|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.76.104
In Reply to: RE: Ideal frequency response curve posted by DrChaos on June 18, 2015 at 10:33:15
My record library consists almost exclusively of recordings of acoustic music, a mixture of studio recordings and recordings made in concert halls with or without an audience. If I play these recordings on a system set up for flat high frequency response (as measured at my listening position) these recordings are heavily skewed to the bright side. Some highly regarded recordings, such as most of the Mercury Living Presence recordings, are so bright that they are painful to listen to, the equivalent of "fingernails on the blackboard". None of the recordings in my library sound dull with my system set up flat. When I adjust the high frequency response of this system so that the recordings range from slightly dull to slightly bright, nearly all of the recordings in my library sound very good, and the ones in the middle sound excellent. None are painfully bright and none are boringly dull.
I know what live music sounds like from decades of going to live concerts. I know which recordings in my library are the best from reading reviews and years of experience listening to many of these on different systems. I know that, as originally set up with "flat" cross-over settings, my system was horribly bright. I measured it's response at my listening position and it was flat from 1 kHz up to 20 kHz, which was as high as my calibrated microphone went.
After adjusting the high frequency response (by turning the high frequency control for the tweeters on my left and right speakers half-way down) I got a setting that sounded approximately correct, consistent with live music and consistent with how these recordings sounded on other systems. I measured this and found that there was a gradual roll-off starting around 1 kHz and ending up down -3.5 dB at 10 kHz, leveling out at a maximum attenuation of about -4 dB at 12 kHz and up.
I already explained why recordings tend to be too bright on flat systems. That's because that's the way they are made. If you want to know why they are made that way, you would have to talk to the people who made these recordings (most of the great engineers are no longer with us). While you are at it, you can also talk to the successful speaker designers, who won't sell many recordings if their products were flat because customers don't buy products that give them "bleeding ears".
Anyone who wishes to confirm this for himself will need to meet a few requirements:
1. They must have a system that is full range for the music being played.
2. They must have the ability to accurately measure their system response at the listening position using calibrated instruments.
3. They must have a record library with a wide range of acoustic music
4. They must be intimately familiar with how live music sounds by attending numerous concerts of different types of ensembles in different halls from a variety of listening positions in the venues.
5. They must have the ability to compare their memory of live events with what they hear when they play recordings of similar ensembles on their system.
6. They must have some way to adjust the frequency response of their system, at least as flexible as traditional tone controls.
7. They must have the ability to listen critically and identify small differences in frequency response while listening to music, down to at least the +- 0.5 dB range over 1/3 octave bands.
None of these requirements should be difficult for a competent audiophile.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
"customers don't buy products that give them "bleeding ears"
Very thoughtful response, Tony. Nice contribution.
But I'm not sure manufacturers don't mind adding a little sizzle to their steak. It's called "detail." I hit the CES and Rocky Mountain audio shows every year, and too many times I don't make it more than three feet into the demo room before I rush right out again. OW! OW! OW!
Perhaps its because there is no blood left in the ears of the younger generations as a result of attending a few rock concerts or from having headphones permanently welded to their skulls. Or maybe they figure that the real buyers of their stuff are old guys (like me? us?) who need a bit of boost in the high freqs or we can't hear them at all. But that's all just speculation.
I haven't destroyed my hearing by abusing it. When I was 19 I could hear 21 kHz. Today, at 71, I can still hear 13000 kHz. Live music doesn't sound dull, and I can hear tonal differences in music when cutting or boosting frequencies above 15 kHz, even though I can't hear sine waves at these frequencies any more. The mind provides needed recalibration of frequency response providing that one's hearing changes gradually. If there is sudden damage due to accident or illness then this may not happen.
I have no use for equipment that is marketed to people who listen to non-acoustic music. The existence of these people and the existence of this music is one of the reasons why there has been little real progress in audio over the years. If I were appointed "Musical Dictator of the Univers" my first edit would be the banning of all musical instruments that are not operated on human power. (This would even include banning pipe organs, unless they were hand pumped.) :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
After your ban on non-acoustical instruments becomes effective, what will we do with all of those people who once liked them?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: