The Intellectual People Podcast - Mitch Barnett of Accurate Sound

[Sonnie Parker]

NO. This is what the 99% seemingly can't grasp. The "in room" at LP is what you/the mic sees, NOT what you hear (>500hz). Please keep reading Tooles book. Its the classic error. Thus the "corrections" are for what you "see", NOT what your 2 ears/brain hear. I've shown the preference scores before for this type error. Makes no sense to continue, the Einstein thing again.

cheers

I'd be very surprised that the mic and REW are showing us something that is vastly or even significantly different than what we are hearing. Not saying it ain't so... just saying I'd be surprised.

None the less... I am willing to do the comparison without knowing which is which, then decide what I like based on what I actually hear. Then look at what I heard and I will know if I actually like what I am seeing.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I'd be very surprised that the mic and REW are showing us something that is vastly or even significantly different than what we are hearing. Not saying it ain't so... just saying I'd be surprised.

Covered already

Of course I have no control over whether one actually reads the fully explanatory post linked, much less thread.
An omni mic detects summed pressures. That's it.

cheers

 

[AJ Soundfield]

None the less... I am willing to do the comparison without knowing which is which, then decide what I like based on what I actually hear. Then look at what I heard and I will know if I actually like what I am seeing.

Start with a neutral speaker. EQ below 500hz, remove <500 peaks from equation. No one argues different.
Use magic EQ with mic at LP as directed to mangle the neutrality but make eyes happy with a buttery smooth "house curve" or similar nonsense, at LP. Compare mangled neutral vs neutral.
If you want to see mangled neutral, measure quasi-anechoic 1m spin, with magic EQ applied.

cheers

 

[JStewart]

Use magic EQ with mic at LP as directed to mangle the neutrality but make eyes happy with a buttery smooth "house curve" or similar nonsense, at LP. Compare mangled neutral vs neutral.

I’m not understanding this. Assuming room effects are not part of the equation above 500Hz then any magic eq system should be using low q filters to match the response to the target. This is essentially a treble control behavior which Dr. Toole says is Ok to adjust tonality with. I assume because low q filters will change the off axis response equally, so if one was starting with a speaker that has good spin measurements, i.e. a speaker with similar off axis response and a smooth directivity index, the relationship between on and off axis would remain and reflections will not color the sound (significantly).

It’s also my understanding that if using eq above 500Hz with a speaker having poor spin measurements then the opposite might be true and eq could make it sound worse even when adjusting for a single listening position.

Two of the 3 most popular room correction systems, ARC and Dirac, have always offered limited correction range. Audyssey now does the same, so clearly they understand the issues at hand. Beyond that isn’t it up to the consumer to figure out what sounds best to them? And is there a right and wrong for preference?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Two of the 3 most popular room correction systems, ARC and Dirac, have always offered limited correction range. Audyssey now does the same, so clearly they understand the issues at hand.

Wait, what issue? The problems with >500Hz LP EQ? That would strongly indicate so IMO. Yet...

I’m not understanding this. Assuming room effects are not part of the equation above 500Hz

They are absolutely part of equation at >3m Listening Position outside an anechoic chamber, which I though you/they understood??

any magic eq system should be using low q filters to match the response to the target.

Which is complete nonsense, since there is no such IN ROOM AT >3M >500hz "TARGET".
I've shown you the real "target". It's the 1M anechoic (or quasi) spin. You can't "reverse engineer" that at >3m with data corrupted by random room effects, blind to random speaker directionality and fit some magic X curve.
But that's exactly what is done! lol

This is essentially a treble control behavior which Dr. Toole says is Ok to adjust tonality with.

No sir. This is purely misguided "speaker" response correction, nothing like a typical tone control shelving filter at all, for program material

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Covered already

Exactly... I'm repeating myself.

The bottom line is do whatever you like and if it sounds good to you, don't worry about what Toole or anyone else says. If you like it... you like it... period... that's what really matters.

I know I've been to all the audio shows and haven't found anything yet that sounds any better than my room (most don't sound as good), and majority of those have no correction applied.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The bottom line is do whatever you like and if it sounds good to you, don't worry about what Toole or anyone else says. If you like it... you like it... period... that's what really matters.

Without OCDing on the minutiae?? What would be the fun in that??

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Without OCDing on the minutiae?? What would be the fun in that??

Well I can only OCD so much you know... I'm already 1/3 crazy... working on half.

 

[jtwrace]

Start with a neutral speaker. EQ below 500hz, remove <500 peaks from equation. No one argues different.
Use magic EQ with mic at LP as directed to mangle the neutrality but make eyes happy with a buttery smooth "house curve" or similar nonsense, at LP. Compare mangled neutral vs neutral.
If you want to see mangled neutral, measure quasi-anechoic 1m spin, with magic EQ applied.

cheers

OK, so one starts with a "perfect" CD speaker. Room is awful. Treated and all...still can't get > 500Hz better after treatment and blending multiple subs so they eq. You're still opposed to that? Just asking.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

OK, so one starts with a "perfect" CD speaker. Room is awful. Treated and all...still can't get > 500Hz better after treatment and blending multiple subs so they eq. You're still opposed to that? Just asking.

That's what a handful of folks will tell you, because that bright peak that you are measuring really isn't what hearing, even though you can't sit and listen for more than a few minutes because it hurts your ears. However, if you ask 95% of the audio world, you should EQ it in some fashion, even though you don't really know what to EQ because the mic won't really tell you... or so it seems.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Finished watching the video and thought it was good information. I think Mitch has studied it well and doesn't necessarily agree with all the auto-EQ systems that are employed in our processors, hence he approaches it in a different method. He and I are going to work together on my system and see how it compares to Dirac. As he stated he has customers who he furnished partial EQ up to a certain frequency and full EQ, and 99% of the ended up preferring the sound of the full-EQ, and it was fully their choice.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

OK, so one starts with a "perfect" CD speaker. Room is awful. Treated and all...still can't get > 500Hz better after treatment

I am not aware of any such study where neutral (perfect?) speaker was placed in a non-pathological domestic space/room and perceived as "awful" by "normal" (Sane?) listeners. Can you provide a link? I have AES and ASA membership, so can view most of the research out there.
I am aware of a whole bunch of valid evidence to the complete opposite. 'Ears" variety though. I have numerous times linked the results of "AVing+" and of course they are markedly different.

blending multiple subs so they eq. You're still opposed to that? Just asking.

Nope, never ever been opposed to blending subs and EQ <500hz. Advocate such since the beginning.
Actually, never been against EQ >500hz if it makes you money and/or an Enticing Marketing Story customer happy. Same goes for fancy amps, cables, tube connectors, etc, etc, etc.
Many folks swear by them and are happier with, despite what "science" says. Happiness is bliss. I'm ok with personal bliss.
YMMV

cheers

 

[jtwrace]

I am not aware of any such study where neutral (perfect?) speaker was placed in a non-pathological domestic space/room and perceived as "awful" by "normal" (Sane?) listeners. Can you provide a link? I have AES and ASA membership, so can view most of the research out there.
I am aware of a whole bunch of valid evidence to the complete opposite. 'Ears" variety though. I have numerous times linked the results of "AVing+" and of course they are markedly different.

It's a question, not a challenge.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I answered. Was it hypothetical, or...??

 

[jtwrace]

I answered. Was it hypothetical, or...??

Indeed it was

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Indeed it was

Gotcha. Ok, option
A) EQ >500 and make oneself happier, who cares what Toole. et al say..
B) See a shrink.
B >$ than A, so A seems the more reasonable choice. IMHO.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Btw, there's no EQ police (yet that I'm aware of).
Sonnie and I both had smiley face EQ on our in /under dash 7 band graphic eq car stereos back in the 80s.
No one one smashed down our front door waving Tooles law and said, busted, we gotcha now buddy.
Just sayin'