Are loudspeakers merely commodites? Or do they have (inevitable) personalities?

[A.S.]

OK, I did try to buy the Sam Brown album at HMV this afternoon, but sadly, it's deleted. So after a trawl, I found it on the 'net here. I see what you mean. I have a headache from Mindworks, just as you said: it's just so dense and hard.

BTW, the Southampton chamber group measurements are almost certainly those in the PDF attached to my post #14 . I don't think it's quite a simple as saying that there is a progressive response rise right up to crossover (say, around 3kHz). What we do see in my review of 80s hi-fi speakers (post #10 pages 1, 2) is some humping up around 500-1200Hz or so, then generally a recovery to some sort of lower level through the crossover. In other words, the midrange is definitely boosted relative to the crossover region and tweeter in many examples.

It may seem like a subtle distinction to be discussing a boost of a few dBs around 650Hz or so compared to to a few dBs at 1300Hz but the sonic effect of boosting an octave (i.e. two times or half the frequency) above at, say, 1300Hz (or below, depending upon your reference perspective) is absolutely huge and with completely different sonic effect again from another octave up from 1300Hz, namely 2600Hz. But suppose you were right and the boost was from a few hundred right up to crossover - how would that sound?

I'd better demonstrate.

[A.S.]

So taking the original Sam Brown track as our 'reference' and pretending that we are playing that recoding on our flat, and as you say, 'BBC inspired' monitor we can boost the midrange to mimic the typical hi-fi speaker's lift and we can compare the sound side by side. I've done that in the attached multimedia PDF so that you can see and hear the EQ settings. You can also see a selection of the curves for a batch of current monitor speakers exhibiting a similar mid-up enhancement.

Tell me, out of 100 casual, untrained listeners who use music as merely a background noise to their lives, how many would prefer the flat 'BBC balance' over the boosted one? I'd fully expect that if 100 passers-by in the street were asked to listen to these clips and select a preference, the great untrained general public would vote 99 for the boost, 1 for the neutral balance. That 1 may well be a sound engineer.

When the loudspeaker designer intelligently juggles the frequency response of his creation, he can enhance its marketability to the uneducated consumer. That is entirely legitimate and appropriate behaviour for the designer of a consumer product. It is no more of a crime than a perfume designer adjusting his formulae to enhance its mass appeal or a washing powder manufacturer introducing an appealing fragrance.

The sole issue is that if the designer cannot or does not want to create two products — one for the serious professional user who needs a flat response and another for the domestic user who probably wants a flattering, boosted non-flat response — then he must make a crucial decision; should all products be flat or should all products be tinkered to be more marketable. My view is that we should produce all Harbeths to be basically neutral and if that is not to everyone's taste that's perfectly fine: it means we can sell to professionals even if we are out of fashion with the public (which in fact, is not the situation now at all.)

>

[A.S.]

So taking the original Sam Brown track as our 'reference' and pretending that we are playing that recoding on our flat, and as you say, 'BBC inspired' monitor we can boost the midrange to mimic the typical hi-fi speaker's lift and we can compare the sound side by side. I've done that in the attached multimedia PDF so that you can see and hear the EQ settings...

Now we can take this a stage further. We've heard how pulling-up the midrange brings the performers subjectively closer to us with more warmth and immediacy. The sound is less bright, more 'full'.

Curiously though, the original recording seems to be rather thin. As David noted, played on typical "hi-fi" speakers which themselves are boosted in the middle, the mock-up suggests that boosted result is perhaps even more pleasant to listen to that the flat original recording, which by comparison, is reedy and cold. Let's assume that the sound engineers are trained, and care about what they produce. But there is one very big variable here: if they are monitoring on speakers which, like the NS10 are intentionally elevated in the middle, there is a real danger that the sound staff will try and correct (by adjusting the mixing desk sound balance of the recording we will eventually hear) for what they may perceive as an over-fullness in the sound they hear on their non-flat speakers. In which case, the only speakers that the final performance would sound 'right' on would be those which sonically mirror the suck-out they have accidentally engineered into their recording .... so called 'hi-fi' speakers. If this is true, it would be no wonder than when the recording is played on flat speakers that the middle seems lost and the overall result is of a light, bright balance.

The performance and capabilities of the sound engineer's studio monitors will entirely govern the balance we will hear at home, regardless of how fine our speakers are.

[Pharos]

I have been careful not to name manufacturers and their statements for political/diplomatic reasons DSRANCE.

It is interesting that in Alan's post 14 there are several speakers in the Newell and Holland comparison with the NS10, whose curves are all pretty good, and that many are from brands that promote themselves as suplliers to professional recording organisations; Alesis M1, Apogee CSM2, Behringer Truth, K&H 0198, Mackie HR824, Spendor SA300, and Studer AS. Substantially rectangular graphs exhibited by all.

The discussion has thus far apparently dealt with rather broad band boosts and cuts, but as the curves become better tailored, the errors become of narrower band, and resultantly much more difficult to alter i.e. sharp peaks and troughs.

[Labarum]

The performance and capabilities of the sound engineer's studio monitors will entirely govern the balance we will hear at home, regardless of how fine our speakers are.

What are the implications of this for those of us using computer based sources? At no or little (money) cost we can have at our disposal equalisation controls as complex and comprehensive as those in the production studios.

We would, of course, need the skill to use them.

[A.S.]

... At no or little (money) cost we can have at our disposal equalisation controls as complex and comprehensive as those in the production studios.

Interesting question, which can be rephrased thus .... 'is it true that no matter how irregular the frequency response of my audio equipment and room that by applying the mirror equalisation that I could have a flat system?' In other words, if there is a hole in the frequency response fill it with a mirror-matching boost at those frequencies and conversely if there is a boost at some frequencies, arrange a mirror cut.

I though that I'd try it by taking a piece of piano concerto applying massive +10dB boost in the middle frequencies (around 880Hz, Q10 actually), save the file, apply the inverse correction of -10dB at 880Hz Q10 and save, and finally apply a slightly ill-fitting correction of 900Hz Q8, save again. The three track were laid-up in the multitrack audio player and can be soloed to hear them independently. Result: couldn't hear any difference on a quick test between the original and even the slightly misaligned correction.

Key point: we have only considered a signal and its correction where there is no time variation.

>

[EricW]

In reality, though, if we grant the hypothesis that many recordings may be EQ'd to compensate for non-flat studio monitors, would it not be much more complicated than a simple boost at one frequency? There'd be a curve, and the curve might vary depending on which particular monitors were used (would be different for different studios, and you'd never know for sure, anyway, what was intended and what was compensatory). I can't imagine applying a different EQ curve to each recording, though for an ideal outcome that's probably what one would have to do.

Maybe a few years from now computer audio technology will allow for exactly that, i.e. we'll have players that can automatically apply an individualized EQ curve to each recording to optimize its sound in a particular room. For now, however, that way lies madness (or so it seems to me).

{Moderator's comment: ALL commercial recordings are EQ'd or compressed. That is what "mastering" means.}

[Pharos]

I have just bought a '1996 digitally remastered' version of Dire Straits' Love Over Gold, and to me it sounds awful.

Vocals are recessed and low level, and there is an abundance of energy above about 4k, which to me seems very screechy and tinsely.

Does anyone else have this and if so, what is your opinion of it

I have noticed a tendency for remastering to considerably alter the relative levels in the original mix, often to the point of losing the original ethos of the writing and recording.

[Labarum]

There are even now free music players that will remember the EQ applied to each track and by default apply it at the next playing.

[Labarum]

I though that I'd try it by taking a piece of piano concerto applying massive +10dB boost in the middle frequencies (around 880Hz, Q10 actually), save the file, apply the inverse correction of -10dB at 880Hz Q10 and save . . . Result: couldn't hear any difference on a quick test between the original and even the slightly misaligned correction . . .

Thank you for your demo, Alan. I have often thought this would be the case; and thought this audio issue unlike photography where once focus has been lost it cannot be adjusted back in.

But why doesn't all this surprise me? From the beginning of electrical recording we have managed the energy by frequency. Think of the RIAA equalisation and correction and the earlier EQs applied to 78rpm records; think of the pre-emphasis and de-emphasis applied in the transmission and reception of FM radio; and think of the complex manipulation of energy distribution used in Dolby noise reduction.

All of these "tone bending" techniques we have used for decades, only being very occasionally aware when listening to the music that were messing around in the background.

[HUG-1]

Please can you make a specific post about this on a new thread here .....

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/s...0871#post20871

It's a very interesting subject that you have brought to our attention.

[gakyle]

[QUOTE=Pharos;20863]I have just bought a '1996 digitally remastered' version of Dire Straits' Love Over Gold, and to me it sounds awful.

Vocals are recessed and low level, and there is an abundance of energy above about 4k, which to me seems very screechy and tinsely.

Does anyone else have this and if so, what is your opinion of it

Put on the eponymous album of theirs last night and had to use the tilt control on my twenty-five year old amplifier. Bass up, treble down.