tone control method that some disdain. I use similar computer based DSP equalization at low volume settings. It's transparent and sounds wonderful. ;-)



 

RE: Interesting.. Posted from my Iphone, posted on November 12, 2015 at 13:12:33
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
On my Windows 7 machine it is upside down when displayed by Firefox or Chrome. If I save the image file to the desktop it displays upside down by Windows, but both Firefox and Chrome display it correctly when the saved file is dragged into the browser. My picture editor displays the saved file correctly.

There's a bug somewhere, possibly in several different places.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: A little loudness compensation goes a long way, posted on November 12, 2015 at 13:21:58
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I suggest getting a calibrated microphone and REW software to measure your room response at your listening position. Generally, there will be problems that are much greater than the adjustments in your curve. These are best adjusted by speaker positioning and crossover tweaks, to the extent possible. What's left can be adjusted by a parametric equalizer.

I've never believed in loudness compensation. If recordings are to sound natural they should be played back at the intended level. The problem comes if one has a system with weak bass, because then one will tend to turn the volume up to make for the weakness and this will create harshness and/or even damage your hearing.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

"I've never believed in loudness compensation.", posted on November 12, 2015 at 13:36:43
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37580
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
Nor have I but for perhaps a different reason. For me, hearing at a lower level suggests distance to me. Just as if you are approaching a concert in the park initially from a distance.

Boosting the bottom (and the top a pinch) while keeping the level constant sounds unnatural to these ears. It's as though some instruments just walked a hundred feet in front of the others.

 

Same reason, posted on November 12, 2015 at 13:39:50
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
It's the same reason. Your description agrees perfectly with my observations.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Agreed, posted on November 12, 2015 at 17:04:27
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8474
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023
It allows the listening experience to be as immersive at low and moderate levels as it is at performance level. I have not noticed any negative effect on the listening experience.

It is possible that some folks hearing and perception of the frequency spectrum is less volume dependent than mine.

Digital EQ is fun.
Gsquared

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 12, 2015 at 17:36:47
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"It allows the listening experience to be as immersive at low and moderate levels as it is at performance level. I have not noticed any negative effect on the listening experience."

The negative effect is a loss of musical realism. What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience. This may not be a problem, because of the listener or his recordings:

1. Recordings made with any amount of dynamic compression can never be realistic.
2. Recordings made with many microphones can never be realistic.
3. Recordings made of non-acoustic instruments can never be realistic, because there is no standard of what constitutes realism. However, recordings with many instruments unamplified and a few amplified, e.g. jazz vocals, may still provide opportunities for realism.
4. Systems or domestic situations incompatible with playback at concert volume can not produce (continued) enjoyment of realistic reproduction.
5. Listeners without extensive experience with attending live musical performances of the genres involved have no basis for judging realism and hence the concept is effectively inoperative.
6. Listeners using music as background music and not dedicating their attention to enjoying the musical performance will tend not to notice an absence of realism, unless reproduction is gross.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

No shorttage of exposure to live music, posted on November 12, 2015 at 17:46:46
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8474
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023
Amplified, unamplified.....

It has to do with how we perceive sound at frequency extremes at different volumes. Live performance volume at a reasonably close range is almost always closer to the flat perception of frequency extremes versus rolled off perception. I disagree on the loss of musical realism. Just the opposite. The compensation allow for a more realistic experience at lower levels.
Gsquared

 

One more thing, posted on November 12, 2015 at 17:57:28
G Squared
Audiophile

Posts: 8474
Location: Washington, DC Metro Area
Joined: November 16, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
May 23, 2023
Took a peek at your system. Really cool set up. I am sure I would like it.
Gsquared

 

RE: No shorttage of exposure to live music, posted on November 12, 2015 at 19:30:11
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I take care to adjust my volume control correctly. I follow the following procedure: First I listen at a moderate setting and adjust until the reocridng is not grossly loud or quiet. Then I listen to the sound stage and try to get a distance reading from reverberation, etc... Then I imagine sitting in a similar sounding hall at this distance and what the volume level of a live performance of these instruments would be. (It is possible to tell how hard the musicians are "hitting" the instruments because the tonal balance will change as the instruments are played at different volumes.) Then I adjust the volume until it sounds "right" at the assumed distance. This requires adjustment in steps as small as 1 dB. (My present volume control has 1 dB gradations and this seems to be fine enough.) Recently, I reviewed a recording that failed the adjustment procedure. No matter how I adjusted the volume it was wrong, either in the soft or loud parts. I commented on the problem and got a better version of the recording that had not had any dynamic compression. This sounded right.

Volume levels that I listen at depend on the music. A Mahler Symphony might have peak SPLs of 115 dB at a few points. Solo harpsichord music will be no more than 75 dBs. Vocal soloists may easily hit 100 dB if they are opera divas, etc...

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 12, 2015 at 20:38:50
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

Tony, going by your list of negatives and requirements for 'realism', I can only guess that there's practically nothing out there that's realistic enough for you to enjoy. ;-)

All we're talking about here is a slight amount of bass boost when listening to music at lower than usual volume levels. This is not that uncommon, and many amps and receivers of the past came with a "Loudness" button for this exact reason.

With the modern equivalent computer based EQ we can accomplishes this in a much more transparent way without degrading the sonics.

Whether it's accurate or 'real' is not the point. It's the added enjoyment for some of us when listening to music at lower than usual volume levels.


 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 06:29:56
DSG
Audiophile

Posts: 319
Joined: March 9, 2005
My viewpoint regarding listening to recorded music is that whatever adds to the listener's enjoyment is a positive for that listener. Remember fellows we are discussing a leisure activity and the purpose of this activity is to improve one's quality of life.

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 07:35:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Realism isn't the be all and end all of listening to music. It's just one of the things that counts. A perfectly realistic reproduction of a live concert that was a bad performance and/or bad music (as judged by the listener) would not be enjoyable. However, in the context of bass boost due to loudness compensation I've yet to find a tradeoff where loudness compensation worked, except in the case of a playback system that lacks low bass or recordings that were poorly equalized (e.g. because the mastering studio playback had too much bass or was monitored at excessive volume).

I have quite a few realistic recordings of various types of music, solo guitar, solo piano, jazz trios, string quartets, Mozart symphonies, choral music, organ music, even Mahler symphonies. These are invariably recorded with two (or at most a few) microphones with no dynamic compression or level riding throughout.

The most recent recording to win a gold star can be had as a free download from Play Classics if you visit Computer Audiophile.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 08:33:32
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
Realism isn't the be all and end all of listening to music.

But it's an important aspect of listening to recorded music.

What I don't get is the difference between room correction software (A Good Thing, apparently) and tone controls (A Jolly Bad Thing, definitely).

OK, room correction software is perhaps a fancier product than mere tone controls but are they not essentially the same thing? I don't use either but that doesn't mean I get uptight about others who do.

 

Precisely.... Someone's always complaining about how others choose to enjoy music, posted on November 13, 2015 at 12:11:30
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002
....If I want slight bass boost when listening to my music at low volume in the wee hours of the night while my wife sleeps, that's my business. And I don't care if it's "realistic" or "accurate" at this point as I'm not listening at "realistic" or "accurate" volume levels to begin with. ;-)



 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 12:46:44
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Room EQ is a one time process, done when the system is set up, e.g. after installing or moving the speakers. Most people normally use tone controls on an "as needed" basis to deal with different recordings. These are different work flows and have different skill sets, equipment requirements, and time budgets.

I usually select recordings that have been made well enough that no further adjustments are needed other than to set the playback volume. I could remaster poor recordings that weren't done well and fix bad EQ, but my experience is that this can be a time consuming process and may not succeed.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 13:43:50
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
These are different work flows and have different skill sets, equipment requirements, and time budgets.

Yes, yes, I know all this (though it's not the definition of workflow that I knew and loved for years) but I have to ask if you by any chance had legal training.

I'd still argue that the two tools are essentially the same (what goes in isn't, by design, quite what comes out) and that your argument is, well, a tad pedantic.

Does e.g. working one's way along the room EQ "flow" obviate the need ever to tweak the treble knob? If so, it suggests either that room EQ makes every recording as near as dammit perfect or that the user can't spot a bad recording for love nor money.

Or something.

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 13, 2015 at 17:37:07
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Workflow is a generic term. It's used in a variety of fields, including audio production/post-production which was the relevant context for my post.

IANAL. I have worked with lawyers as an engineer and engineering manager when it came to making inventions and managing a patent portfolio for my employer. I have also worked as an consultant/expert witness in various legal matters involving patent law.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: "What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience.", posted on November 13, 2015 at 18:43:26
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Agreed.

I've tried to get them to turn down the volume at Davies Hall but for some reason every time I suggest it, MTT refuses to listen.

Maybe if I become a big-time donor like Gordon Getty, he'll listen and crank it down a bit. I'll let you know.

"OK Michael, sounds great! Now could you crank up the Basses and the Tuba just a little bit? It's an 'audio' thing, we call it 'loudness' control."

"PERFECT, thanks Michael!"




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

Another take, posted on November 13, 2015 at 21:28:19
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since:
December 14, 2012
I used to agree with you on compression and micing at least, but then started working in a studio and... things changed. This is very long, so skip it if you want something brief. (Can't be done - it's complicated.)

1. compression
There are two very common situations where compression helps. The first are string instruments, especially plucked strings such as acoustic guitars and most especially electric guitars. Mics don't hear like our ears hear, especially in a live room, which won't have the great natural decay/reverb of a concert hall. Even a great acoustic guitar mic such as the Neumann KM-56 will chop off the tail of a plucked string, and 1-2 dB of compression helps restore it. Electric guitars, whether via a body pickup or the usual SM-57 + 414 on the speaker (or both) fare even worse, and again, very slight compression helps bring back the tail of the note. The same goes for horns: put the great Coles ribbon mic on a trumpet and it can give you the same goosebumps as the real thing, but again, especially in a live room where you don't have the long decay/reverb of a concert hall, a tasteful small amount of compression can help the recording sound more like the real thing in a great space, especially if you have a vintage EMT plate. Most of this may be due to the lack of decay/reverb in a live room, but *some* of it comes from various mics' behavior. What mics hear *is* complicated, and varies by frequency, SPL, and (sometimes severely) by direction. The timing of low-level harmonics are particularly hard to capture with any mic, and especially so in a live room. Binaural solves lots of this, but the tiny binaural mics introduce their own peculiarities.

The second good use of compression is to bring the dynamic range down to a level that can work in a home. Very few (some, but few) home listening rooms are as quiet as a live room or a concert hall, so keeping the overall dynamic range so both the little bits and the loud stuff come through is important. Again, the good engineers take a less-is-more approach. If the recording is going to vinyl, additional constraints come into play. Tracking a rock band? You won't need compression on the band, but you *might* want just a little, on the order of a couple dB or so, on each guitar to make them sound more realistic.

The third case (there's always another) is a singer who doesn't have good technique, or who doesn't have much experience recording. Many singers don't need any compression. Others do. A few need lots. (Think "Ouch!")

I'll leave aside the issue of flat-as-a-pancake compression that became such a problem during the loudness wars. Thankfully the industry has recovered *somewhat* from this, though there is quite a ways to go yet.

I am certain that most of the recordings you regard as excellent have had some level of compression applied, to at least some instruments, at some point in the recording. I'm *almost* certain that you have not heard a good studio recording of acoustic instruments that did *not* use any compression. A little compression when needed, if done gracefully and with restraint, can be a big plus. (Or it can be something else altogether.)

2. minimalist micing
Some of the greatest recordings have been minimally mic'd. We all love the Cozart-Fine Mercuries, and pretty much everything Doug Sax did. But again, because mics don't hear like we hear, even in a great space, Doug Sax put a couple mics on Les DeMerle's drum kit for the Harry James recordings because he needed them. It's not a philosophy thing; it's a results thing.

The Layton-Mohr opera recordings used quite a number of mics, with great results. Opera is harder than a symphony, and recording anything in a a studio adds a new set of constraints. Additional mics can sometimes help you get the results the artist(s) intended. It would be nice to record an opera at LaScala with everyone standing still on stage singing, but that's not always possible. And even with the Price/Vickers A
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

Nicely thought out commentary, posted on November 14, 2015 at 08:05:51
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37580
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
Thanks.

I've had the good fortune to participate in one of Telarc's recordings where they used minimal miking to good effect. Even with the large chorus performing Bordin's Polovetsian Dances.

 

RE: Another take, posted on November 14, 2015 at 08:57:26
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
If you are miking too closely you get all kinds of problems. The answer is that if you are looking for the best results you shouldn't do this. However, this may not be possible if the venue is not suitable. I do not buy your comment about a microphone losing the tail of a guitar. This is just not physically possible. There is some psychoacoustic effect taking place. What you say may apply when laying a track to be used in a mix, but then you can't produce the best possible results by post-production mixdown. The best you can get is to minimize the damage.

As to singers who can't sing. They shouldn't be recorded. Their career should be put out of its misery by one means or another. I can sympathize with the problems recordists face when dealing with singers. I've been there. Fortunately, I was married to a pianist and not a singer. Singers come with a double ego, one for their art and the other for their "instrument".

If the goal is making money then by all means use all of the standard techniques. The result will be good enough to make money, but it won't result in natural recordings that can pass muster with the real thing. As a result many audiophiles complain that recorded music can not effectively reproduce the sound of live music.

By the way, perfect reproduction would not end the excitement of attending live concerts, where one never knows what might happen.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Another take, posted on November 14, 2015 at 12:46:09
Mics don't hear like our ears hear, especially in a live room, which won't have the great natural decay/reverb of a concert hall. Even a great acoustic guitar mic such as the Neumann KM-56 will chop off the tail of a plucked string, and 1-2 dB of compression helps restore it. Electric guitars, whether via a body pickup or the usual SM-57 + 414 on the speaker (or both) fare even worse, and again, very slight compression helps bring back the tail of the note.


I don't think the issue is that mics don't hear like ears do, as much as it is that recording engineers don't place mics where ears would be. The closer you put the microphone (or ear) to the sound source, the greater the ratio of direct sound to indirect sound. I think most recording engineers like to record acoustic guitar close up, which makes it sound larger than life, because most listeners prefer that illusion. But because close miking emphasizes the direct sound, and the tail is mostly in the indirect sound (reverb), compression may help restore the balance. A different but not necessarily better alternative is to mix multiple microphones, one or more close up and one or more in the far field. Or you could place the microphones at a more natural distance, but then many listeners will find the result too dull and/or too distant.

 

RE: Precisely.... Someone's always complaining about how others choose to enjoy music, posted on November 15, 2015 at 12:29:47
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
The entire discussion is kinda useless. Just as you said you might be listening late and have the volume down so a bit more bass helps, who cares. Who's to say anyone's speakers in their room are actually that flat or perfectly even in the bass. It is not that serious IMO. I have been listening to a pair of LS50s recently, and they are closer to the back wall than thy should be, hence a bit of bass boost. I will not loose any sleep over it...

 

The negative effect is a loss of musical realism. What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience., posted on November 15, 2015 at 22:13:38
Just wondering, but is there ever a case where what one hears through a stereo system is equivalent to a live experience?

For acoustic instruments I'd say certainly not. Even for electronic instruments I'd say not.

I'd guess that for most folks, having a live jazz quartet in their living room would be an overwhelming event. With all respect, I'd say that there are times when hearing a "live experience" could be more of a negative than a positive. Sometimes it's better to turn down the volume.

In such cases, what is wrong with technologies that still help to capture some of the emotion that would otherwise be lost in the diminished live event?

JE

 

RE: The negative effect is a loss of musical realism. What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience., posted on November 16, 2015 at 08:40:55
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
It is definitely possible to get equivalent sound from a reproduction of a live acoustic instrument. I've done this with a piano. It took a tremendous amount of set up to get the desired result. In the end, the only substantial difference was that the piano was located between the speakers, rather than in the actual location of the instrument in the room. Also, the bottom three notes were slightly weak, but the music didn't use them, just a test scale. I had the benefit of being able to eliminate room acoustics from the recording since I was playing back in the same room as the instrument. The recording still sounds natural when played in other settings, but it does require a large room, a room large enough to fit a 7 foot grand piano.

Of course, there was the "willing suspension of disbelief". Skeptics will be perpetually miserable since they are unwilling to allow themselves to enjoy "illusions". This is a sad situation to be in, since life itself is nothing but an illusion. This kind of skepticism is almost certain to lead to a life of misery. YMMV.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The negative effect is a loss of musical realism. What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience., posted on November 16, 2015 at 22:03:39
"It is definitely possible to get equivalent sound from a reproduction of a live acoustic instrument." What exactly does that mean? Especially when you qualify the experience in the next paragraph by saying: "Of course, there was the "willing suspension of disbelief"."

Did it or did it not sound like a real instrument? I submit that until we get to the point where we can move around our listening rooms and hear the same changes we would hear if we were walking around a real piano we're still just kidding ourselves. Current stereos are not "realistic."

However, I will agree that a "willing suspension of disbelief" is part and parcel of listening to any music played back through a stereo system. I know, because I do it all the time!

All the Best!

JE

 

RE: The negative effect is a loss of musical realism. What one hears is not equivalent to a live experience., posted on November 17, 2015 at 08:07:22
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Yes, it sounded like the real instrument. As far as I could tell, exactly the same, except as I mentioned the possible weakness of the three bottom notes on the keyboard. And this was true whether the piano was loud or soft. This was done with a 7.5 IPS tape deck, two track, and a pair of AKG C-451 cardiod pattern microphones. Speakers were Snell A III's driven by 200 watts per channel. At the normal listening position there was no audible tape hiss, but this was not the case when the open reel deck was replaced by a Nak C-7a cassette deck. There the problem was that if Dolby B or C was used the natural attack of the piano was gone. Without Dolby if the recording level was pushed then the tape compressed and the natural dynamics of the loud portions went missing. If the recording level was kept down then the tape hiss was burdensome.

To get the "in the room" effect it was necessary to keep the microphones close so as to avoid double room effects. This led to proximity effects, and to get the correct tonal balance the microphones had to be moved and pointed in minute amounts. Note that the room was odd shaped and had minimal room nodes in the bass. These and similar recordings can sound natural when played back in other rooms provided there is flat response in the bass. In some setups where the speakers are far apart then the piano will sound larger than life. (In the original room the speakers were only slightly further apart than the length of the piano.)

I see no point in moving around the listening room while playing a recording. That would be impolite during a live event. It is sufficient to get the sound right at one point in the room. In this case, it was where I usually sat when listening to either the live piano or recorded music. Things would be obviously different if standing close to the live piano (or worse ears inside the lid) or with ears next to a speaker driver.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Agreed, posted on November 17, 2015 at 09:10:00
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
It is OT in this thread relative to the bass boost " loudness compensation" under discussion. But, no, tone controls and Room EQ are not at all the same thing. There are a lot of differences.

Typically, as Tony explained, REQ is done during setup, and it is done using a mike, usually at multiple positions around the listening area. In the frequency domain, it compares actual speaker/room response to a target response curve and generates DSP filters to equalize frequency response. Better REQ systems also correct time domain response in the process. Most importantly, REQ can correct the narrow band frequency irregularities that normally occur in bass room response as a result of reflections - room modes. The user can often make adjustments to the target curve as a result of personal listening choice.

Typical tone controls operate in the analog domain, hence they usually screw up time domain response. They are also typically only broadband in response. Some might take the form of multiband graphic equalizes, but they still lack the precision to deal with room modes adequately.

REQ setup is more involved and focused on the fixed speaker/room response at a specific "reference" loudness level. For example, Dirac Live takes me about 20 minutes for mike calibration and filter calculation in a 7.1 setup. After that, target curve adjustments might each take a minute or two. Tone controls are much simpler to operate by ear in seconds usually by a twist of the knob, etc.

So, as the names imply, REQ is more about fine tuning the room, tone controls are more about making quick, broadband adjustments for different program material. There is nothing wrong with using both, if you are so equipped, but subject to the time domain caveats, above. I do not use both, myself.

REQ is one of the great breakthroughs of the last decade or more in audio. I would not be without it. Tone controls I can live without. REQ s also increasingly being built-in to some high end speakers.

As a footnote, Audyssey now includes a Dynamic EQ capability, which provides loudness compensation at the frequency extremes in proportion to the volume setting, based on its initial calibration. This is on top of the REQ functionality. I formerly used Audyssey, but I never used that feature. It can be accuraturately calibrated for movie sound, since there are standard reference loudness levels for movies. There are no standard levels for music recording. But, Dynamic EQ is a somewhat better idea than the fixed "Loudness Compensation" built into many stereos and which provide a fixed amount of boost regardless of playback level.









 

RE: A little loudness compensation goes a long way, posted on November 22, 2015 at 23:10:54
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
I get it and TEND to agree.

BUT, when listening late at night, I turn the bass up some and the treble up a little, too. I leave it as a 'preset' with the tone control on/off switch acting as the 'loudness' switch.

This makes is sound more 'natural' at the reduced levels necessary to keep from having my Lung ripped out for waking the spouse.
Too much is never enough

 

Page processed in 0.045 seconds.