[Rod_S]

Hi Rod,

I guess I am being a little wordy but the point is in my opinion changing the direct sound from the speaker by manipulating the frequency response using EQ or Room correction totally defeats the whole point of the design of our speakers.

Rod this is only my opinion others may feel differently.

james

No worries, I know it's your opinion. I'm not just thinking of Bryston speakers being used with a Bryston SSP I'm also thinking of a Bryston SSP being used with non Bryston speakers because that will probably be the majority percentage wise in reality. I do get though even with non Bryston speakers the manufacturers design their speaker to perform a certain way and EQ then gets used by the consumer to change that in home.

So let me throw this out there, say you do a test of the frequency response of the room using REW or some such software and find there are some large dips at certain frequency ranges in the room and one happens to be at the MLP. You can't move the chair, sofa, etc. so the performance of the speaker is going to be compromised at that location isn't it? Setting aside room treatments for the moment wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to eliminate those inconsistencies so the speaker is no longer compromised because in it's design it wasn't built with a drop off at these frequences so wouldn't eliniating that be a good thing allowing the speaker to behave "normally"? I suppose ideally the user would have the measurement chart for the speaker and with a powerful enough EQ make the adjustments manually to align as bestas possible to the chart rather than say strive for a perfectly flat in room response via auto EQ which the speaker couldn't achieve on it's own anyways.

[James Tanner]

No worries, I know it's your opinion. I'm not just thinking of Bryston speakers being used with a Bryston SSP I'm also thinking of a Bryston SSP being used with non Bryston speakers because that will probably be the majority percentage wise in reality. I do get though even with non Bryston speakers the manufacturers design their speaker to perform a certain way and EQ then gets used by the consumer to change that in home.

So let me throw this out there, say you do a test of the frequency response of the room using REW or some such software and find there are some large dips at certain frequency ranges in the room and one happens to be at the MLP. You can't move the chair, sofa, etc. so the performance of the speaker is going to be compromised at that location isn't it? Setting aside room treatments for the moment wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to eliminate those inconsistencies so the speaker is no longer compromised because in it's design it wasn't built with a drop off at these frequences so wouldn't eliniating that be a good thing allowing the speaker to behave "normally"? I suppose ideally the user would have the measurement chart for the speaker and with a powerful enough EQ make the adjustments manually to align as bestas possible to the chart rather than say strive for a perfectly flat in room response via auto EQ which the speaker couldn't achieve on it's own anyways.

The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.

james

[Phil A]

When I set up my old room in the old house, I used my 1/3 Octave RTA and a test disc as well.  I found a problem from the listening position with a peak between 125-130Hz.  I purchased a barrel shaped (2x4 foot) diffuser from Acoustics First that was made to treat problems centered on 125Hz.  The room was large (perhaps around 7,000 cubic feet) and opened into other spaces.  The first thing I do is measure and then try to treat any bad room problems.  I can see situations where it is easier, cheaper and faster to use equalization built in (not to mention I live alone and don't have problems adding speakers or treatments).  Many moons ago (like 35 years when I was 6 of course ) when I had my first separates, I had a Phase Linear parametric equalizer and found it useful.  Of course, I was less educated about room treatments back then and the main goal was bad bass boom (and I had an old Dahlquist subwoofer and electronic crossover at one point too) in the room and tape hiss and the product worked nicely.  My thoughts at this point that if possible I prefer less circuitry in the signal path (and I had a friend back then who was perplexed by the way I had components to deliver clean sound and many devices to massage the signal at the same time).  Before multi-channel I had time delays so I could hear a jazz combo in a small club.  Before stereo TV, I had a Pioneer hi-fidelity (dual mono) TV tuner.  I had one house built  wired for surround sound just before Dolby was commonplace in components (and the builder thought I was crazy).  I can also see people who have existing speakers they intend to keep but may not be up to the Bryston design standards and equalization being useful to them.

[Speedskater]

The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.
james

Yes, the better you make the frequency response at one location the poorer it gets at all other locations. Also the better you make the sustain response the poorer the transient response gets and vice versa.

[James Tanner]

Yes, the better you make the frequency response at one location the poorer it gets at all other locations. Also the better you make the sustain response the poorer the transient response gets and vice versa.

Hi Speedskater

So I have you as an ally in this discussion 

james

[James Tanner]

Hi Rod,

Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves.  They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.

[Speedskater]

The new DSP processor units are getting smarter about making reasonable EQ decisions (but just how smart, I don't know).

The worst case scenario is the home theater buff who use's a 32 channel EQ on his woofers & sub-woofers.
And then boasts about his system response to a small fraction of a dB.

[R. Daneel]

Hi Rod,

Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves.  They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.

That diagram is reminiscent of structural stability calculations I get in some FEM programs. Nice!

The Bryston dealer here doesn't carry your speakers so I will have to ask them about that.

But speaking of technology, 3D TV was a spectacular failure when it comes to TV sales. Atmos is yet another catch-phrase used to uplift a stagnating market. With tablets and everything else, people spend less time together sitting in a living room watching TV. Everbody is watching something else on their tablets. So perhaps the future of surround sound is in headphones. The most expensive hi-fi asset most of the time is space. A thousand Euro for a square meter of space... and how could the majority of people possibly be able to afford a dedicated TV saloon or a music room? Not many. This is why Atmos is ridiculous. There is no way people will sacrifice that little space they have in their homes to install additional speakers. At least that seems to be the case in most western European countries. We in Croatia are still traditionalists with big houses and I suppose people in North America are too but I hardly see myself buying a set of dozen speakers and a kilometer of cable for the two hours a week I'd be sitting in front of a TV watching a movie.

I'd rather like to see those manufacturers make things that would finally benefit all of us like improvements in the efficiency of solar panels, electrical transmission systems, water purification plants and medical equipment.

[Rod_S]

The problem is that you can change the frequency response at the listeners location but it screws things up everywhere else in the room.

james

Ah yes, I suppose that would be a problem but I guess that assumes the EQ is not sophisticated enough to make adjustments for multiple locations. In all honesty I would be perfectly fine with just the MLP being setup properly because if I'm not at the MLP then I'm not doing any critical listening, anything being watched or listened to then becomes more background music, etc. but I see how that might, might be a concern for those with a multiple seat setup and are obsessive about every position being equal. This is certainly something that couldn't be accomplished with video i.e. being off center so I see the same limitation as acceptable in audio.

[Rod_S]

Hi Rod,

Here is an example of what we call the Family of Curves.  They are a slice of a few of the measurements we make in the anechoic chamber to see what is happening on and off axis in a 360 degree arc both horizontally and vertically around the speaker. The crossovers and driver selection and cabinet shape and construction all come into play to make sure these curves are as uniform as possible. If you alter any of them using EQ you disrupt all the others.

Yep, I can certainly understand the concern there. My argument would be, take those speakers, throw them in some random room, perform the measurements and you end up with a few of the frequencies wildly outside the norm or what would have been unacceptable in the lab. If you had a sophisticated enough e.q. that had the ability to bring just those frequencies back in line I know I would like to be able to do that assuming it's not done at the expense of the others. Baring that the speakers aren't performing their best thus you have to be comfortable knowing they could be better.

[James Tanner]

Hi Rod

Well it appears I am not winning you over  but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:

“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.

This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.

If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.

The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.

Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”

[Speedskater]

Ah yes, I suppose that would be a problem but I guess that assumes the EQ is not sophisticated enough to make adjustments for multiple locations.

Well with only two speakers it can't make multiple different location adjustments.  But the new DSP processor units are getting much smarter about making compromises for multiple locations.

[mav52]

Hi Rod

Well it appears I am not winning you over  but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:

“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.

This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.

If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.

The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.

Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”

So James so your going to add those funny little gimmicky cubes to the top of your speakers to support ATMOS instead of making a processor that will provide ATMOS

[Rod_S]

Hi Rod

Well it appears I am not winning you over  but it is not just the frequency response that is being affected. Here is another source on the subject that sets up studios and custom home theaters just to add some controversy:

“Active room control, flatly stated, does not work. Never did..never will. Simple rules of physics vs the human hearing function. The very idea and execution...basically...retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. I've also seen active room control devices blow drivers. The room must fundamentally be corrected via acoustic treatment FIRST....and then MAYBE some small amount of active control may, I repeat -may be utilized.

This is not a rant against active control systems...merely a fact.

If your particular room does not allow for proper acoustic treatment, then fix the room, or move into another one. Ultimately, as one's understanding of what is actually going on in a given actively eq'd system -one that is involved in electronically manipulating the output of said system for 'room correction'-, one will come to the seemingly startling revelation that they simply don't work.

The source of the problem is that the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

This is about as completely, irrevocably, bass-ackwards as one can get. The only thing it is good for, is if you aren't actually listening to your system. Great for pro ambient environments or large auditoriums but they don't work in a serious two channel or serious HT system.

Point of all is, if you really care about great sound, fix your room and forget about EQ. Having fixed my own room with some professional help, I am a firm believer that about 50% of what you hear is the room and the rest is your equipment. “When you put Bryston and a quality speaker in a well designed room, it is nothing short of awesome.”

You are certainly giving it a good try though so I commend you for that   

So I actually agree with the part about the room, adding room treatments and moving to a different location if the room sucks but the reality is I would say 90%+ of all people with audio systems have those systems in a common room where adding room treatments is not practical much less moving the gear to another room. So in those cases that would only see EQ being used as a last resort the EQ then becomes the only thing one has to work with. I can certainly see the cons now in trying to achieve a flat frequency response and if we get back to your speakers for a moment, in this case the ideal use of the EQ would be to try and get the troubled frequencies back in line, not necessarily flat. This would of course require someone knowledgeable with using EQ rather than just hitting the obligatory "play" for the common auto EQ we see so much of today which in most cases strive for that flat frequency response.

In my listening I often turn the EQ and all processing off in my system especially for high resolution music and there is an obvious difference in the sound, night and day in fact. For movies the processing and EQ are always on to provide bass management, etc.

[James Tanner]

So James so your going to add those funny little gimmicky cubes to the top of your speakers to support ATMOS instead of making a processor that will provide ATMOS

Hi Mav52

No I will not be doing funny cubes   but you still need the processor to do ATMOS whether you have 'Ceiling Speakers' or 'Funny Cubes'.

james

[James Tanner]

You are certainly giving it a good try though so I commend you for that   

So I actually agree with the part about the room, adding room treatments and moving to a different location if the room sucks but the reality is I would say 90%+ of all people with audio systems have those systems in a common room where adding room treatments is not practical much less moving the gear to another room. So in those cases that would only see EQ being used as a last resort the EQ then becomes the only thing one has to work with. I can certainly see the cons now in trying to achieve a flat frequency response and if we get back to your speakers for a moment, in this case the ideal use of the EQ would be to try and get the troubled frequencies back in line, not necessarily flat. This would of course require someone knowledgeable with using EQ rather than just hitting the obligatory "play" for the common auto EQ we see so much of today which in most cases strive for that flat frequency response.

In my listening I often turn the EQ and all processing off in my system especially for high resolution music and there is an obvious difference in the sound, night and day in fact. For movies the processing and EQ are always on to provide bass management, etc.

One of the points I should have stressed about our speaker designs is that because the on and off axis frequency response and power response is very wide and very uniform you do not have to get into excessive after market room treatments. In fact normal rooms with typical carpets, drapes, furnishing etc. work very well indeed with our designs.  There are scientific reasons why this occurs based on the way or ears and brain interpret sound - both direct and reflected.

james

[mav52]

Hi Mav52

No I will not be doing funny cubes   but you still need the processor to do ATMOS whether you have 'Ceiling Speakers' or 'Funny Cubes'.

james

Thanks James,, that's my feelings as well..  Forget speaker gimmicks and let the designed processor do what it's supposed to do which means you can use whatever speaker you want.

regarding the Sp3,   will that unit handle DSD in it's audio section via it's USB port  ?

[James Tanner]

Thanks James,, that's my feelings as well..  Forget speaker gimmicks and let the designed processor do what it's supposed to do which means you can use whatever speaker you want.

regarding the Sp3,   will that unit handle DSD in it's audio section via it's USB port  ?

Hi

No DSD requires a completely different process on the USB in the SP3

James

[amblin]

All my gear is in the common room near a large salt water fish tank, with electric filter/cooler pumps and other stuff making a racket (next to the right speaker),  and there're two cats chasing each-other around and there's an ugly, big 'designer' table in the way, that the wife would kill me if I throw it to another room.

 In the eye of an audiophile, this is totally messed up but I can live with it because this is my house and this is exactly how the things are placed. And I trust that the speaker and other gear designers already figured their gears won't be used in the perfect sound lab environment and already made necessary design adjustments, so why add another layer of distortion by fiddling with the EQ (especially software ones )? in my opinion room EQ is a distorted sound that seemingly sounds better, like plastic surgery...nice but still fake and will bite you back in some way...

Just my 2 pennies 

[Grit]

According to a news blurb on cdrinfo.com, Paramount and Warner Bros. studios are going to release Bluray movies this year with Dolby Atmos soundtracks via Dolby TrueHD. And the important part (to me at least): they will be backwards compatible. So it doesn't seem like they'll try to make the current encoding schemes obsolete anytime soon. 

I always figured that was the case, but its nice to see something somewhat official.

"Dolby Atmos soundtracks are backward compatible, meaning they’ll play on traditional home entertainment playback systems."

Source link: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=41519