lukeamdman Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Makes sense. And, yes, I was indeed running above RL for one scene and I remember the CC being harsh, although I attribute that to the lack of SQ on the soundtrack in that particular case. It was OZ, I believe. Remember, I'm handicapped by the OPPO in that I can't bump the SW trim above '0' or I get massive distortion. Instead of running to the SW amps and bumping both amp's gains, I just bumped the MVL. The CC has a different tweeter than the mains, but I assure you it isn't harsh. Other discs, like LOTR FOTR, which has superb CC, can be run at that level with no harshness. It's garbage in/garbage out at those levels, no doubt. The OW III tweeters (in my mains) are straining at >RL with many soundtracks, I admit, but I don't see how a compression driver will somehow pull off a miracle in the same circumstance, especially running them flat. That has not been my experience. Maybe you guys have some unobtainium compression drivers, IDK. But, I just believe most attribute much better SQ to those horns than due. Just my opinion. I'm running these: http://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php?id=bms_4594nd I first heard them in JTR speakers, and i have yet to hear anything more crystal clear and dynamic than these. I think most, if not all, Danley speakers use BMS compression drivers as well. They're incredibly efficient (118db), and capable of well over 130db on continuous playback. Needless to say, for reference playback inside a home, regardless of the theater size and distance to the MLP, they'll never break a sweat. Since they're a coax I cross them at 450hz, and the UHF is crossed at 6,500hz. Matt Grant crosses them even lower at 380hz. The downside is that they're $750 a pop, but to me worth every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmercy Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 I think the CDs just are higher sensitivity, and aren't working as hard, but they do sound different, esp at higher SPL. Next system I build (if/when I get the chance) will be all lines, floor-to ceiling and wall-to-wall if possible; if not, shaded CBT-type lines. I prefer spreading that HF signal across tens of drivers, taking distortion down to negligible levels, even if I have to boost the HF a little to compensate for their inherent rolloff. JSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 I think the CDs just are higher sensitivity, and aren't working as hard, but they do sound different, esp at higher SPL. Next system I build (if/when I get the chance) will be all lines, floor-to ceiling and wall-to-wall if possible; if not, shaded CBT-type lines. I prefer spreading that HF signal across tens of drivers, taking distortion down to negligible levels, even if I have to boost the HF a little to compensate for their inherent rolloff. JSS I think the different sound is more to do with power response relative to on-axis response. CD horns tend to have rather low power response. This increases the proportion of sound energy that arrives early and accentuates the dynamics of the high frequencies in sounds relative to what is likely to be heard with dome tweeters and the like. As such, it often sounds more balanced to run them with a roll-off. Do you think the harshness comes from distortion? I suspect that comb filter may increase the harshness of the treble, but I don't know for sure. For me, installing diffusion made a major improvement in the upper-mid and treble sound in general, both increasing its audibility and reducing its harshness. Many tracks that I found to be too bright before sound fantastic now. The improvement wasn't just isolated to be listening area but was easily noted throughout the room and even the rest of the house. Since diffusion helps to scrub out comb filtering, I suspect that comb filtering may be a major contributor to treble harshness. As such, I'd be wary about doing a line-array or any design with multiple treble transducers. Thus far, I've never heard a line-array setup I liked one bit, but since most of my exposure to these has been at public events, I don't know that it's fair to judge them all as bad. I just haven't heard a good one yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossobass Dave Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Sensitivity just tells you approximately how many watts will prompt a driver to produce how much dBSPL. I agree with the line plan. multiple drivers beats dispersion of one driver every time. I've never been convinced of the validity of terms like Constant Directivity. Compression drivers were meant to be arrayed. Horns increase sensitivity, the rest of the various and infinite claims are dubious, especially that they somehow increase SQ. Top end reproduction is all BS in the final analysis. One likes the color one likes. Terms like "crystal clear', etc., have little meaning if there's no reference for comparison. Reflection of high frequencies, rather than dispersion, is the overlooked angle, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmercy Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Going from single conventional tweeters to lines made a huge difference in tolerable SPL, with near equal FR, the latter allowing higher SPL before fatigue. My lines were cheap, but there is strength in numbers. My CDs are not necessarily harsher, but the HT now sounds more like a cinema than it used to. I have a ton of absorption in the room (I should add a little more soon, for LF absorption). While many scoff at it, I think of absorption as buying 'space' in the MF/HF range. Some of the best sound I have ever experienced was at large, open-field venues, with little reflected sound. I setup my HT to have the room contribute as little as I reasonably can to MF/HF, so that directional cues will not be smeared. It works, but many prefer a livelier room for music. JSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infrasonic Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 So Scott, when ya gonna post a sweep of just the CC to 3 Hz? Did that already. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=767281&d=1433908401 No smoothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Going from single conventional tweeters to lines made a huge difference in tolerable SPL, with near equal FR, the latter allowing higher SPL before fatigue. My lines were cheap, but there is strength in numbers. My CDs are not necessarily harsher, but the HT now sounds more like a cinema than it used to. I have a ton of absorption in the room (I should add a little more soon, for LF absorption). While many scoff at it, I think of absorption as buying 'space' in the MF/HF range. Some of the best sound I have ever experienced was at large, open-field venues, with little reflected sound. I setup my HT to have the room contribute as little as I reasonably can to MF/HF, so that directional cues will not be smeared. It works, but many prefer a livelier room for music. JSS My suspicion is that it didn't have much to do with nonlinear distortion. In so far as THD is present, there's not much audible range left within which audible harmonics may occur, and hearing sensitivity typically drops off very rapidly above 15 kHz or so. I believe the line arrays may have sounded better due more to their interaction with the room acoustics, but I'm not exactly sure what's going on. I'd be curious to see impulses before and after measurements. I don't believe one needs a dead room to avoid smearing directional cues. In fact, diffuse reflections can improve directional cues in some cases. Avoid strong reflections in the first 10-20 ms, first and foremost. Then try to spread out the time-of-arrival of the energy as much as possible. Try to achieve a reasonably flat trend in decay times from bottom to top. Most small rooms are too dead already in the high frequencies due to their small size and the fact that common household items like carpet, rugs, and curtains absorb much more high frequency than low frequency sound. Paradoxically, audio playback often sounds "too bright" when calibrated to a flat response in these rooms, especially with CD horns for which treble power response is even less to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeamdman Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Sensitivity just tells you approximately how many watts will prompt a driver to produce how much dBSPL. I agree with the line plan. multiple drivers beats dispersion of one driver every time. I've never been convinced of the validity of terms like Constant Directivity. Compression drivers were meant to be arrayed. Horns increase sensitivity, the rest of the various and infinite claims are dubious, especially that they somehow increase SQ. Top end reproduction is all BS in the final analysis. One likes the color one likes. Terms like "crystal clear', etc., have little meaning if there's no reference for comparison. Reflection of high frequencies, rather than dispersion, is the overlooked angle, IMO. Notice that my statements regarding anything like clarity or SQ are always in a subjective stance. My experience with tweeters in speakers like Paradigm, B&W, Dynaudio, etc, is that they sound just fine at medium volumes, but once you reach reference levels at the seats they are distorting. In my opinion, ribbons have been the only thing to match the SQ of CDs to my ears, but they fall victim to the same thing when trying to reach reference. I'm sure line arrays with multiples would alleviate this problem. Yes the CDs I use are super efficient, but they also have oodles of headroom I'll never be able to use without almost instant hearing damage. With that much headroom, THD is incredibly low at any levels I'll reach inside a house. Similar to your raptor systems, you may be able to reach reference with just a pair of enclosures, but reaching reference with quad enclosures essentially cuts cone displacement in half, therefore lowering THD. Obviously with subwoofers THD isn't nearly as noticeable as it is with HF, but you get what I'm saying. The more headroom the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madaeel Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Oh, thanks for catching that, butt-hat. Virginia was just lurking and thought you were being serious and that I posted that intentionally and not as a typo Hahahaha sorry man but it did fit. Plus you wrote it not me. Tell Virginia I said hi. I have a ton of absorption in the room (I should add a little more soon, for LF absorption). JSS Do you think the harshness comes from distortion? I suspect that comb filter may increase the harshness of the treble, but I don't know for sure. For me, installing diffusion made a major improvement in the upper-mid and treble sound in general What are you guys using for diffusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carp Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 I think the different sound is more to do with power response relative to on-axis response. CD horns tend to have rather low power response. This increases the proportion of sound energy that arrives early and accentuates the dynamics of the high frequencies in sounds relative to what is likely to be heard with dome tweeters and the like. As such, it often sounds more balanced to run them with a roll-off. Do you think the harshness comes from distortion? I suspect that comb filter may increase the harshness of the treble, but I don't know for sure. For me, installing diffusion made a major improvement in the upper-mid and treble sound in general, both increasing its audibility and reducing its harshness. Many tracks that I found to be too bright before sound fantastic now. The improvement wasn't just isolated to be listening area but was easily noted throughout the room and even the rest of the house. Since diffusion helps to scrub out comb filtering, I suspect that comb filtering may be a major contributor to treble harshness. As such, I'd be wary about doing a line-array or any design with multiple treble transducers. Thus far, I've never heard a line-array setup I liked one bit, but since most of my exposure to these has been at public events, I don't know that it's fair to judge them all as bad. I just haven't heard a good one yet? How much diffusion are you using and where in the room? Any pictures? thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossobass Dave Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 If you keep the MVL at -10dB, then you only need 95dB for peaks only and 75dB average. If you're gonna pay over a grand for each tweeter, you damn sure better have some headroom. My CC tweeter is rated at 105dB 1W/1M. At less than 4M distance, it requires about 5W to maintain reference level peaks. There's a bridged 900W amp feeding the CC, which was a Rocket Bigfoot and now has dual TB 8s and the selenium ST-320 with an 'L'-pad to reconcile the 2-way. The mains were originally modded by replacing the 5-1/4" drivers with Peerless drivers and the ST-320, Bi-Amped. I then installed 2-Way X-overs and the OW-4 tweeters. Yes, from 105dB, 1W/1M to 90dB, 1W/1M. 32 times the power requirement. Around 120W required for reference level peaks to reach 105dB at the seats. Each main is powered by a bridged RMX-1450. The FR at the main seat has 6dB/octave smoothing (BTW, all full range sweeps are smoothed). No EQ was used to smooth the response, but I've since inserted a digital PEQ and use around 6 filters on the mains and 3 filters on the CC. I only ever run sats/small, 5.1 in the ITU configuration. With the X--over at 100 Hz, the "gaggle of 5s" can easily handle 105dB peaks at <4M. Since this measurement, I've installed the OW-4 tweeters and have rolled off the high end in a downward tilt from cross to top. The subs are typically calibrated flat with the SW trim at -5dB. That gives me up to 5dB of bump, if I spin a disc with low level rating. For the GTG, I used the 5dB bump to '0' on the SW trim and increased the amplifier gain so that the subs were running around +12dB to +15dB hot. By listening to good and bad recordings, measuring and simple deduction, the harshness comes from the recording. I have little to no doubts about that conclusion, but I admit that the single OW-4 is not enough for reference level playback where the mains are concerned. I'm building dual-driver, full range driver satellites in the antihorn configuration to remedy the situation. Having been a recording and live musician for over a decade in my youth, I've been around every size and array configuration of piezo, super and CD tweeters imaginable. I haven't given the latest CD/horn iterations a serious listen recently, but I have my doubts that they're somehow a radical departure from their predecessors. It's just an opinion, based on scads of listening across zillions of high end systems and my own personal taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeamdman Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Having been a recording and live musician for over a decade in my youth, I've been around every size and array configuration of piezo, super and CD tweeters imaginable. I haven't given the latest CD/horn iterations a serious listen recently, but I have my doubts that they're somehow a radical departure from their predecessors. It's just an opinion, based on scads of listening across zillions of high end systems and my own personal taste. Make it up here for my GTG on 8/1 and we'll find out You'd get to hear a fully active CD setup powered by an authentic Lab Gruppen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuxedocivic Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 There's no secret sauce in compression drivers. In fact, they're generally poor performers in terms of distortion. Especially in the top octave. It's the horn they're mounted to that is so special. And this is what makes controlled directivity. You can have controlled directivity with a dome tweeter too, you just have to put it in a waveguide. Which I've done a lot, and it's actually a very good way to achieve high SQ. Here's a typical controlled directivity response (10" sized speaker). Note the upper octave hash. But also note how much less sound will get to the walls. Compare that to a typical flat baffle dome tweeter and dome midrange with 8" woofer. See the width difference. Sorry, the angles aren't exactly the same. Note that those measurements are ANECHOIC! Most of the measurements tossed around in discussions like this are LP measurements, and they're frankly not very useful to understand speaker performance. That's a whole different subject. Just for kicks. Lets look at a dome tweeter. Red is a flat baffle. Blue is in a waveguide. Notice how much more SPL is directed towards the microphone? When this is flattened (I personally use the high pass filter to flatten this) the low end capability of the tweeter is more than 10db over the flat baffle. This provides much less HD, lower cross over, and you keep the sound off the walls and focused towards the listener. We now see shallow dome waveguides on many of todays recording monitors. There's a reason. Dave, compression drivers and diffraction horns have been nasty reproduction devices that belt out massive SPL, but lack any useful sound quality. On top of that, the PA industry favors SPL rather than flat response, and usually leaves peaks in the response to get that SPL. I can't say I blame you for your skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuxedocivic Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 My CC tweeter is rated at 105dB 1W/1M. At less than 4M distance, it requires about 5W to maintain reference level peaks. What tweeter is this? A dome tweeter, hiquphon?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossobass Dave Posted June 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 What tweeter is this? A dome tweeter, hiquphon?? The tweeters in the mains pic was once the ST-320, but I've changed those to the OW-4 Hiquphon, 90dB 1W/1M, platinum dome. The tweeter in the CC is Selenium ST-320 (discontinued), 105dB 1W/1M. From what I recall, this is a 1-3/4" diameter VC with a phenolic diaphragm and aluminum shorting ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuxedocivic Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Ok, that makes more sense. I mixed things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nube Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I don't have a ton of high end audio experience, but my ears are very sensitive. With exactly the same signal chain, room, and amplification, my 2-way SEOS + AE TD12X ported towers with upgraded xo parts (thanks, tux! ) have infinitely more headroom AND significantly better sound quality at medium/high volume levels than my buddy Pete's pair of B&W 802. I mean, it's not even close. The SEOS puts the Black & Whites to shame. The tweeters in those just cannot do reference level or even close without audibly distorting, while the SEOS is just loafing along and sounding spectacular. It's such a disparity that he decided to go horns himself and build some big 7Pi with the midhorns. He's got the XO components, the horns, the CDs, and the 2226s so far. Now he just needs to build 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 What are you guys using for diffusion? Right now, I'm using GIK GridFusor extruded polystyrene (EPS) forms. I wanted to test out diffusion in my room without spending a boat load of money, so I started with one 4-pack. I (and my wife) were immediately sold. I later invested in two more packages for a total of 12. They are not true QRDs because they lack fins to divide the bins and they are also a mirrored design, unlike true QRD designs. Nevertheless, they work quite well. While the EPS is higher density than is typical for packing material, it is brittle and vulnerable to scraping damage. In the long run, I hope to apply my wood-working skills to build replacements out of wood because that appears to be the only cost effective way to obtain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 How much diffusion are you using and where in the room? Any pictures? thanks! My camera is broken or else I'd take pictures. Right now, I have 11 diffusers approximately 2x2 feet deployed around the room. The most critical 3 diffusers are located on the back wall that the sofa butts up against. They are angled down somewhat. That wall has thick absorption on it directly behind the listeners heads to kill that nasty reflection, and the diffusers are sitting on top. Their bottom edges are about 18 inches above the listeners' heads when seated or at about ear level when standing. Because of where the speakers are located, very little of the mid/high frequency sound that hits those diffusers reflects down to the MLP. Instead, it goes over the listeners' heads in all directions throughout the room. The front wall is closest at 11 feet away, so the sound must travel at least 20 feet (roughly 20 ms) before it is reflected back to the MLP. Seats off-center receive a bit more diffuse energy a bit sooner than the MLP, but that's kind of a positive, actually. These diffusers are placed to try to retain and diffuse as much upper mid / high frequency energy from the mains as possible. Note that putting diffusers in this location is crucial for me because my mains use CD horns. Only a little high frequency energy hits the ceiling and floor and almost none hits the side walls. These diffusers also help reduce the negative impact of grazing incidence reflections off the back wall from the surrounds. I have two diffusers on each side wall, two of which are in first reflection points for the surrounds. All of these help distribute more mid and high frequency energy throughout the adjacent dining room and kitchen area and the rest of the house. Note that my side-walls are 19 feet apart. I also have two diffusers up front, also in first reflection points for the surrounds. The ones in the front currently overlap slabs of 4" OC-703 to try to get some bass absorption in the same spot. The lower half of the OC-703 is exposed and situated at the 1st reflection points for the front left and right. Finally, I have two diffusers on the second rear wall in the dining room. Note that the "rear wall" that my sofa is up against is only partial and has a wide opening to the dining room on one side and a narrower opening to the kitchen and hall on the other. We spend a fair amount of time in the dining room, including entertaining guests, and the diffusers there noticeably improve the sound in the dining room and kitchen. I'd like to get bass absorbers on those walls as well, and may have to reconsider the diffusers in light of their odd appearance. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carp Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Thanks for the specifics. I hadn't really thought about it but it makes perfect sense that diffusion for the LCR is needed on the back wall, not so much the sides when you have CD waveguide/horns. I have a GIK QRD diffusion panel on each first reflection point for the L and R mains on the side wall. As Scott told me when he was over, they probably aren't doing jack shit in their current position since my mains have a 60x60 dispersion pattern. I should experiment with putting the panels on the back wall. However, I'm not sure how many reflections from the back wall get to my main LP because my back row couch would block a lot I would think. If that doesn't do much I guess I could use them at first reflection points for my side surround speakers like you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Thanks for the specifics. I hadn't really thought about it but it makes perfect sense that diffusion for the LCR is needed on the back wall, not so much the sides when you have CD waveguide/horns. I have a GIK QRD diffusion panel on each first reflection point for the L and R mains on the side wall. As Scott told me when he was over, they probably aren't doing jack shit in their current position since my mains have a 60x60 dispersion pattern. I should experiment with putting the panels on the back wall. However, I'm not sure how many reflections from the back wall get to my main LP because my back row couch would block a lot I would think. If that doesn't do much I guess I could use them at first reflection points for my side surround speakers like you are doing. You're welcome. I realize my situation is a bit unique. My back wall has been a bit of a curse thus far, but it's proving to be a blessing for my diffusion configuration. For most people, the back wall is far enough back that most of the reflection will find its way back to the listeners' heads but not far enough back to provide enough delay to prevent that sound from affecting imaging. Another thing is that as the sound travels farther, it's spreading out (imagine a cone), and you'll need to cover more surface area with diffusion to notice the same benefit. My back wall is only 9 feet from the speakers (currently), so the 12 sqft of diffusion there makes a big impact on the sound. I'm not sure how your back row sofa affects things. One option is to put the diffusers higher up on the wall and tilt them down a bit to try to direct the sound over the rear row and toward your front row listeners. Another option is to til them up to try to reflect the diffused sound from the ceiling. Note that the diffused sound is scattered in time and typically is heard as being "directionless" or "purely enveloping" in nature. It doesn't matter much what direction the diffused sound is arriving from. The downside of tilting the diffusers is that more sound finds its way to the floor where it's likely to be absorbed by carpet or furnishings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SME Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 By listening to good and bad recordings, measuring and simple deduction, the harshness comes from the recording. There's no arguing that some harshness comes from recordings. At the same time, I have experienced a real transformation in my room with acoustic treatments as described. I have some recordings that sounded very bad in the treble before that now sound okay or even enjoyable now. A clear example that comes to mind is a digital remaster of the classic "Quincy Jones - Big Band Bosso Nova" album I got. When I first heard it, the brightness was so overwhelming (even with a ~6 dB treble roll-off) I wondered if they had ripped straight from vinyl and forgot to apply the RIAA curve. I even created a "corrected version" in Audacity and ended up with something that didn't sound right either (and also revealed some weird ULF noise buried on one of the tracks). With the diffusion, that recording took on a completely different character. It's still sounded very bright but the brightness was not at all overbearing. Instead, it revealed just how much high frequency reverb was present in the recording. It sounds fantastic now! My thought is that 1/6th octave smoothed response tells you very little about what the upper mid and high frequencies will sound like. We calibrate our 1/6th octave smoothed response to whatever target we choose because of the tools typically available to us. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what kind of measurement appropriately describes what we hear up there. I suspect that loudness for upper mids and highs has as much to do with total energy over short time periods as it does actual SPL. Another important thing is particle velocity, which apparently does impact hearing quite a bit in the upper mid range. When the sound in a room is highly diffuse, it may have low rms SPL at a single position but show a lot more variance across space, so a pair of ears may hear a lot of sound that the microphone misses. In my room actually, it's become abundantly clear that my upper-mids are too hot, even though the 1/6th octave smoothed curve is quite flat. (Admittedly, the diffusion made thing sound so much nicer that it took a while to notice the flaws that remained.) I believe the problem is that my current mains speakers have a big dip in directivity there. In order to achieve a response that's flat on-axis, I end up with too much power there. I believe much of that energy is arriving early enough to increase loudness for those frequencies. In the short term, I'll probably "BBC dip" them in the appropriate place. Their native response is to have quite a bit of on-axis dip there. I am looking to move to fully active crossovers soon in hopes of being able to mitigate that problem and run flat again. But first, I need to get my front stage properly re-arranged so that I can run my center channel vertically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossobass Dave Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Did that already. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=767281&d=1433908401 No smoothing. Same difference, no? The low end is +15dB hot. The vocals don't sound muddy to you? Wow if they don't. That would toss any SQ debate right out the window for me. People nit pick harmonics but can easily ignore a 15dB high Q peak in response at the seats? Makes no sense to me. Maybe, since your sweep is at 70dB, compression lessens the low end bump at loud levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossobass Dave Posted June 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 There's no arguing that some harshness comes from recordings. At the same time, I have experienced a real transformation in my room with acoustic treatments as described. I have some recordings that sounded very bad in the treble before that now sound okay or even enjoyable now. I've had a lot of experience listening to and playing along with musicians in informal settings, like a living room, garage, attic, porch, etc. It never once occurred to me or anyone else that the sound of instrument 'x' would be better if there were treatments on the walls, floor and ceiling. Consider the instrument being played the recording. You may get up and sit in a different spot to listen. You may run around the room placing wedges, pillows, insulation, etc., to make the sound different. Change "the acoustics" of the room to some infinite point between an empty church and an anechoic chamber. But, you aren't changing the "recording". You can't change the SQ of the instrument by "treating" the room. Since sound recording and reproduction began, there have been people studying and teaching the ideal aoustics for the listening environment. It makes sense to me to avoid "double reverberation", but it's similar to post smoothing EQ, IMO. Season to taste. I've always shied away from those discussions. The discussion on low end reproduction of modern recorded source through a summed mono signal of redirected bass from 'x' discrete channels and a discrete LFE or .1 channel has been ongoing for 15 years. That's enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infrasonic Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Same difference, no? The low end is +15dB hot. The vocals don't sound muddy to you? Wow if they don't. That would toss any SQ debate right out the window for me. People nit pick harmonics but can easily ignore a 15dB high Q peak in response at the seats? Makes no sense to me. Maybe, since your sweep is at 70dB, compression lessens the low end bump at loud levels? Lolwut? The response is basically flat to 100hz in that pic, Dave. How is a boosted level below 80hz going to muddy my vocals? They sound fine. And compression? Lol, if your 8-16 15's aren't compressing then my 14 18's and 12 15's aren't going to. So no. High Q peak? Umm, where? Idk why but I'm having a hard time telling if you're completely sincere or totally busting my balls. I hope it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.