Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Luke Geis]

Although for consistency sake I agree there should be a standard desired curve, there is however not much consistency in system deployment for most cases.........

You can set the same system up at five gigs and it will sound different at each gig. Outdoor or not the surroundings are going to play a huge part. Speaker placement and deployment will also greatly shape things to come. I don't feel that shop tuning is effective unless it is for a starting point control reference. That all said, it doesn't matter if the response is the same at each gig, it still sounds different simply because grass, carpet, tables, draping, tree's and many other things will change the sound of the system at different listening positions.

I rely on the measurement tools ( smaart and the like ) to show me things that are more important. Time alignment, crossover regions and of course sonic data are very helpful in getting the best sound possible, but relying on the sonic data alone won't get you there. I feel listening is still the most important. Does the system sound good in the listening space with little to no EQ when all parts of the system are working together? Going for a target EQ response is more or less only for a control reference. This reference is only as good as your ability to recreate it and the likelihood that the data presented is good?

So when I tune I shoot for as flat as possible. I assume that the mastering engineers are working with equipment that is designed to be as true and flat as is reasonable, I want to be the same. I like to see a system that is flat up to 16K if possible with little or no humps or dips in any of the key regions. I prefer a system with extra top end for air and breathe, so I really shoot for as much high end extension as I can reasonably get. I don't feel flat is the the absolute best, but I feel it yields the most realistic and transparent results that can be had even if the sonic data is not 100%. The lack of EQ shaping helps narrow the bad data down.

 I think there is a stanza to the live band mixing vs media playback. It's ok to hear a recording with all kinds of clarity and air, but a live band just doesn't sound that way? People like to hear a live band that is bigger than life and heard at unrealistic levels and sonic content overlap that are not conducive to making a really great sounding mix. I love to hear live bands that sound as close as possible to a recording as I can get them. I like to pan to reduce comb filtering and add dimension and depth to a mix. A mono mix does not sound good to me in a conventional stereo speaker deployment. In the case of media playback, I like to have an accurate reproduction of the intended media and I like there to be no holes in the sonic content. I will even go as far as looking at the media on a separate analyzer to see if it matches the data I am acquiring from smaart. I can get deadly close when doing things in this manor!!!!! I feel the only way to have the live band and the pre recorded media to sound the same, is to have it played back through a system that is as flat as can be and then mix the band to sound as close to the pre recorded media as possible.

[Merlijn van Veen]

Hi Merlijn,

So beautifully illustrated!  Wow!

I would love to have a link to get that convolving reverb plugin myself.  I use Soundflower & AULab with Smaart as well, a great educational tool!  Which version of OSX are you running?

Arthur

Hi Arthur,


Thanks for the compliment. I've sent you a PM.


Sincerely,


Merlijn

[Rasmus Rosenberg]

Hi Merlijn,

So beautifully illustrated!  Wow!

I would love to have a link to get that convolving reverb plugin myself.  I use Soundflower & AULab with Smaart as well, a great educational tool!  Which version of OSX are you running?

Arthur

+1 awesome work! Merlijn

Just to add to that sound flower is a great education tool, there is a free crossover plug in from Andrew McPherson, called APM crossover, highly recommended for "playing along at home".
/R

[Merlijn van Veen]

+1 awesome work! Merlijn

Just to add to that sound flower is a great education tool, there is a free crossover plug in from Andrew McPherson, called APM crossover, highly recommended for "playing along at home".
/R

Thanks and great recommendation!

Unfortunately CrossoverUnit doesn't do Elliptic (Cauer) filters, found in Meyer Sound Galileo and BSS processors (NTM). EngineersFilter however does, but it's a VST plugin which doesn't run in AUlab. Fortunately there's an application called VFX, which is a VST plugin host for Mac. In order for it to run you need to install Quartz(X11). VFX opens up a whole new world of possibilities, the use of VST plugins, to measure and use for educational purposes.

Here's two links to PDF's in my Dropbox. The first explains the installation process in detail. The second is an extensive comparison of CrossoverUnit and Engineersfilter. I've attached a picture of the latter's first page.


Sincerely,


Merlijn


https://www.dropbox.com/s/27hk5n7kq5jn8ue/SMAART_7_%26_EngineersFilter.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/anuqbsp556a3x6y/CrossoverUnit_vs_EngineersFilter.pdf

[Mark McFarlane]

getting back on track, here's another thread on the original topic http://soundforums.net/varsity/2348-frequency-response-contour-eq-full-range-systems.html

[Adam Black]

+1 awesome work! Merlijn

Indeed. Excellent series of posts.

[Timo Beckman]

wouw nice work merlijn .
Did you already play around with the elliptic filters within the newer XTA processors ?

I encountered them a while back .

http://timobeckmangeluid.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/to-all-from-the-united-technologies-group-screenshots-of-the-last-measurements-with-sim3/

Due to time and me messing with sim i didn't get the processor traces at the correct timing but the sound with these filters to me comes across as more natural then other standard filters . The same goes (for me) with working with the UPA1 and 2p .......
 

[ProSoundWeb Community]