April 2015 Toole video on sound reproduction

Fitzcaraldo215 · May 28, 2015

A typically excellent summary by Amir, who knows what he is talking about.

Just a few added points from my perspective:

- there is always only one sweet spot with/without treatments or EQ even if one just considers symetric speaker imaging.

- improving across a wider area by treatments or EQ as to frequency and time domain response gets considerably more complex and expensive, e.g., multiple subwoofers, etc.

- I am happy to just try to optimize at the sweet spot, but my impression is that the sound is also improved at adjacent seats across my 3-seat listening area. I use only EQ and no treatments. The difference is remarkable and I am not tempted to go down the much more difficult and expensive path of room treatments. For one thing, my wife would have a heart attack. And, the time investment with proper measurements would be huge as a DIY project.

- I mentioned Dirac Live, which I now use with great success after having been an Audyssey Pro Kit user for many years. One of Dirac's advantages is ease of use in addition to high quality and careful design for the time domain and impulse response. But, there are many other high quality EQ packages that run on different platforms - stand alone, in a PC, in a digital Mch or stereo prepro, etc. Some of these include the JBL Amir favors, Trinnov, Lyngdorf, Acourate, Anthem ARC, etc. Even the common Audyssey in many inexpensive AVRs is not bad, though now somewhat dated in this fast moving field. There are other third rate "pretenders" available, typically proprietary ones in AVR/prepros, like Krell, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo/Integra, etc.

- the biggest amplitude room issues and payoff from EQ are in the bass, but I find that tailoring full range response even above the transition frequency via the target curve also highly beneficial, both measurably and audibly. A gently downward sloping target curve and smooth measured response, as opposed to flat, delivers a better replica to me of the live sound I hear in the concert hall. That has been true for me in several rooms, and my concert going friends agree in their rooms with different EQ systems. This is consistent with Sean Olive's research findings. Gordon Holt and others also said so decades ago, long before DSP EQ.

Fitzcaraldo215 · May 28, 2015

TheMadMilkman said:
Amir, can you post a graph of your room after EQ? I'm curious to see.

EQ is pretty high on my "to try" list. My room has bass issues. Since the system is in our main living space, most room treatments really aren't an option. My current listening chain is Mac Mini --> Schiit DAC --> NAD integrated amp --> Revel M105 speakers. Given that I intend to remain digital-only, is EQ best applied through software (Amarra w/ Dirac or similar) or through a separate box between the Mini and the DAC? Or does it really matter, since both are working with the digital files before analog conversion?

I also intend to eventually add a Revel sub. The sub has built-in EQ. Would the proper setup be to integrate the sub through its own software, then rerun and reapply the room EQ?

For trial purposes, you can try Dirac software for 30 days with refund privilege. I use it in my PC with JRiver. One complication is that Dirac does not do bass management = sub crossovers. It assumes the crossover was done upstream, although Dirac will EQ the sub channel. I do not know if Amarra has that feature. JRiver does. Also, it seems some Mac users have had trouble with integrating Dirac in the past. I do not know if this is an ongoing problem. An external miniDSP box, which incorporates Dirac, might be the way to go. In any case, you need to buy a mike for under $100 to calibrate Dirac or miniDSP.

It is not a good idea to use the EQ in the sub if you are using something like Dirac. It should just be turned off in the sub. And, I expect the sub's own EQ is much more limited.

Rodney Gold · May 28, 2015

TMM try the Dirac trial on your mac get a mic. A software solution is better than hardware for various reasons.
Normally cheaper
continuously upgradeable
portable
there are also downsides
single source
puter has to be attached

amirm · May 28, 2015

TheMadMilkman said:
Amir, can you post a graph of your room after EQ? I'm curious to see.

I post full system EQ for our theater at work earlier in the thread. My own room is still unfinished and all I have are the results of applying filtering to one peak. Here is the before and after:

This was done by programming the JBL Synthesis processor (SDEC-4500) manually as a bank of parametric EQ. I just focused on that one peak and tried to bring it down. Despite what the heading says, I may have used more than one filter. I don't remember now

.

TheMadMilkman · May 28, 2015

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
For trial purposes, you can try Dirac software for 30 days with refund privilege. I use it in my PC with JRiver. One complication is that Dirac does not do bass management = sub crossovers. It assumes the crossover was done upstream, although Dirac will EQ the sub channel. I do not know if Amarra has that feature. JRiver does. Also, it seems some Mac users have had trouble with integrating Dirac in the past. I do not know if this is an ongoing problem. An external miniDSP box, which incorporates Dirac, might be the way to go. In any case, you need to buy a mike for under $100 to calibrate Dirac or miniDSP.

It is not a good idea to use the EQ in the sub if you are using something like Dirac. It should just be turned off in the sub. And, I expect the sub's own EQ is much more limited.

I'll have to read the user guide for the sub. I know everything is handled in the sub's software (the sub itself has very minimal physical controls), but there should be so way to turn it off. Either way, this is a while off. I have a few other projects to finish before moving back to improving the stereo system.

Rodney Gold said:
TMM try the Dirac trial on your mac get a mic. A software solution is better than hardware for various reasons.
Normally cheaper
continuously upgradeable
portable
there are also downsides
single source
puter has to be attached

Fortunately, the single source and attached computer are not an issue, since my system is already set up that way. I will definitely look into doing things through software first, then try a hardware approach if necessary or advantageous.

Nyal Mellor · May 28, 2015

ddk said:
My own experiments with digital room EQ confirmed that its a waste of time and incapable of fixing the problem.

Properly applied digital EQ can ALWAYS fix bass issues, particularly room mode resonances and dips caused by gaps between room mode supported frequencies, particularly in the sub 100Hz region where the room modes are spread far apart in frequency.

If it didn't work for you then either you were manually trying to fix the wrong thing, using the wrong tools, or using badly designed automated room EQ software/hardware.

Whether digital room EQ works or not isn't something that is up for debate. It works.

NorthStar · May 28, 2015

Art @ the service of improved sound reproduction.

? www.dirac.se/en/online-store/-frequently-asked-questions-and-free-pdf-manual.aspx
? www.kenrockwell.com/audio/dirac/live.htm
? www.minidsp.com/applications/digital-room-correction/dirac-live-setup
? www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/product-line-summary

Inexpensive, and you can google anywhere and find out how happy all the users are from all audio venues; professionals to audiophiles to music/movie lovers.

ddk · May 28, 2015

Thanks for the clarification and your thorough comments Amir!

amirm said:
That doesn't match my experience. Acoustic science remains a highly complex field, with so many differing opinions that most people do not have a clear idea of what it all means. Dr. Toole makes these presentations precisely because there is so little awareness of the critical aspects of this field. Did you know for example that our hearing sensitivity to broad resonances in low frequency is as low as 0.5 db? Yet we have rooms with excursions of 20 dB up and down! Here is my own room:

Unless everyone has such measurements and has played with optimizing the room, the awareness I am afraid if it is there, is superficial and of little value.

I agree and am fully aware of the complexities of acoustic science and art but that wasn't the topic of Dr. Toole's talk in this video. He barely brushed the subject of room speaker interaction and only in the context of speaker design, hence my comment that many already recognize this issue. The entire talk was focused on their measuring methodology at Harman for coming up with the so called "Ideal" loudspeaker backed with some listener statistics derived under very limited, controlled and for me unrealistic conditions to support their concept of this "Ideal" speaker for this division of Harman. Was there anything of real value we missed in this video that we can be used in the real and not so ideal world?

amirm said:
Actually it does both. The DSP plays dual role in creating the crossover and room EQ. From the M3 brochure: http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/M2_Brochure_Jan2013.pdf

"Tuning and Room Integration
Room acoustics can play a big part in what you hear
at the mix position, particularly in the room-dependent
low frequency bands, where resonance caused by room
modes can give a false impression of bass in the mix.
While offering exceptional accuracy “out of the box,”
the power of the M2 is fully realized with its intelligent
in-room tuning and integration capabilities, ensuring
optimum performance in your listening environment.
Room optimization is achieved through the use of
floating-point digital signal processing integrated into
Crown iTech HD power amplifiers and BSS Soundweb
London processors. HARMAN System Architect™
Software is included to provide external control of system
EQ and tuning capabilities. Used in conjunction with
external measurement hardware and software, the
complete M2 tuning and room integration system
addresses non-linearity in the room. "

I read their "MARKETING" brochure and the associated marketing jargon, very clever but not new. They've been EQ'ing speakers in control and mastering rooms forever but now you get it all in one all digital package for $1800! I see and understand the value of this tool for its intended market as Dr. Toole suggested in this video. "Perfect" sound from the "Ideal" speaker through digital manipulation, I don't think that even Dr. Toole claimed this here.

amirm said:
That is indeed how it is working in our theater at work. The SDEC-4500 (consumer version of BSS above) is performing the optimization post measurements using ARCOS.

HT wasn't the subject.

amirm said:
The presentation is not meant to be all inclusive. Suggest reading Dr. Toole's excellent book,Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprodu...=1432795572&sr=8-1&keywords=toole+loudspeaker

Some quick quotes:

Getting back to the listening room problem, although moving the chair
eliminated the objectionable resonance—but only for the single listener—there
was a problem. The chair could not be left permanently in the middle of the
living room floor, and moving it was leaving tracks in the carpet. What next?
Equalize, of course. Put the chair back where sensible room décor suggests
it should be, closer to the wall, and attenuate the resonance with a single parametric
filter tuned to 42 Hz, the appropriate Q and attenuation required to
create a frequency response that looked like the one measured at the previously
preferred listening location.

[...]

Equalization had the huge advantage of allowing the listener to sit in a decorative
location. Acoustically, there were advantages, too. With up to a 14 dB
amplitude reduction around 42 Hz, the woofers no longer had to work so hard,
distortion was lower, and they could play louder. There was also much less
energy everywhere in the room at 42 Hz. This was noticeable as improved sound
quality at other listening locations. This was a good solution to a personal
problem, as well as a learning experience: The right kind of equalization sounds
just fi ne, and electronics can provide an option equivalent to natural acoustical
manipulations. Of course, it works best for a single seat.

[...]

The ultimate form of intervention in controlling the sound field in a room
is the type of process exemplified by Sound Field Management (Section 13.3.5).
It is an optimization algorithm that begins with measurements in the room and
ends with a description for processing of the signals fed to each of multiple
subwoofers. Here we are actually manipulating the room resonances, the standing
waves, to minimize variations among some number of designated listening
positions. High-resolution measurements and parametric equalization at low
frequencies are essential ingredients of any of these systems.

One subwoofer used with high-resolution measurements (at least 1/10
octave) and parametric equalization can deliver good bass to one
listener. All other listeners in the room will take their chances because
of standing waves. Seat-to-seat variations are large.

Because low-frequency room resonances behave as minimum-phase systems,
we need high-resolution measurements (1/10- to 1/20-octave) and parametric
equalizers to work with them.

A parametric equalizer can attenuate the amplitude and reduce the audible
ringing from gross resonances (see Figure 13.24). This is a great benefit, but it
only works at the location of the measurement microphone. This should be
done for the prime listening location (yet another bonus!). In general it is recommended
to adjust the parametric equalizer to match the shape of and to
reduce the amplitude of any upward thrusting peaks in the frequency response.
Narrow dips should be left alone, but broad depressions may be boosted if the
amount of boost is not more than about 6 dB."

SFM mentioned above goes way beyond simple filtering by utilizing DSP and multiple subwoofers to create smooth response across multiple seats. Something that cannot be done by hand due to sheer number of combinations. Again, see this article I wrote drilling down into this feature with a number of real examples: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Computer Optimization of Acoustics.html

I don't know the context or purpose of the room EQ in these quotes and the partial solution offered is more relevant to HT, cinemas and "Amplified" performance spaces, I see nothing applicable that deals with the problems of a high performance, 2 channel music system in the average residence. Horses for courses...

amirm said:
That is shocking to hear. One of the easiest places to apply EQ is in low frequencies. Find a peak, pull it down, and you make an immediate improvement. It is not hard at all once you have the measurement and have some familiarity with how to program the parametric EQ. If you have nulls, those can't be fixed but the peaks are readily fixable.

The strategy here is to get rid of the nulls with placement, and multiple subs and let the peaks become whatever they become. Then use EQ to pull down the peaks.

Low frequency is the bain of acoustic problems, hardest to deal with and on many levels one of digital's main shortcomings. PLEASE shock and guide me how to use digital EQ and solve my install issues with a simple tuck on the graph Amir

!

Here's my regular scenario;

Client is discerning, has a critical ear and for the most part listens to un-amplified acoustic music be it classical, choral, jazz, folk, etc., etc..
Lets use "our Steve" that we both know as an example.

"My Steve" wants the same system and has the same SQ requirements as "our Steve" with the addition of a high dollar tt and associated front end to listen to his fine collection of analog classical and jazz vinyl. Set up is in a typical untreated Steve sized space, 10'-15' W x 14'-20' L x 7.5'-9' H and often squarish in proportions. I'm actually working with "a Steve" right now in a Manhattan apartment and his 12.5' x 20' x 8' space that has doors, windows, closets, shelves and openings into other rooms. This is a domestic environment and WAF is a major consideration, so none of the typical tampons plastered around room and setup is for a single listener. A situation where Digital EQ was born to fix! Only I haven't figured out how to get from this point to where I can sit in that listening chair, give that graph a tug and viola!

Assuming that "my Steve" would even consider a digital EQ box in his $500k system knowing that it will all but decimate the tone, timbre and spacial qualities that he paid for, which he won't; what kind of subs can I find to match the quality of his Wilsons? Not to mention the additional ML2s or ML3s needed for these subs to integrate properly into his system? Knowing this room measurements will show huge peaks and dips at multiple frequencies below 120hz where are we going to effectively place all these subs in this tight and unbalanced space already jam packed with gear, records and what not? Then how do we isolate these "optimized" low frequency generators from the neighbors?

Now that we've completed our shockingly simple tasks, nudged that graph around and come up with the perfect EQ, time to sit down and listen to some actual music instead of test tones. Uh oh, the recordings are Eq'd wildly different from the machine generated test tones, now what? I guess we have to go back, move around the subs and "optimize" with additional ones as needed? Do we have to repeat the process for every track as prescribed by Mark Levinson for his Cello Palette or can we get away with "optimizing" for every LP? What's "Steve" going to say

?

Shockingly simple Amir? Come on man

...

david

ddk · May 28, 2015

Nyal Mellor said:
Properly applied digital EQ can ALWAYS fix bass issues, particularly room mode resonances and dips caused by gaps between room mode supported frequencies, particularly in the sub 100Hz region where the room modes are spread far apart in frequency.

ALWAYS Nyal? Crap!

Nyal Mellor said:
If it didn't work for you then either you were manually trying to fix the wrong thing, using the wrong tools, or using badly designed automated room EQ software/hardware.

Please do share Nyal, where can one get this digital Unicorn that fixes bass nodes, won't kill tone, timbre and spacial ques in a high end analog system, and all at the push of a button or a click of mouse?

Nyal Mellor said:
Whether digital room EQ works or not isn't something that is up for debate. It works.

Double Exclamation!! Explain how it works and since you're such a believer please visit my client above and digitally EQ his room without destroying everything that's important to music. I'll pay for your services if you manage to pull it off, otherwise you foot the bill for what needs to be done structurally by a real expert! Deal?

david

ddk · May 28, 2015

Purite Audio said:
Properly designed and implemented A/D is transparent ,you wouldn't be able to discern unsighted.
Keith.

And who has this "Properly designed transparent box" and where is that proper implementation you're talking about?

I have to respectfully add a +1 to what Jack said in the other thread here!

JackD201 said:
What I find frustrating is hearing how some people want to INSIST that their way can do it all. Yeah? I know, unlike some people that like to pull crap out of their a$$es because they read a few books or articles, I have had to do it.

david

dallasjustice · May 28, 2015

ddk said:
ALWAYS Nyal? Crap!

Please do share Nyal, where can one get this digital Unicorn that fixes bass nodes, won't kill tone, timbre and spacial ques in a high end analog system, and all at the push of a button or a click of mouse?

Double Exclamation!! Explain how it works and since you're such a believer please visit my client above and digitally EQ his room without destroying everything that's important to music. I'll pay for your services if you manage to pull it off, otherwise you foot the bill for what needs to be done structurally by a real expert! Deal?

david

If "your client" met Nyal and Nyal were free to make his recommended changes to his system, he'd be Nyal's client after Nyal is done.

kevinkwann · May 28, 2015

dallasjustice said:
If "your client" met Nyal and Nyal were free to make his recommended changes to his system, he'd be Nyal's client after Nyal is done.

This is what ddk and I would term "fiction writing."

ddk · May 28, 2015

kevinkwann said:
This is what ddk and I would term "fiction writing."

+1!

david

ddk · May 28, 2015

dallasjustice said:
If "your client" met Nyal and Nyal were free to make his recommended changes to his system, he'd be Nyal's client after Nyal is done.

By all means Dallas, as long the recommended changes specifically include Nyal's magic EQ box and no magic mushrooms!

david

dallasjustice · May 28, 2015

Do you have any experience with DSP? Which products have you used?

To sum things up so far. Those with experience using DSP say it works and can back their claims with solid mathematical proofs which any acoustician will accept as industry standard, including Dr. Toole. Your counter is that you say the laws of physics don't apply to $500,000 systems in Manhattan?

John Mulcahy on the minimum phase EQ proofs:

ddk said:
By all means Dallas, as long the recommended changes specifically include Nyal's magic EQ box and no magic mushrooms!

david

amirm · May 28, 2015

ddk said:
Assuming that "my Steve" would even consider a digital EQ box in his $500k system...

We already discussed and are in agreement that from bias and principal point of view, buyers of such systems are not willing to use an EQ. What we are discussing is whether they have a performant system without it. So it matters not in this conversation whether they are or are not willing to put one in. I am saying their system in bass performance will improve if they did, and I believe you are saying it won't. Let's stay on that theme.

...knowing that it will all but decimate the tone, timbre and spacial qualities that he paid for...

This is what he thinks will happen to him. Let's not confuse assumptions with objective information and express things as facts when they are not. Again we are in agreement that he thinks the EQ will do all of these. Not questioning his assumption there, at least not this very minute

. I am here to show that without EQ, he has introduced frequency response and time domain distortions that are massive in scale and can be shown objectively and subjectively to anyone, trained or not that, to detract from good sound. If you look up the definition of decimation of tone and timbre in the dictionary, you would get what the room does to your bass response.

So that argument is my favor, not his.

.., which he won't; what kind of subs can I find to match the quality of his Wilsons?

What quality is that? Here is the measurements of the Alexia woofer in stereophile:

He is listening to bass that while integrated with the rest of speakers to best abilities of Wilson, has been stomped on like an elephant walking on an ant in his room. It almost, almost doesn't matter what that woofer is producing under 100 Hz. The room takes that response and twists that like there is no tomorrow. If he thinks this is "quality" bass, someone needs to sit him down and show him a system with proper DSP processing and then he will know the meaning of the word. What he is hearing now is different shades of bad relative to what he could have.

Put his Wilson's outside in an open field, connect a commercial amp to it so that it can pump 2000+ watts into it, and then you know what good bass sounds like in those speakers. The modes vanish there and bass becomes tight, absolutely clean with zero overhang, and lets the rest of the notes get through the clutter that is normally created when you stick that speaker in a room.

Not to mention the additional ML2s or ML3s needed for these subs to integrate properly into his system?

Not sure what those products have to do with integration of a sub. The sub will have its own amplifier and hopefully a DSP for tuning out the room resonances. Siphon off the signal however you like from the two channels and feed it to the sub. Ask our own Steve how he did it (I actually don't know what he has done).

I would set a crossover of 80 Hz so that the Wilsons are not trying to play the bass and then optimize the subs. Watch the distortion go way down as neither the amps or the Wilsons are trying so hard to produce what a sub does in its sleep.

Note that manual version of this process is not easy. Automated versions though, can be remarkably so.

An example of in-between is the Revel Rhythm2 sub: http://www.revelspeakers.com/productdetail/~/product/rhythm2.html

It is a clever design in that it has a built-in DSP that you can program using a PC. But in addition to PEQ filters, it also implements a cross-over so you can feed it the main signal, and it gives you what you need to drive the mains. Yes, this will be another "insulting" solution but again, we are talking about how to get good sound, not what is agreeable to someone with beliefs.

Knowing this room measurements will show huge peaks and dips at multiple frequencies below 120hz where are we going to effectively place all these subs in this tight and unbalanced space already jam packed with gear, records and what not?

Come again? Someone has a $500,000 system and has put it in a room that doesn't have space for the gear? Remember, the subs can go anywhere. You can put them in the back, on the side, even in the ceiling! Indeed, in our theater at work, we have a bunch of subs in the ceiling. The subs can be built completely into the walls in custom scenarios if one does not want to see them although some subs like the Revel above are gorgeous to look at.

Then how do we isolate these "optimized" low frequency generators from the neighbors?

No different than what he is doing now. The purpose of the subs is not to play louder which of course they can. But to simply decouple of them from the mains so that they can be placement and signal processing optimize. You can opt to have them play lower and louder or not. Sound isolation is an orthogonal topic to this one.

Now that we've completed our shockingly simple tasks, nudged that graph around and come up with the perfect EQ, time to sit down and listen to some actual music instead of test tones. Uh oh, the recordings are Eq'd wildly different from the machine generated test tones, now what? I guess we have to go back, move around the subs and "optimize" with additional ones as needed? Do we have to repeat the process for every track as prescribed by Mark Levinson for his Cello Palette or can we get away with "optimizing" for every LP? What's "Steve" going to say?

Shockingly simple Amir? Come on man ...

david

I am sorry but this is just wrong David. If your steering pulls to the left all the time in your car, you need to get it fixed. You can't argue that some roads tilt to the right or left as to cause the car to do the same. You need to build a neutral system, not one with *random* 20 db peaks that are determined by the length and width of the room. If music you buy then doesn't sound good to you, then with DSP you have the world's most flexible tone controls and you can build different profiles that are triggered by automation. You can even play in real-time. None of these tools are available to you without DSP. Nor would having a system with those random peaks help you in anyway.

This is not theory. Room EQ works and has worked in countless listening tests. Here is one example: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Room Equalization/Room Equalization.html

See the control, third from right? Notice how much improvement EQ brought in controlled blind listening tests. Here is what those systems did to the signal:

Across multiple and different music tracks, improvements were heard in bass response due to much smoother and sloping down overall response. These tests are done with B&W 802 speakers so it is biased toward 2-channel crowds and not home theater.

So in summary, yes there is a taboo there that is quite strong in audiophile community. That you don't put anything in the signal path. No disagreement. And I understand the logic of it just the same.

What I am saying is let's open our eyes to the problem that we leave in our systems. Let's understand it. Let's experience it. Then you can make the judgement call of whether you should continue to use the current approach, or one that many of us have adopted which is to embrace modern science and signal processing to improve system response. Let's let the educational part of this sink in for now. And then let's experiment. Yourself before your client. And then your client.

BTW, I have not told Steve this but one of the items on my TODO list is to bring a DSP to insert in his system and let's see if we can do better. Him being 1,200 miles away from me makes this challenging but I plan to do that one day. I am that confident that it is worth lugging all the gear down there to run the experiment.

ddk · May 28, 2015

dallasjustice said:
Do you have any experience with DSP? Which products have you used?

Not a lot but I have used/use DSP and digital equalizers, both in domestic and commercial situations. I can be more specific if you specify the context.

dallasjustice said:
To sum things up so far. Those with experience using DSP say it works and can back their claims with solid mathematical proofs which any acoustician will accept as industry standard, including Dr. Toole. Your counter is that you say the laws of physics don't apply to $500,000 systems in Manhattan?

That was never my counter Dallas, I never said that digital EQ has no purpose, check my initial comment I was very specific about my context.

As a lawyer you know you can't throw around "any" in this context. Dr. Toole is one voice among many and all I know of him is this marketing video pushing a very specific Harman product to a very specific market. The purpose of M2 and its intended market was also clearly defined by other Harman men in Nyal's video. I haven't seen or heard him mention digital EQ in the context of high quality two channel analog audio systems, have you?

When was the last time you had an intimate listening session with a mathematical model or a point on a graph? What did it sound like? We wouldn't have acoustical fiascos like Avery Fisher Hall to the tune of 100s of millions if the science was that simple and precise.

For the record, I don't claim any special expertise of acoustic sciences and am nothing more than a random casual user of the technology. But I am experienced and knowledgeable enough to know that you can't just drag a point on a graph or push button on a box then claim problem solved showing me a pretty measurement. You know well that at the very least there are other consequences further up and down the frequency range every time you modify that point on that graph. To sum up, I stand by what I said that digital EQ has no place in a high quality, two channel analog system for music listening.

david

dallasjustice · May 28, 2015

ddk said:
Not a lot but I have used/use DSP and digital equalizers, both in domestic and commercial situations. I can be more specific if you specify the context.

That was never my counter Dallas, I never said that digital EQ has no purpose, check my initial comment I was very specific about my context.

As a lawyer you know you can't throw around "any" in this context. Dr. Toole is one voice among many and all I know of him is this marketing video pushing a very specific Harman product to a very specific market. The purpose of M2 and its intended market was also clearly defined by other Harman men in Nyal's video. I haven't seen or heard him mention digital EQ in the context of high quality two channel analog audio systems, have you?

When was the last time you had an intimate listening session with a mathematical model or a point on a graph? What did it sound like? We wouldn't have acoustical fiascos like Avery Fisher Hall to the tune of 100s of millions if the science was that simple and precise.

For the record, I don't claim any special expertise of acoustic sciences and am nothing more than a random casual user of the technology. But I am experienced and knowledgeable enough to know that you can't just drag a point on a graph or push button on a box then claim problem solved showing me a pretty measurement. You know well that at the very least there are other consequences further up and down the frequency range every time you modify that point on that graph. To sum up, I stand by what I said that digital EQ has no place in a high quality, two channel analog system for music listening.

david

How did you decide what settings to select on your EQ?

Bruce B · May 28, 2015

Purite Audio said:
Properly designed and implemented A/D is transparent ,you wouldn't be able to discern unsighted.
Keith.

And which ones are these? What's your choice of "Properly designed and implemented A/D"??

esldude · May 28, 2015

ddk said:
........................................To sum up, I stand by what I said that digital EQ has no place in a high quality, two channel analog system for music listening.

david

There are those of us who think analog has no place in a high quality system, one, two or more channels.

April 2015 Toole video on sound reproduction

New Member

New Member

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Banned

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

New Member

Similar threads