Frequency response is everything!?...

[Al M.]

The OP criticized the usefulness of frequency response charts. I challenged that using scientific data & by relating my personal experience. Which of my statements was dogmatic?

I did not mean that; your post #7 was fine. My response was a general one to Gregadd.

Having said that, I think your stance on power cords is pretty dogmatic. I used to share it, not anymore, but we have discussed that.

 

[Gregadd]

In what ways do you believe that Toole et al. have it wrong about acoustics and/or psychoacoustics? What's a better approach?

Gee. Another rabbit hole. They get it wrong where the rubber meets the road. The science sounds goods. The product, not so much. Then they tell me there product is fine, there is something wrong with me. That is putting it succinctly.

 

[henrich3]

Gee. Another rabbit hole. They get it wrong where the rubber meets the road. The science sounds goods. The product, not so much. Then they tell me there product is fine, there is something wrong with me. That is putting it succinctly.

Your initial posts had been critical of Harman's psychoacoustic study conclusions. Now it sounds like you didn't really have a problem with those, rather you just had a bad experience when you bought a sub-standard Harman product that they refused to stand behind. Yes?

 

[Gregadd]

it's probably not fair to you. I have been there done that. Perhaps someone else can take this further.

 

[PeterA]

What I wonder about is whether or not dogmatism increases or decreases as one gains more knowledge and experience. Some seem to gravitate toward an approach over time. Open mindedness may continue, but preferences are better understood, targets named, and methods to achieve them defined and followed.

 

[henrich3]

it's probably not fair to you. I have been there done that. Perhaps someone else can take this further.

Ok. Moving right along...

 

[racerxnet]

Ok. Moving right along...

Looks like you are welcomed aboard, all the whille they are pushing you out the door. They crow about how DSP ruins the sound reproduction, but never consider speakers designed with DSP integrated into them. Kii come to mind as well as many others. I supppse they would not fit any needs in this forum. Good luck and maybe check out ASR, CA, or other sites on the objective side of things. Im sure they will show someone the door.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Honestly, this post isn't about much other than my need to vent out about those who insist there's no more to audio performance than frequency response.

There certainly is more to enjoying music than frequency response.

 

[henrich3]

Looks like you are welcomed aboard, all the whille they are pushing you out the door. They crow about how DSP ruins the sound reproduction, but never consider speakers designed with DSP integrated into them. Kii come to mind as well as many others. I supppse they would not fit any needs in this forum. Good luck and maybe check out ASR, CA, or other sites on the objective side of things. Im sure they will show someone the door.

I do post more on another forum where my more "science-minded" posts are viewed as non-controversial. All the same, it's interesting to read things here written from a subjectivist audiophile's perspective. I do occasionally offer up alternate viewpoints in areas of interest like this frequency response thread or another "Audio Critique" thread where my thoughts about the merits of blind testing being a solution to the problem of expectation bias weren't particularly appreciated.

DSP / room correction is another valuable tool to get one's audio system closer to reality. Unfortunately it seems like many here believe that adding another device to the audio chain corrupts the purity of the audio, rather than seeing it as a tool that offers far greater benefits than whatever negligible losses accompany it. The frequency response problems seen when you put even the finest speakers & components in a room make it extremely challenging to achieve accurate sound unless the listening room has been very well treated with acoustic products, you use a good DSP solution, or both. I'll continue to toss out occasional objectivist suggestions here. I doubt that they'll resonate with most of the folks who post here, but that's fine. Different strokes...

 

[racerxnet]

I do post more on another forum where my more "science-minded" posts are viewed as non-controversial. All the same, it's interesting to read things here written from a subjectivist audiophile's perspective. I do occasionally offer up alternate viewpoints in areas of interest like this frequency response thread or another "Audio Critique" thread where my thoughts about the merits of blind testing being a solution to the problem of expectation bias weren't particularly appreciated.

DSP / room correction is another valuable tool to get one's audio system closer to reality. Unfortunately it seems like many here believe that adding another device to the audio chain corrupts the purity of the audio, rather than seeing it as a tool that offers far greater benefits than whatever negligible losses accompany it. The frequency response problems seen when you put even the finest speakers & components in a room make it extremely challenging to achieve accurate sound unless the listening room has been very well treated with acoustic products, you use a good DSP solution, or both. I'll continue to toss out occasional objectivist suggestions here. I doubt that they'll resonate with most of the folks who post here, but that's fine. Different strokes...

I visit occasionally here only for the Genesis forum and that's about it. The staunch subjectivist mindset is as impenetrable as the objectivist. I would hope that the blending of the 2 can be the best of both worlds. I don't see it here at all ( common ground). One can consider room treatments as DSP in a sense that you are shaping the frequency, impulse, phase and other attributes that one hears. I used REW and Rephase in the past and moved to Audiolense. Mitchco has a book out on filter design and the use of DSP. He posts at CA occasionally and does a great job in providing filters for your application. How one reaches their goals is as wide and varied as nature.

MAK

 

[microstrip]

You say that you have no criticism of them, but then imply that they're not highly accomplished individuals. They are. Toole's book "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" is considered the bible of acoustic research by many. It includes studies done by Olive, Welti, and other distinguished acousticians. Anyway, no need for me to defend these gurus in the field of acoustics. You're free to your opinions...

Surely the Toole book is a reference in sound reproduction. It includes material from hundreds of audio scientists who carried great work, IMHO some of them much more relevant than the two people you refer. However in this forum we debate mostly the high-end stereo reproduction, something that is ignored in the book.

 

[henrich3]

Surely the Toole book is a reference in sound reproduction. It includes material from hundreds of audio scientists who carried great work, IMHO some of them much more relevant than the two people you refer. However in this forum we debate mostly the high-end stereo reproduction, something that is ignored in the book.

Knowledge derived from studies on acoustics & psychoacoustics certainly should play a role in designing any high-end stereo or multi-channel listening room, as well as in correcting & tuning the sound (DSP). Just plopping high-end equipment into an untreated room and not correcting acoustic problems will not provide optimal results.

 

[racerxnet]

Surely the Toole book is a reference in sound reproduction. It includes material from hundreds of audio scientists who carried great work, IMHO some of them much more relevant than the two people you refer. However in this forum we debate mostly the high-end stereo reproduction, something that is ignored in the book.

Does the science/scientist of those mentioned above apply to low-fi, mid-fi, and hi-fi ? Yes/No.. I don't understand the "high end reproduction, something that is ignored in the book". Elaborate on what's missing. It sounds like snob appeal in the forum. And the usual reply is that measurements/science cannot tell you everything, but are good enough to make everyone's life easier. Subjectively of course.

 

[Al M.]

Just plopping high-end equipment into an untreated room and not correcting acoustic problems will not provide optimal results.

Totally agree. I have worked on my room and set-up for years.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The staunch subjectivist mindset is as impenetrable as the objectivist. I would hope that the blending of the 2 can be the best of both worlds. I don't see it here at all ( common ground).

I think a lot of comments on this thread, including those from MikeL and me, are proof of at least some common ground.

 

[audiofull]

Welcome at WBF!

I understand where you're coming from, I too find this quasi-religious and contentious insistence on certain things is irksome.
OTOH, a FR measurement can be very useful, especially when one knows how it correlates with what one's hearing --
People seem to forget that the primary objective of a music system is to enjoy listening to music; not to satisfy a FR curve expectation.
Unless one has expressed listening preferences as a specific FR curve

Thank you, Greg.

Yes, indeed it is useful, although it isn't the whole picture, just part of it.

 

[audiofull]

I've been around hi-fi for several decades but to be frank I've never read or heard discussion regarding frequency response as such - at least not for 2 or 3 decades.

In this day and age, all amps should be easily capable of delivering the full audible frequency range within a dB or two. If you are talking about some people’s obsession with "measurements", then I'm totally with you. I really don't care what my microphone says my audio is like by looking at a computer screen - I care solely on how much I'm enjoying the sound I hear from my speakers. The more I feel I'm listening to the live performance, the better.

Obsession with so called "room correction DSP" is often an excuse to not bother setting speakers up properly or considering the room's furnishings. The SP in DSP stands for Signal Processing and the last think your precious signal needs is more processing than is absolutely necessary. These DSPs are very complex circuits and although bass frequency response may be flattened out, the top end (that doesn't need "room correction") also has to suffer this processor if the DSP is built into a full-range amp. If I engage Dirac Live that ADJUSTS only sub 500 Hz, I distinctly notice that the top end loses some of its sparkle and goose-bump factor. This is down to the processor, so I don't engage it. Leave DSP to the AV guys or when the signal is crossed over before it goes to a bass-only amp (with DSP) and a rest-of-range amp (with no DSP)!

I stay away from DSP, upsampling/over-sampling, and other "enhancements". I like my music signals pure, and not tampered with.

 

[audiofull]

I can tell a lot about how much I would enjoy listening to an audio system based on how it measures in a frequency response chart. For example, I know from experience that a flat frequency response will sound weak in the low end and too bright in the high end. Harman has studied what sounds good to most listeners in a typical room, and a smooth frequency response with a low end lift and a high end roll off usually sounds best. I can set whatever target curve I want in my audio processor and I've found that my preferences are in line with what Harman recommends:

---

A quality audio system should measure well in its frequency response, because that will tell you how accurate it is at reproducing music or whatever you are listening to. Beyond house curve preferences, if you have nulls or large peaks at certain frequencies, then your music will not be reproduced accurately. That's a problem that may take acoustic treatments, DSP / room correction, or multi-subs to solve. If you haven't taken the time to measure your FR, then you really don't know what the problems are in your system. Identifying the problems is the first step to fixing them.

That said, having a good frequency response does not tell the whole story. Listening tests are ultimately what needs to be satisfied to reach one's "happy place". Frequency response charts are just a tool to help you reach that happy place.

I kept being told I could read detail and resolution from measurements, but I have first hand experience of this not being the case. I would seek out headphones with identical graphs, only to find that they were wildly different in technical performance. I can use graphs to eliminate badly tuned products. A graph does tell me - often with high reliability - the quantity of each FR section, but I'd have to measure the quality with my own ears.

 

[Gregadd]

Build it and they will come..
There is a treasure of music in the music services. The industry and audiophiles have rented. Who would. have ever thought you would see this kind reaction to dfgital.
It is results that matter.

 

[audiofull]

Welcome to WBF, audiofull! We are delighted that you have joined us!

Sennheiser makes great headphones! Is most of your listening headphone-based?

PS: I had no idea that Reddit even was a thing for high-end audio. I am glad you have escaped that intellectual prison!

Hello, Ron.

Thank you for your warm welcome. And yes, I use mainly headphones due to living in a small flat. I'm searching for a house at the moment, so in the coming months I should start planning for a speaker-based system. I'm fascinated by omnidirectional speakers, I have friends with box speakers and sound-absorbing foam all over the walls and I'm not looking forward to it.

I'm happy you've never had to deal with reddit, good for you.