Embracing Simplicity in Audio: Anyone Else Skipping Room Correction, Measurement Microphones, and the Like?

[computer-audiophile]

After decades in the hobby, I've realized that every recording and mastering has its own sound profile so I equalize everything the way I like best. I think of myself as the last creative link in the chain.

That is also a very interesting attitude, I can understand.

 

[dogmamann]

Embracing simplicity is embracing mediocreness

 

[Whoareyou]

Most roomcorrection programs change the music quality for the worse - ie are not transparent also If you do no corrections at all. WiiM pro is one brilliant exception - both cheap and transparent at the same time so one can use the PEQ function without loosing audible transparency.

Doing measurement corrections with the help of a microphone takes a long time to learn how to do it correctly , most room correction programes give unfortunately wrong instructions . The ear/brain is very different working than a microphone. The brains selects sound, the microphone take up all the sound.

The ear is much better to judge the playback quality and the intentions of the musicians than any measurement microphone . As John Atkinsson at stereophile says : ” all measurements tell lies ” .

Its easy to waste lifetime in measuring the wrong things , theres also nothing called perfect sound with 2 channel playback…..

The ear connects to the brain, and the brain is easily fooled. That's why (some) people rely on measurements to help them to improve their systems.
It's easy to over-correct, but when done right you gain transparency.
And it's not just about equalizations.

 

[computer-audiophile]

The discussion is picking up speed, very nice, thank you! Sorry - I have to leave now, we're going to dinner.

 

[Power Pop 23]

My analog content has been digitized to a hard drive on a Mac mini. I regard enabling a Dirac Live filter as helping to make for a 'simpler' system.

 

[Ricardus]

Embracing simplicity is embracing mediocreness

KISS

 

[Ricardus]

I set up my system in whatever room I've moved to and the only tuning I do is a frequency spectrum analyzer app on my phone that I used to tune the knee and gain of my sub-woofer. It changes quite a bit with every room.

I'm never going to be able to tune the room like a studio control room so why bother.

 

[Geert]

Most roomcorrection programs change the music quality for the worse - ie are not transparent also If you do no corrections at all.

Which is not true of course. Happy to see some evidence, like a null test, which proves otherwise.

 

[TurtlePaul]

I think that parametric equalization is irreplaceable and very important. Once I measured and corrected my room (below 350 hz) the bass tightened up substantially.

My room has a room mode at 70 hz. It correlates perfectly to 8 ft ceiling heights so unless I knock down our house I can’t change this. The bass is muddy if I don’t correct this. Also, I can only pull my speakers so far away from the wall, so I fill in the SBIR by several dB. Finally, the DSP integrates the sub and if you learn what you are doing then having variable crossover slope, delay and subsonic filtering is useful.

I can press a button on the MiniDSP remote to add or remove these changes and it is dramatically better. With the equalization in place a walking bass line has each note exactly equal volume, like a real bass. Without equalization this is not the case. Also, with the midbass cancelations and room mode peaks all fixes the bass is tight, punchy, etc.

If you have never heard parametric EQ done well then you surely owe it to yourself to hear it before you judge. The “simple signal path” reasoning is uninformed.

 

[digitalfrost]

In all things, I follow the maxim, "Make everything as simple as possible ... but no simpler."

The topic came to my mind spontaneously, and I didn't hesitate to open the thread. Just now, something else occurred to me. The esteemed designer Dieter Rams had the following maxim: 'Less but better'. (Weniger, aber besser) I have tried to internalize this philosophy.

For me, DRC/DSP has been the single biggest improvement I ever had from anything in audio. And it's cheap. I apply DSP to my speakers, to my headphones at home, to anything that I stream to wirelessy.

I agree with with your guys general stance on simplicity, being a computer guy it reminds me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".

What I disagree with is the idea that DSP is complex. Sure if you zoom in really deep everything is complex, but with the tools we have today applying DSP is so easy that I really see no reason not to it. Measurements for headphones are numerous from various sources, ways to create EQ/Convoling files are a lot and you can easily arrive at something that you like in very short time. And applying DSP is very easy, especially if your source is a computer anyway. And even if not, just get a MiniDSP.

Sure you can theoretically achieve the same results without DSP, but it will involve a lot of trial and error and probably be very expensive. But my main point is:

Most people do not know where the bar is. How high the bar should be. What is possible.

DSP offers a degree of perfection that is hard to achieve otherwise, and I have good gear with good measurements and generally follow the common advise when it comes to room acoustics. I never had anything where DSP did not significantly improve the result. And on top of this: It allows you to tune to taste, without the need to buy new gear.

In the 70s and 80s hifi gear used to have all kinds of knobs and buttons, it almost looked like a control panel for a space ship. Then in the 90s devices got reduced, tone controls were a no-no because of the holy simplicity. I like simplicity. But when what you have does not fit to what you want and you have no means to adjust it, what good does simplicity do?

When cars were new, you needed to know about cars to drive one, same with computers. Today you press a start/stop engine button and it just works. It's 2023. DSP is easy and simple.

After decades in the hobby, I've realized that every recording and mastering has its own sound profile so I equalize everything the way I like best. I think of myself as the last creative link in the chain.

On top of using DSPs, I remaster music that I like to fit my own tastes.

 

[Purité Audio]

Eq in a gentleman’s system !
Amusing, go back far enough, CD wasn’t as good as vinyl, streaming is now nowhere near as a ‘good cd player’.
Class-D unthinkable, ‘stunt bass’ ( never really understood what that meant) all old men’s wives tales.
Keith ( old man himself)

 

[DJNX]

The simplicity will come from the advancement in the software and its UX implementation.
Pretty soon we will reach a point where not using it is going to feel more problematic than skipping it.

 

[Tre2023]

Interesting responses for sure. Though, the word is mediocrity, not mediocreness. Now, let’s compare the words simplicity and simpleton.

 

[Tangband]

Which is not true of course. Happy to see some evidence, like a null test, which proves otherwise.

Well, just look at the cheapest mini dsp and some of the dirac devices , all measured already by Amirm with less resolution result than CD quality. They are not transparent, and the sound will be clearer without using them. Many use those to correct their systems In the belief they are good. Much greater results can be gained by correct installation of the stereo speakers In the room, using tunemethod.

 

[DLS79]

The steps are pretty daunting and technical for beginner like me, also price of UMIK-1 is almost double compared to say US and most importantly, I like the sound of current setup and placement.

It can be pretty straightforward.

 

[Tangband]

I've always considered myself an early adopter, perhaps even an avant-gardist, when it comes to hi-fi technology. Over the course of the hi-fi journey, there have been paradigm shifts – the transition to CDs, later embracing streaming, and the shift from bulky floor-standing speakers to sleek active monitors, just to name a few.

In my experience, I've found success in keeping my signal paths straightforward. I've been hesitant to transform my regular home listening environment into an acoustic laboratory with heavy computer usage or reliance on proprietary DSP products. Call me old-fashioned, but I value the simplicity of my setup.

Are there others out there who, like me, choose to forgo room correction, measurement microphones, and other sophisticated tools in favor of a more straightforward audio experience? I'd love to hear about your approaches, experiences, and the reasoning behind your decision.

Is simplicity still a virtue in the ever-evolving landscape of audio technology?

I have skipped dsp crossovers and many power amplifiers to use a single driver speakers with only one poweramp.I have put away my measurements microphone. The music is now more lifelike. Less is more.

 

[Geert]

Well, just look at the cheapest mini dsp and some of the dirac devices

Now you're talking hardware while initially you said "most roomcorrection programs change the music quality for the worse". There's a lot of hardware available that performs perfect. It doesn't take much more then a PC with one of the popular DRC programs connected to a decent DAC.

Much greater results can be gained by correct installation of the stereo speakers In the room, using tunemethod.

That doesn't take into account lots of people don't have the room to place the speakers at the most optimal position. And if they would, the result would not even come close to what EQ-ing can achieve.

 

[Tangband]

Now you're talking hardware while initially you said "most roomcorrection programs change the music quality for the worse". There's a lot of hardware available that performs perfect. It doesn't take much more then a PC with one of the popular DRC programs connected to a decent DAC.



That doesn't take into account lots of people don't have the room to place the speakers at the most optimal position. And if they would, the result would not even come close to what EQ-ing can achieve.

Agree, but an optimal loudspeaker installation in a very good listening room dont need any eq.

 

[Timcognito]

It's so ironic that artists and sound engineers often try so hard to capture the the frequency robbing and enhancing aspects and reverberations of the room in a recording session and the enthusiasts try hard to mitigate theirs.

 

[pkane]

Well, just look at the cheapest mini dsp and some of the dirac devices , all measured already by Amirm with less resolution result than CD quality. They are not transparent, and the sound will be clearer without using them. Many use those to correct their systems In the belief they are good. Much greater results can be gained by correct installation of the stereo speakers In the room, using tunemethod.

By ignoring room EQ you're missing out on a lot. I find it incredible that some will spare no effort in swapping components, speakers, cables, fuses, even power outlets, etc., spending tons of time and money on trying to improve the sound of their system while ignoring the most direct, most obvious (and really, the most effective and inexpensive in comparison) tool that really works.