My system is too accurate
- Thread starter taters
- Start date
..my system is too accurate is akin to saying my manhood is too large
...then there's this.
P
Very well said Mark.
As with all things in life, too much of a good thing can compromise / destroy that which you are seeking.
The key to success is balance and common sense.
My room is definitely on the live side of the equation but I have no desire to install additional acoustic treatments.
It sounds just fine the way it is.
GG
So we've made no progress in room acoustic innovation in thirty years? I beg to differ. Your response is a bit of a subjective cop out.
GG-I'm glad to hear you are happy with the sound of your room. I would rather be a little on the live side than a little on the dull side as well.
I don't see where Myles said that no progress has been made in room acoustic innovation in 30 years. All I took away from what he has said is that he has heard plenty of expensive rooms sound like crap.
Totally disagree ... in fact, he supplies the direct answer within his description; which remains consistent with mastering quality.
Again; no amount of room acoustic treatment will remedy that problem, which is a tangent that's truly unrelated to the problem at hand.
tb1
I wholeheartedly agree, and I had an excellent experience letting professionals design my room treatment. I followed the custom design by ASC (Acoustic Sciences Corp., which makes the original tube traps), and I might go so far as to say that it was the single most important upgrade to my system. Relative to other potential upgrades, the expense of 5 and a half K was modest; it bought me 6 tube traps [3 stacks of 2 behind my speakers] and 11 sound panels spread across the room.
But even after an expense of less than 3 K (2 tube traps and 11 sound panels) the result had already been spectacular, see my review:
http://www.acousticsciences.com/goodwins-hi-end-customers-review
(For expenses, I am not counting the subtrap which, while it made a difference, was not essential for my room. After the review I also upgraded to a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC.)
Last edited:
Sorry I did not specify what is "Level 1" in exact terms - and here you will immediately find people disagree and are very ambiguous. Usually "Level 1" does not include diffusors, as proper diffusors are expensive, it only includes absorbers that have very selective and uncontrolled absorption.
My point is that this general, non qualified level of treatment does more bad than good. Although forums can not be considered as being representative, they are filled with many people belonging to one of two groups - the dissatisfied with level 1, that after getting proper acoustic treatment become a lot happier, and those who install half a dozen of small absorbents and find miraculous improvements in their systems. As usual, my comments address stereo, not multi-channel.
Depends on the kind of music. Pop and rock, perhaps, but many classical recordings of the last 15-20 years are excellent, and I have hardly heard any that I would characterize as 'poor'.
My wife is too hot and I make way too much money.
..my system is too accurate is akin to saying my manhood is too large
I guess we are now talking about 2 different things. I am talking about SH's system. You are talking about the music that system is reproducing.
Btw, even poorly mastered material can sound good in a good system. The true test of a real upgrade is to ask whether the upgrade makes ALL music sound better.
Btw, even poorly mastered material can sound good in a good system. The true test of a real upgrade is to ask whether the upgrade makes ALL music sound better.
What you talkin bout willis? How can music be poorly mastered but still sound good in a "good system?" If you have a terrible recording, it should sound terrible regardless of the system. If you have a system that you can feed with garbage and it outputs wine and roses, something is amiss.
Well as an example,
my current system actually is the first time I managed to enjoy albums by Adele, the enjoyment is a result from an improvement with my system in terms of resolution-detail without further compounding some of the issues within the recording (or other recording-masterings).
I thought it would sound worse with a better resolving-neutral system, but ironically it does sound good (within its constraints) and more enjoyable.
Cheers
Orb
The disconnect here is that I believe there are NOT many terrible mastering jobs. I think there is better and worse but very little terrible. The biggest limitation in most playback chain is not the music. It's the listener's system, of which the room/speaker interaction plays the biggest roll. So, it's just an excuse, most of the time, when listeners blame the mastering or recording and not their own system when they don't like the sound. That's my opinion. It's prolly not gonna change.
I was fortunate enough to have a friend who was the sales manager for Telarc and then Warner Bros. music. Thus, I was gifted several hundred CDs as promo copies. For years, I had low opinions of many of the Virgin Classics classical music releases. I found them "flat", with little life and limited soundstage. In the last few years, with improvements to my system and a bit more care on acoustical treatments (although limited in my application), I found new appreciation for many of these recordings. Soundstage dimensions and localization improved significantly, and this was with the "same old CD".
I suspect that many folks find nirvana after adding their first layer of bass traps/absorbers because they improve the low-frequency linearity of their playback system at the listening position. I found a considerable increase in transparency after judicious application of low-frequency EQ, using a spectrum analyzer tool and pink noise. This change allows much more "see-through" clarity, as the muddiness of room-resonant bass peaks is reduced or eliminated.
So, I must concur with dallasjustice that recordings we first judge as terrible may be merely "good", while the great recordings will be incredible through a more linear system/room environment.
Lee
I suspect that many folks find nirvana after adding their first layer of bass traps/absorbers because they improve the low-frequency linearity of their playback system at the listening position. I found a considerable increase in transparency after judicious application of low-frequency EQ, using a spectrum analyzer tool and pink noise. This change allows much more "see-through" clarity, as the muddiness of room-resonant bass peaks is reduced or eliminated.
So, I must concur with dallasjustice that recordings we first judge as terrible may be merely "good", while the great recordings will be incredible through a more linear system/room environment.
Lee
I don't know how you can honestly say there aren't many really poorly mastered recordings out there unless you've completely ignored pop/rock/jazz/country for the last 10-15 yrs. I've checked out a lot, and a dynamic range of 4-6 (i.e. peak amplitude above rms amplitude - in dB's - in the loudest parts of the music) is common, as is a frequency spectrum with the average amplitude from 5-15 kHz equal to or louder than the 300 - 2000 Hz range. IME, the better the system the worse a recording like that sounds, but from an iPod with average 'phones it can sound OK.
Well, when someone specifically says he is only addressing classical music he is really ignoring pop/rock/jazz/country ...
Why do you think that F. Toole used the expression "but as they say, perhaps it is “good enough for rock-and-roll.” " to address poor listening conditions?
check out Abbado's recent Beethoven cycle for some not so good sounding classical mastering, particularly distressing since the performances are excellent. I agree, though, it's much less common away from the pop/rock genre, but a distressing amount of recent jazz and acoustic music also has mastering similar to pop/rock, although because of the inherent nature of the music it isn't as immediately noticeable or as objectionable (except in the absolute sense, where it's even more annoying because the music could sound really good).
Similar threads
