Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Review: ProArte Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    This depends on several factors. One is how close you sit to the speakers. Another is how live your room is and how hard versus soft it is. But the whole
    Message 1 of 27 , Jan 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      This depends on several factors. One
      is how close you sit to the speakers.
      Another is how live your room is
      and how "hard" versus "soft" it is.

      But the whole question is complicated--
      this is why I believe in correction
      that involves listening, not just
      automatic models.

      Roughly I tend to like to correct the speaker
      from around 300 Hz on up(speaker only)
      and the speaker plus room from 300 Hz
      on down. This results in essentially all
      rooms and with almost all speakers
      in an RTA that rolls a bit in the top--
      unless one sits quite close.

      But really, experimenting --and being
      prepared to compensate for individual
      recordings are the principles.

      If one had to pick only one measurement
      probably RTA is a good choice--but
      one does not want it flat but rather
      sloping down a bit in the top and up
      a little in the bottom.

      If one looks back, there has been a
      good deal of discussion of this already
      in terms of target curves etc

      REG


      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jordan wrote:
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > Where do you expect the treble roll-off to begin when measured at the
      > listening position? I think, remembering some earlier messages of yours on
      > this list, that you like flat to about 6 kHz, then some sort of roll off,
      > but I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly.
      >
      > I've tried flat to 6 kHz with a roll-off following, and it sounds really
      > good on really good recordings. Unfortunately, I tend to listen to the
      > music I like best, which often are not the best of recordings, so I am
      > guilty of choosing the forgiving response that I posted most often. I've
      > tried flat out to 20 kHz and it results in a very thin and unpleasant
      > response (to my ears anyway).
      >
      > In any event, because my system and room needs EQ and I have all these
      > filters stored, it only takes a few seconds to switch to a flatter curve
      >
      > Alan
      >
      > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Robert wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > This is nice and smooth but it depresses 3k on up enough
      > > to give a somewhat different view of the recording in
      > > terms of clarity and so on than what is really there.
      > > It looks rather forgiving, albeit in a pleasant sort
      > > of way no doubt.
      > >
      > > REG
      > >
      > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jordan wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello,
      > > >
      > > > I don't know how to answer your question so I put a measurement up taken
      > > at
      > > > the listening position, 1/6 octave smoothing, taken with an application
      > > > called Fuzz Measure for the Mac. The measurement was taken with a
      > > > calibrated mic. Fuzz Measure plays and records a 10 second sweep, but I'm
      > > > not familiar with any other processing that might take place in the
      > > > software.
      > > >
      > > > The measurement is at:
      > > >
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/photos/album/1252319120/pic/585814243/view
      > > >
      > > > I listen to many different types of music, and while I like a flatter
      > > > response on classical, some other close mic'd stuff is nearly unbearable
      > > to
      > > > listen to without some sort of down-sloping response. I know that many
      > > > here only listen to classical, but I don't.
      > > >
      > > > Alan
      > > >
      > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Robert wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > **
      > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > If one likes this downslope, fine. I might well
      > > > > like it myself, depending on one thing and another.
      > > > > But do people not find it disconcerting that
      > > > > recordings are apparently heard here as so
      > > > > defective that one needs to have an almost
      > > > > 10 dB difference between bottom and top to
      > > > > get them to sound natural?
      > > > > Such a thing suggests that the whole process
      > > > > is grossly defective , of making and playing
      > > > > back recordings. Eight or nine dB is ENORMOUS.
      > > > >
      > > > > Toole et al recommend a 10 dB droop in power response
      > > > > Perhaps that is what is meant here. But if there
      > > > > is a ten dB droop in say RTA pink noise at the
      > > > > listening position , one is not even close
      > > > > to hearing what is on the recording. Also
      > > > > the midrange ought to be more or less flat.
      > > > >
      > > > > Would be interesting to know what kind of measurements
      > > > > are being referred to here.
      > > > >
      > > > > REG
      > > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • HM
      Hi Alan if you use a freefield mic under diffusefield conditions, you will always get destructive interference at the mic - like it is not perceived from 2
      Message 2 of 27 , Jan 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Alan
        if you use a freefield mic under diffusefield conditions, you will always get destructive interference at the mic - like it is not perceived from 2 ears on either side of a head moving.
        A typical measurement will drop 3-4dB between 150Hz and 10k, then a steep roll off to 20k appears. A linear target curve is inappropriate. I did the this mistake at my first correction attempt...
        If you do individual correction for either ear position (= 2 measurement positions), you may get an astounding precision for a clamped head but as soon as you move the head you get aware of the room patterns. I did that with a TacT RCS many years ago and I will never forget the comb-filter like changes that gave more treble at one ear while the treble at the other ear dropped, so one was forced into a very narrow sweet spot.
        It was consequent to quit correction in that range where both channel measurements run pretty parallel, even if they derive from 2 speakers from individual places and directions.

        My related favourite question remains how much do we know from such a single spot measurement without being a microphone expert to compensate the freefield mic for diffuse field environment?
        A wrong mic type measuring in the wrong place (2 required). There must be some kind of spatial averaging to make it applicable for both ears including head movement.
        I reported this to Peter Lyngdorf at the Frankfurt HighEnd show and a new software was released allowing to redraw the target curve following the measurement. This happened at the time when REG wrote his review about the TacT, so he just missed that feature. He would have liked it!
        BR HM


        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jordan wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > Where do you expect the treble roll-off to begin when measured at the
        > listening position? I think, remembering some earlier messages of yours on
        > this list, that you like flat to about 6 kHz, then some sort of roll off,
        > but I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly.
        >
        > I've tried flat to 6 kHz with a roll-off following, and it sounds really
        > good on really good recordings. Unfortunately, I tend to listen to the
        > music I like best, which often are not the best of recordings, so I am
        > guilty of choosing the forgiving response that I posted most often. I've
        > tried flat out to 20 kHz and it results in a very thin and unpleasant
        > response (to my ears anyway).
        >
        > In any event, because my system and room needs EQ and I have all these
        > filters stored, it only takes a few seconds to switch to a flatter curve
        >
        > Alan
        >
        > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Robert wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > This is nice and smooth but it depresses 3k on up enough
        > > to give a somewhat different view of the recording in
        > > terms of clarity and so on than what is really there.
        > > It looks rather forgiving, albeit in a pleasant sort
        > > of way no doubt.
        > >
        > > REG
        > >
        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jordan wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hello,
        > > >
        > > > I don't know how to answer your question so I put a measurement up taken
        > > at
        > > > the listening position, 1/6 octave smoothing, taken with an application
        > > > called Fuzz Measure for the Mac. The measurement was taken with a
        > > > calibrated mic. Fuzz Measure plays and records a 10 second sweep, but I'm
        > > > not familiar with any other processing that might take place in the
        > > > software.
        > > >
        > > > The measurement is at:
        > > >
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/photos/album/1252319120/pic/585814243/view
        > > >
        > > > I listen to many different types of music, and while I like a flatter
        > > > response on classical, some other close mic'd stuff is nearly unbearable
        > > to
        > > > listen to without some sort of down-sloping response. I know that many
        > > > here only listen to classical, but I don't.
        > > >
        > > > Alan
        > > >
        > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Robert wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > **
        > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > If one likes this downslope, fine. I might well
        > > > > like it myself, depending on one thing and another.
        > > > > But do people not find it disconcerting that
        > > > > recordings are apparently heard here as so
        > > > > defective that one needs to have an almost
        > > > > 10 dB difference between bottom and top to
        > > > > get them to sound natural?
        > > > > Such a thing suggests that the whole process
        > > > > is grossly defective , of making and playing
        > > > > back recordings. Eight or nine dB is ENORMOUS.
        > > > >
        > > > > Toole et al recommend a 10 dB droop in power response
        > > > > Perhaps that is what is meant here. But if there
        > > > > is a ten dB droop in say RTA pink noise at the
        > > > > listening position , one is not even close
        > > > > to hearing what is on the recording. Also
        > > > > the midrange ought to be more or less flat.
        > > > >
        > > > > Would be interesting to know what kind of measurements
        > > > > are being referred to here.
        > > > >
        > > > > REG
        > > > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.