Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature (Read 79882 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #25 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Yahzi on
If it's 'correct' because it has a flat frequency response then you need to prove that a 'flat frequency response' is a requirement for being 'correct'.

Wow. Your scientific incompetence and poor understanding of even basic principals is so startling I don't even know where to begin nor do I have the time.

Bye.


I asked you to defend your claim and what do you do? You run away like a coward, in violation of the rules of this site! What a joke!

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger link=msg=0 date=
IMO the most 'Truly correct, accurate faithful high fidelity' system  is the one that provides balanced, wide range, pleasing sound with the widest variety of program sources.


If we use your definition, which is not a universally agreed definition, then a pleasing sound with the widest variety of program sources is at odds with a flat frequency response.

A flat frequency response can sound reedy, bass light and just plain thin. A house curve more accurately approximates a percetually flat response given our ears insensitivity to the lower frequency response.

Quote
It is more than that - it is a simplifying assumption. If we accept non-flat music players then we would have to tune the common parts of the system for each music player. If we demand that the music players be flat, then we can leave that vast area of complexity out of our system.  IMO that simplifying assumption is often but not always adhered to.  IME as the quality of the source goes up, the simplifying assumption is more frequently adhered to.


Very few people agree that a flat frequency response, acoustically, sounds good or pleasing. There is no contingent need for a flat frequency response for a pleasing sound and, in fact, I would argue that it is a contradiction in terms.

Quote
The above paragraph shows considerable ignorance of the realities of modern audio production. For example the monitoring systems used to control audio production tend to have pretty flat frequency response.


Where is the evidence of this? Show me that monitoring systems are set up for a flat response and I'm with you. All I see is rhetoric, and according to this forum you are required to back up your assertions, like everyone keeps telling me.

Quote
Control rooms are often acoustically treated to improve the smoothness and balance of the sound quality. Equalization is often used in monitoring systems.


There is no evidence that control systems are acoustically flat, or smooth.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
You need to have a system that is resolving enough to discern differences in DACs. An entry-level system that does not have sufficient resolution or transparency lacks the resolving power to clearly show subtle differences between DACs.


Quote from: Yahzi on
I asked you to defend your claim and what do you do? You run away like a coward, in violation of the rules of this site! What a joke!


Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Quote from: mzil link=msg=0 date=




The dynamic range of a system is maximized when its frequency response is flat. Stated another way, you can have a non-flat response but it will cost you resolution. Thus it is universally preferable (will always increase resolution) if the frequency of the device is flat.

Reading your posts I think you are extremely confused about how the frequency response of a DAC influences the performance of a real system. Now may be a good time to look into what an eq is used for and how it affects resolution in a digital system. I think this will help you understand why quality devices are designed with a flat response if at all possible.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #29 –
Quote from: saratoga link=msg=0 date=
The dynamic range of a system is maximized when its frequency response is flat. Stated another way, you can have a non-flat response but it will cost you resolution.


Please explain how the dynamic range is maximised with a flat frequency response.

Quote
Reading your posts I think you are extremely confused about how the frequency response of a DAC influences the performance of a real system.


I'm not confused. If the response is non-flat it can sound different. 

Quote
Now may be a good time to look into what an eq is used for and how it affects resolution in a digital system. I think this will help you understand why quality devices are designed with a flat response if at all possible.


So are you saying that a DAC with multiple filters is really just an EQ device with different presets?

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #30 –
Any deviation from a flat frequency response results in a dyanic range reduction equal to the magnitude of that deviation at that frequency. Therefore while you can have good performance from a nonflat response you could have had better performance if you didn't waste that dynamic range.

As for eq, you realize it stands for equalization right?  Think about why that is.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #31 –
All of this is a bit like saying: there is no god-given definition of what a calculator has to do, so mine rounds 0.5 down to 0 instead of up to 1. I prefer smaller numbers anyway.
"I hear it when I see it."

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Quote
Reading your posts I think you are extremely confused about how the frequency response of a DAC influences the performance of a real system.


I'm not confused. If the response is non-flat it can sound different. 


You're mixing up a lot of things.  The response of the system is the product of all the frequency responses of its components.  Usually the most nonlinear component (by far) is the room (for loudspeaker systems) and then the speakers themselves (or headphones if that is what you are using).  Somewhere much further down the line will be all the electronic components, as audio frequencies are very low, and it is quite simple to make electronics essentially perfect given such tiny bandwidths. 

Given the response of the room (or the response of your headphones), the ideal driving waveform from the output of your amp will not be flat.  Instead, it will have peaks and dips that smooth out the imperfections in your room (e.g. lets say your room has a strong 1khz resonance because you don't live in an anechoic chamber).  Equalization is ideally used to remove these frequency response artifacts by pre-compensating for these effects.  However, this compensation reduces the dynamic range of the system.  Therefore, you usually want to minimize the contribution to the loss of dynamic range from the electronics so that you have maximum range available for the room and speakers.  This is why DACs are designed to have the flattest possible frequency response:  it gives you more dynamic range for a given number of effective bits.

In practice though, modern DACs are essentially perfect.  We're only even having this conversation because they're so good that you don't even know what things like aperture error sound like.  Any difference between the output of two DACs you've ever heard was almost certainly from something other than the DAC.  People in audio have it so easy.  Unless your gear is just really bad, you can apply enough EQ to correct for almost anything.  Move up to GHz ADC/DAC and you then you get to find out what its like having 10 dB roll off at Nyquist, and what a few picoseconds of jitter (or a few millimeters of cable length mismatch!) really does.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In many cases there is a ready reference for judging the quality of a recording - the live sound of the instruments playing which is present even when the recording is ultimately multimiced and multitracked.

I would tend to agree:
http://www.iabmed.com/images/WifeWalkOut.jpg

Olive seems dismissive of using live vs recorded testing, in one of his writings [I could dig up if anyone needs it] but other than pointing out the shortcomings of earlier attempts at it last century and describing some of the great hurdles necessary to pull it off successfully, he never convinced me the basic premise itself isn't sound.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Yahzi on
If it's 'correct' because it has a flat frequency response then you need to prove that a 'flat frequency response' is a requirement for being 'correct'.

Wow. Your scientific incompetence and poor understanding of even basic principals is so startling I don't even know where to begin nor do I have the time.

Bye.


I asked you to defend your claim and what do you do? You run away like a coward, in violation of the rules of this site! What a joke!

OK then, here:
The largest audio publication in the world, Sound and Vision magazine on one of the most important concepts in high fidelity

"I often worry that people get the wrong idea when I praise a speaker for sounding "flat." By this I mean its frequency response is flat, which is a good thing."

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #35 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Yahzi on
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Yahzi on
If it's 'correct' because it has a flat frequency response then you need to prove that a 'flat frequency response' is a requirement for being 'correct'.

Wow. Your scientific incompetence and poor understanding of even basic principals is so startling I don't even know where to begin nor do I have the time.

Bye.


I asked you to defend your claim and what do you do? You run away like a coward, in violation of the rules of this site! What a joke!

OK then, here:
The largest audio publication in the world, Sound and Vision magazine on one of the most important concepts in high fidelity

"I often worry that people get the wrong idea when I praise a speaker for sounding "flat." By this I mean its frequency response is flat, which is a good thing."


Speaking for myself, I've never liked the sound of a flat frequency response. I've used several EQ devices in the past, could dial it in so that the response, at the seat, was flat from 20 Hz up to whatever frequency I desire.  It sounded very thin and bass light which made everything sound brighter than usual, giving the perception of treble predominance.

I don't think there are many people who agree that a flat frequency response actually sounds that great at all.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #36 –
Flat is always correct from the perspective of seeking faithful reproduction, however it's only desirable to the ear assuming the music distributed to us is itself flat, and it isn't, hence a slowly descending response towards the top end is usually desired by most people to make our modern day recordings sound not too bright. This has been known for years but the NRC [Toole, et al.] in the 1980's sort of ironed it all out.

I could explain how this odd state of affairs came to be, but it would be an uphill battle with so many newbs and audio mythology believers present, arguing against each and every step of the way, to understanding the "why" of the whole matter which goes back to the 50s/60s.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
You need to have a system that is resolving enough to discern differences in DACs. An entry-level system that does not have sufficient resolution or transparency lacks the resolving power to clearly show subtle differences between DACs.



By definition a system must be resolving enough to allow detection of a proposed difference...if it exists.  What's amusing but not in the least surprising, given your posting history, is that your implicit assumption than an 'entry level' system will not have such resolution, while an 'audiophile' one will. 

Is there any 'high end' nostrum you *don't* buy into and seek to defend here by any means necessary?

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Speaking for myself, I've never liked the sound of a flat frequency response. I've used several EQ devices in the past, could dial it in so that the response, at the seat, was flat from 20 Hz up to whatever frequency I desire.  It sounded very thin and bass light which made everything sound brighter than usual, giving the perception of treble predominance.


You're confusing flat measured frequency response as a performance characteristic of gear (which at the very least is desirable so we can be sure the system hardware is not coloring the signal), versus flat audible response at the listening position (which most do not prefer -- see 'house curve').

See also Sean Olive's work on loudspeaker preference vs EQ preference, for example, or, as always, Toole's book 'Sound Reproduction'.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Speaking for myself, I've never liked the sound of a flat frequency response.

So you prefer colored electrical signals?
If you are speaking of the acoustic domain, loudspeakers (generally) radiate two polar fields. Thousands of frequency responses. Which single one don't you like "flat"? Where?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #40 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Rich B on
Speaking for myself, I've never liked the sound of a flat frequency response. I've used several EQ devices in the past, could dial it in so that the response, at the seat, was flat from 20 Hz up to whatever frequency I desire.  It sounded very thin and bass light which made everything sound brighter than usual, giving the perception of treble predominance.


You're confusing flat measured frequency response as a performance characteristic of gear (which at the very least is desirable so we can be sure the system hardware is not coloring the signal), versus flat audible response at the listening position (which most do not prefer -- see 'house curve').

See also Sean Olive's work on loudspeaker preference vs EQ preference, for example, or, as always, Toole's book 'Sound Reproduction'.


I was talking about a flat audible response at the listening position. If the speakers are flat at the listening position, or if EQ is used to correct for a flat response at the listening position, then what am I confusing exactly? Bottom line, I don't like the sound of a flat sounding system at the listening position.

Quote
So you prefer colored electrical signals?


I don't like the sound of a flat sounding frequency response in a room, at the seat, listening to music. How much clearer can I get? I don't like it. Many people don't, I'm not alone. In fact I suspect the vast majority of people here do not have anywhere close to flat frequency response in the acoustic domain.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #41 –
Quote from: mzil on
Olive seems dismissive of using live vs recorded testing, in one of his writings [I could dig up if anyone needs it] but other than pointing out the shortcomings of earlier attempts at it last century and describing some of the great hurdles necessary to pull it off successfully, he never convinced me the basic premise itself isn't sound.

It's just so much hassle for .. nothing. Even if you could (I doubt it) eliminate all sources of bias you would see preference for a flatter frequency response, less distortion etc.


Quote from: Rich B on
Speaking for myself, I've never liked the sound of a flat frequency response.

Please do not confuse flat free-field response with in-room response!
"I hear it when I see it."

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #42 –
I disagree it is "just so much hassle, for nothing".

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Rich B on
I don't like the sound of a flat sounding frequency response in a room, at the seat, listening to music. How much clearer can I get? I don't like it. Many people don't, I'm not alone. In fact I suspect the vast majority of people here do not have anywhere close to flat frequency response in the acoustic domain.

Actually, I doubt anyone with normal hearing does. Where did you get the idea someone did, or was in any way referring to flat sound pressure at the ears, mid-far field?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #44 –
@mzil: Well, what would you want to find out? Also what relevance would the results have to listening to "normal" recordings? (after all you probably need to record the artist(s) in an anechoic chamber)
"I hear it when I see it."

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #45 –
Quote from: xnor on
@mzil: Well, what would you want to find out?

On the off chance this wasn't rhetorical and you were actually expecting an answer, don't hold your breath. I refuse to engage in conversations with people who have an established history of attacking me personally (as opposed to the argument itself) with completely unprovoked, abusive behavior such as when you publically called me a "moron":
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=872712

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Rich B on
I was talking about a flat audible response at the listening position. If the speakers are flat at the listening position, or if EQ is used to correct for a flat response at the listening position, then what am I confusing exactly? Bottom line, I don't like the sound of a flat sounding system at the listening position.

Quote
So you prefer colored electrical signals?


I don't like the sound of a flat sounding frequency response in a room, at the seat, listening to music. How much clearer can I get? I don't like it. Many people don't, I'm not alone. In fact I suspect the vast majority of people here do not have anywhere close to flat frequency response in the acoustic domain.

If I may take a shot at this, with my admittedly low level of knowledge of the subject compared to many people here.
A flat frequency response does not mean flat sounding music. It just means that if the recording equipment is also with flat frequency response, there is a common baseline in the studio and in the home.  Using room EQ for correcting the room response to bring the system frequency response back to flat means maintaining the integrity of the base line.Whether the music then sounds flat will be decided by how it has been recorded and mixed. EQ can be further used to move the response away from flat, and that may be a preference, but then one isn't listening to the music the way it was recorded. And given how common lousy recordings are, this can be a good way to improve on them to some extent - but that doesn't mean that the notion of flat frequency response as an ideal for the studio and at home in the listening position is wrong.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #47 –
Quote
Please do not confuse flat free-field response with in-room response!


I am talking about in-room response, since we listen in rooms. Is the in-room response not relevant now??

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #48 –
Quote from: KumarK on
A flat frequency response does not mean flat sounding music.

Another way of saying the same thing is that a flat frequency response is one that will not "add" or produce any tonality or sound that is not already present in your signal chain. If that signal chain contains flat sounding music, that is what you will hear from a flat response speaker. Conversely, if the signal chain contains music that isn't flat, the speaker delivered music won't be either.
With EQ, one can change the music to one's taste by moving the response away from flat and also away from the signal chain. But this should be done by something the listener can control, not something forced on the listener by the speaker.

Audio Hardware with Blind Tested Sonic Signature

Reply #49 –
@mzil: Did it occur to you that I wrote this in reply to and targeted at your ..... comments, and not you as a person?
Are you gonna use this as a out of jail free card every time now and do I seriously need to ask other people to repeat the question for you?


Quote from: Rich B on
I am talking about in-room response, since we listen in rooms. Is the in-room response not relevant now??

Yes, it absolutely is. But if you put a really well measuring speaker into a "normal" room, then you will see a boost at the low end (room gain) and a roll off in the highs.
There's this saying, that below roughly 500 Hz you hear the room as it is excited by the speaker, and above that you hear the speaker as it is modified by the room.

EQ can help in both of these areas, but can actually also do damage.
"I hear it when I see it."