NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 937
Everyone wants a single-curve solution. It is not possible.
The same for motion picture curves.
Everyone wants a single-curve solution. It is not possible.
Let me add a small note on rooms and acoustics etc, albeit highly subjective and anecdotic. I recently installed the most excellent 8C speakers from Dutch & Dutch in a very temporary listening room, an unused attic at my parents house. Picture here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dutch-dutch-8cs.2299/page-14#post-79181
The acoustics in this room is fairly horrible. It has helped a lot to throw in all the extra stuff I could find, plus carpets, but still. Way to small, the sloping ceilings are too low, etc. But here's the strange thing: the more I listen here, the less the acoustics bother me. It seems like my brain is increasingly filtering out the room, and focusing on the sound coming out of the speakers. My brain perceives the stereo image as ever sharper. It's like I'm learning to deal with what the room does to the sound.
That doesn't mean that it wouldn't sound better in a spacious and furnished room. Of course it would. But it does seem like my brain is able to deal with listening in even this most horrible of rooms.
Now I haven't tried full range room correction here yet. I've only just started playing with adjusting the bass though the built-in DSP equalizer in the 8Cs. But I'm not sure that I would want for these speakers to try and take the room out of the equation now. I suspect that it would add an ever so slight layer of artificiality - beceause the speakers would not actually sound like they were playing in this particular room anymore. And would I want that? It would create a disconnect between what my eyes are seeing; what my ears hear from other sounds in the room, and what my ears hear from the speakers.
It is pretty well known that A style sloping ceilings in a room are especially problematical no matter how good the speakers may be. But, yes, you can get used to most anything, even a stone that has hopped into your shoe while walking down the road.
I am totally in agreement with Dr. Toole and many others that by far the biggest payoff of DSP EQ is in the low bass. Above 500 Hz or so, DSP EQ is more controversial. Nontheless, in some circumstances and with better EQ tools, it might have benefits worthy of trying for experimentation. I have found that valuable, myself.
My take on it:CURVES, DIRECT SOUND AND STEADY-STATE AS BASIS FOR ROOM COMPENSATION
I guess this discussion started with "curves". And what has come thereafter, may be a result of how you define "curves".
This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Just after I started the thread, @Floyd Toole wrote about his meeting with late Ilpo Martikainen, founder of Genelec, in the 1980s. Floyd told ASR members that Ilpo "had been following my NRCC research and papers and was eager to demonstrate to me how well he had applied the findings". The ASR reader gets the impression that this was a one-way communication between Ilpo and Floyd, where Floyd was the one illuminating Ilpo; not being there, how could we know if it was not a two-way communication? Conveniently, dead men don't talk.
Rigt after that, Floyd writes that "for anyone willing to exercise a modicum of independent, logical, thought can use his products to generate fine sound", as if Genelec were just a one-man shop (my underlying of "his").
Floyd also states that "I assume for business reasons, Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it". In other words, Floyd insinuated that Genelec follows the money ("business reasons") and not science. Remember, this is a thread on "Genelec on audio science", so insinuation that Genelec is non-science oriented, but rather dollars-oriented, is interesting.
Then, Floyd writes that it "has been a while since I reviewed their product specifications*, but the answer to your question will be there. If the loudspeaker has a flattish on-axis frequency response, which theirs tended to have, then in a normally reflective room the steady-state room curve will tilt downwards. This is explained in detail in my book. To make that flat means equalizing the speaker, and this will yield an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards". (My underlining).
So what is the reader to take from this? Well, Floyd insinuates that:
1) Ilpo's discussion with Floyd in the 1980s was a one-way communication (with only Floyd giving the input to Ilpo).
2) Genelec uses steady-state measurements to yield "an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards".
These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?
Then I tried to bring a new aspect into the debate on room compensation products, where the Direct Sound (DS) is separated from, controlled for the Steady-State sound (SS). Because what happens if the room compensation product focuses on Direct Sound (DS), instead of Steady-Sate (SS)? Floyd seems to be focusing on DSP products that look at SS, but what if a DSP product looks at DS? Has Floyd considered that possibility (i.e. Direct Sound oriented room compensation)?
Well, it's convenient to only look at SS if all previous research has been focussed on SS and pink noise. If a new factor enters the scene, i.e. DS, could it be that the old research should be extended to include DS as well?
For ASR readers, based on reader comments, it seems like Direct Sound (in room) is something new, something they haven't thought of; a factor they are not aware of, so a non-factor. Say a DSP product compensates for Direct Sound. Now, we have an interesting situation; because we now have a DSP product which compensates for a factor people are not aware of. And if a DSP product compensates for a factor not known to (most) people, this should yield - in the ignorants' world - nothing. Compensating for a non-factor shouldn't yield anything, right?
Floyd writes that he has done lots of research on direct sound, in anechoic chambers. But this is research on speakers only, right? He didn't put people in anechoic chamber, right? I can't see from his books or articles that he has studied DSP products that control for reflections, i.e. Direct Sound in room (and not in anechoic chamber) as opposed to Steady-State (SS).
My point is this:
So I wondered on what basis does one come to that conclusion that DS compensation is flawed?
- According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story".
-------
*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
CURVES, DIRECT SOUND AND STEADY-STATE AS BASIS FOR ROOM COMPENSATION
I guess this discussion started with "curves". And what has come thereafter, may be a result of how you define "curves".
This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Just after I started the thread, @Floyd Toole wrote about his meeting with late Ilpo Martikainen, founder of Genelec, in the 1980s. Floyd told ASR members that Ilpo "had been following my NRCC research and papers and was eager to demonstrate to me how well he had applied the findings". The ASR reader gets the impression that this was a one-way communication between Ilpo and Floyd, where Floyd was the one illuminating Ilpo; not being there, how could we know if it was not a two-way communication? Conveniently, dead men don't talk.
Rigt after that, Floyd writes that "for anyone willing to exercise a modicum of independent, logical, thought can use his products to generate fine sound", as if Genelec were just a one-man shop (my underlying of "his").
Floyd also states that "I assume for business reasons, Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it". In other words, Floyd insinuated that Genelec follows the money ("business reasons") and not science. Remember, this is a thread on "Genelec on audio science", so insinuation that Genelec is non-science oriented, but rather dollars-oriented, is interesting.
Then, Floyd writes that it "has been a while since I reviewed their product specifications*, but the answer to your question will be there. If the loudspeaker has a flattish on-axis frequency response, which theirs tended to have, then in a normally reflective room the steady-state room curve will tilt downwards. This is explained in detail in my book. To make that flat means equalizing the speaker, and this will yield an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards". (My underlining).
So what is the reader to take from this? Well, Floyd insinuates that:
1) Ilpo's discussion with Floyd in the 1980s was a one-way communication (with only Floyd giving the input to Ilpo).
2) Genelec uses steady-state measurements to yield "an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards".
These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?
Then I tried to bring a new aspect into the debate on room compensation products, where the Direct Sound (DS) is separated from, controlled for the Steady-State sound (SS). Because what happens if the room compensation product focuses on Direct Sound (DS), instead of Steady-Sate (SS)? Floyd seems to be focusing on DSP products that look at SS, but what if a DSP product looks at DS? Has Floyd considered that possibility (i.e. Direct Sound oriented room compensation)?
Well, it's convenient to only look at SS if all previous research has been focussed on SS and pink noise. If a new factor enters the scene, i.e. DS, could it be that the old research should be extended to include DS as well?
For ASR readers, based on reader comments, it seems like Direct Sound (in room) is something new, something they haven't thought of; a factor they are not aware of, so a non-factor. Say a DSP product compensates for Direct Sound. Now, we have an interesting situation; because we now have a DSP product which compensates for a factor people are not aware of. And if a DSP product compensates for a factor not known to (most) people, this should yield - in the ignorants' world - nothing. Compensating for a non-factor shouldn't yield anything, right?
Floyd writes that he has done lots of research on direct sound, in anechoic chambers. But this is research on speakers only, right? He didn't put people in anechoic chamber, right? I can't see from his books or articles that he has studied DSP products that control for reflections, i.e. Direct Sound in room (and not in anechoic chamber) as opposed to Steady-State (SS).
My point is this:
So I wondered on what basis does one come to that conclusion that DS compensation is flawed?
- According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story".
-------
*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
I hope you'll still be contributing to other threads, though...If you had read my book completely, and understood it, I would not have been referring to it to answer your questions. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .
As for EQing direct sound, if one was to do it accurately, one will have achieved an improved on-axis/listening window (direct sound) frequency response. This of course is best done back at the factory, and best implemented in dedicated DSP. Lacking that, in-room measurements can assist over some, but not all, of the frequency range. As I said in the book, active loudspeakers have significant advantages.
I did not say, and do not believe that, as you said: "According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story". So again, you have not read and/or understood what I have written.
When I met Ilpo, he was about 10 years my junior and he was just beginning his corporate journey. I had a full time job as a research scientist, and had several years of experience in the audio field. He was very interested to learn what had been found. We got along very well - if you choose to believe me - but it was, from a scientific point of view, one way conversation. What transpired in our separate careers later on are independent stories, and peer reviewed publications exist to tell the tales. Always I had a respect for Genelec and its commitment to portray honest looking anechoic data on their loudspeakers.
You seem not to be able to understand that if one aims for a flat in-room steady-state curve (which is a requirement of the ITU and EBU standards) that the result is an upward tilted on-axis/ direct sound curve. The only situations in which this is not true is when listening in a dominant direct sound situation, as in the extreme near field or in an anechoic space. It is the standards that are wrong, not the loudspeakers - as I said in an earlier post. Is this Genelec's fault? No.
I find myself in a situation of repeating what is already in my papers and the books. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .
You said, sarcastically, "These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?" Wrong! These particular Finns make cracking good loudspeakers, which, if properly used, yield excellent sound. So do several other manufacturers who have followed the science. The rest is up to consumers.
I'm outta here, bye.
It must be extremely frustrating to scientists like Toole to try explain hisI hope you'll still be contributing to other threads, though...
I don't particularly know Genelec. Do their speakers sound as amazing as their cult status suggests they should?
I just meant that you could arrive at many different destinations through the choice of which measurements you 'believe in'. They talk about selecting the measurements most relevant to professional audio, but how did they come to decide which were the most relevant? Their "truth" and "facts" are based just as much on subjective choices as anyone else's.
In my book both direct and steady-state sound are shown, explained and discussed in considerable detail.
If you don't want to buy the book, the basics are explained in this open-access AES paper:
Toole, F. E. (2015). “The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 63, pp.512-541. This is an open-access paper available to non-members at www.aes.org. Just go to "publications" , "open access" and type in "Toole" - too lazy to get the link, sorry
We would all find it very frustrating if Dr. Toole left the forum because of some discussion over Genelec. There is so much we can learn from him. So let's show him highest levels of respect. It is not like the Genelec designers are coming over here to teach as much as he is.*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
We would all find it very frustrating if Dr. Toole left the forum because of some discussion over Genelec. There is so much we can learn from him. So let's show him highest levels of respect. It is not like the Genelec designers are coming over here to teach as much as he is.
As to his book, it is mandatory reading in my book. You can disagree with it if you like but it has more useful information about audio than the combination of every other book I have read.
Possibly, but this is on their web site:I'll wager you are very off point with that. Their truth and facts are based in research, repeatability, psychoacoustics, known laws of physics.
The whole previous discussion with Dr. Toole was about the validity of that notion. The user may choose not to avail themselves of the above equalisation, of course, and FT was happy to say that the speakers are excellent if you don't, but it is clear that Genelec:All Genelec loudspeaker systems feature room response adjustments to compensate for the room influences and retrieve a flat frequency response at the listening position.
That's a very "intellectual" description..? When I have heard speakers I have liked, my reaction has been more along the lines of how "rich" and "real" they make the music sound - which I know to be the results of neutrality, but neutrality is not what I 'hear'. Compared to some of the descriptions I have seen in reviews of Kii, D&D, B&O, your description is very restrained. I'm still getting the impression that Genelec appeal to people because of their scientific credentials and supposedly impeccable measurements rather than gut-wrenching sound..?...when we heard the 8260A we were extremely impressed by its neutrality and low distortion.