So if you had a Picasso from his blue period, you would change it to red if it fit your interior decorating better?
Who cares what Picasso wanted! Your the boss in your house!
I'll have to side with Pano here...
I guess we're not talking about the Picasso (the music) but a reproduction there off (the recorded mix and our listening equipment to reproduce it). So if the reproduction seems off from the original in the comfort of our own home, why not fix it? The reproduced Picasso might have to much red that needs fixing
. I wouldn't mess with original paintings but cannot afford getting the bands I like play in my living room.
I guess we're not talking about the Picasso (the music) but a reproduction there off (the recorded mix and our listening equipment to reproduce it). So if the reproduction seems off from the original in the comfort of our own home, why not fix it? The reproduced Picasso might have to much red that needs fixing
. I wouldn't mess with original paintings but cannot afford getting the bands I like play in my living room.
You've used that argument before, Earl. It's not half as clever as you think. See wesayso's reply above.
If you go tell Picasso to paint a different color, that's not the same as telling the printer you don't think his reproduction is true to the original. Believe me, I've been there, done that - as the printer. Art reproduction is always someone's interpretation. Period. (Usually more than one person).
Our ideals of musical reproduction are both fantasies. Your fantasy is that a pure engineering approach will get you closest to the intended result. I don't agree that it will, much of the time. My fantasy is that some tweaking and psycho acoustic adjustments will get me closer to the truth. Perhaps you think that is never the case.
Neither of us have an exclusive window into reality.
But that's really not the point of the thread. The point is that the dulling of the phantom image is real and can be corrected. What is the cause? If you don't hear it, don't care about it, or want it to be that way - why bother with it at all?
If you go tell Picasso to paint a different color, that's not the same as telling the printer you don't think his reproduction is true to the original. Believe me, I've been there, done that - as the printer. Art reproduction is always someone's interpretation. Period. (Usually more than one person).
Our ideals of musical reproduction are both fantasies. Your fantasy is that a pure engineering approach will get you closest to the intended result. I don't agree that it will, much of the time. My fantasy is that some tweaking and psycho acoustic adjustments will get me closer to the truth. Perhaps you think that is never the case.
Neither of us have an exclusive window into reality.
But that's really not the point of the thread. The point is that the dulling of the phantom image is real and can be corrected. What is the cause? If you don't hear it, don't care about it, or want it to be that way - why bother with it at all?
The Picasso argument ignores the circle of confusion. Truth of the matter is that we're not listening to the producers speakers in the production environment, and those vary significantly.
There's huge value in all technical developments that standardize on more accuracy in production and replay, but given production and reproduction occur in different environments with different equipment, there has to be room for spice on the playback end.
This is really basic, foundational stuff. I remember arguing with JJ about it in 1993 (rec.audio), but it wasn't sinking in. He thought it was heresy and hogwash, I was amused by the blind spot.
We would love our world to be tidy and completely in our control, but science doesn't offer us that.
I am all for standardization, so lets just agree that it is the way we should go. Now lets say that we got there (somehow!) would you now feel that you had the right to change the art because it didn't suit your taste. I suspect most would - I wouldn't. I just have to assume that the producers of the music that I listen to are smart enough to know about the circle of confusion and attempt to get to some standard that will reproduce the best possible reconstruction that I can get. Now we all know that not all of them do, but many do. And I find that argument about "not listening to the producers speakers in the production environment" getting old as well since many mixing studio do use state-of-the-art reproduction. Things are getting better and the argument has to change.
I noticed that Mitch was a recording engineer and one who would not change his system to "correct" it. Good for you Mitch.
I noticed that Mitch was a recording engineer and one who would not change his system to "correct" it. Good for you Mitch.
My stereo setup is also doubling as HT system for movies, used without a centre speaker. Thus relying on a phantom centre. I've found this experiment highly useful and educational. Pano, I'll revisit the latest version soon. What's wrong with having fun and learning a thing or two . I also use/experiment with ambient speakers. Would that make me a bad person? They double as satellites for HT.
. I also use/experiment with ambient speakers. Would that make me a bad person? They double as satellites for HT.
If you want to "play" then play, that's fine, just so long as you realize that you are playing "artist" and not art appreciator. I stopped "playing" with audio a long time ago. Now I only want to hear what I was intended to hear. If I can be convinced that I was intended to hear something different then I will make that change, but as for the phantom center tone, I am not convinced that this is not already something that the "artist" has taken into account and doesn't need to be fixed twice.
For example - flat is not right. It has taken me awhile to convince myself of this, but it has become pretty clear that a downward slope is necessary for proper reproduction. The studios do this, as Mitch points out, and there is logic behind it, so I do it as well.
For example - flat is not right. It has taken me awhile to convince myself of this, but it has become pretty clear that a downward slope is necessary for proper reproduction. The studios do this, as Mitch points out, and there is logic behind it, so I do it as well.
That is simply not true. There is a single reproduction of a painting that would be "best" and could be quantified scientifically. You just refuse to give up your need for control, that's all. Perfect reproduction is not a matter of opinion.
you can find a couple of conversation on gearslutz about the ''house curve'' or downward curve. definitely not ALL pro apply in their chain a downward slope. very few pro apply it.
applying a downward slope in your chain gedlee is ''playing'' the artist, no?
the house curve/ B&K is a target curve, not a slope you necessary need to apply in your chain.
FWIW, I have played with the B&K curve for a couple of weeks, I eventually prefer flat. flat is absolutely right in my system. all I do is above 10khz steep roll off. -1db at 9khz, -3db from 10khz to 15khz.
Last edited:
read the thread at gearslutz and you will see that most pro do not apply any curve to their monitor chain.
many pro would be very against the idea of EQ in the mixing chain.
IIRC mitch said that one of his monitoring chain used a B&K curve, not all of his monitors.
Toole conclusions, which are somewhat limited, doesnt correlate mine. I prefer flat up until 10khz. Toole test about the prefered curve was made in a specific context, in a specific room. it doesnt mean that everyone will prefer downward slope.
also, ime, its after a couple of weeks/month of listening that I can really conclude what I prefer. at first, I loved the downward slope in my room. after a couple of weeks, I went back that ''flat'' and prefer that way.
so does that mean I'm wrong? and I should absolutely get used to a slope I dislike because Toole said it?
Last edited:
Certainly agree that the recording side should, and the playback side should have full access to reproducing this option. Do I personally think we should design to be as accurate to a standard as possible? Yes, absolutely. Would I be willing to trade off a small amount of realism for the best 5% of recordings to make the worst 60% of recordings sound notably better? Absolutely. But my opinion isn't so interesting, I think your premise is objectively false
Its a loaded question as the premise of the question is false. It IMO gives up on the pursuit of the illusion of realism (pursuing "art" instead). But lets even suspend that and go with it for a moment. It falsely presumes there is an objective way to do this that does not require individual tailoring. This is not how the human mind works and the science backs my statement up.
It falsely assumes the same boundary conditions for every replay situation: everyone has the same HRTF, every replay room is the same, and everyone has the same level of training. None of these are or ever will be true and so lead to different acceptable solutions for the individual.
HRTF: as I showed earlier, stereo has an inherent tonal error over lateral angle that is HRTF dependent. If the producers fixes this in eq, it is fixed for the producers hrtf, not the listeners. It may not be a huge error, but it is one and would require me to eq to hear what the producer even heard. Are there other errors created by stereo that are individualized? Probably, would have to think about it some more
Room affect on balance/imaging: if there was one standardized room, would I want to emulate in replay? Maybe, but I can tell you for certain it would be less enjoyable. As many studies showed, visual biases affect sonic perceptions. Why would I want to subject myself to a visually oppressive or less desirable room in the name of "objective" reproduction accuracy when my own perceptions (which are all that matter) will judge it a poorer experience or maybe even less accurate?
Here's where I'm pretty certain we will never agree but I believe the most worthwhile goal is that the illusion sounds more accurate to the individual listener. I thinks it oppressive (and the science proves it dead false) to insist that one person's perception or a technical standard can achieve that without individual tailoring.
For example, Olives tests show that training significantly improves a persons ability to discriminate and notice differences. We knew this in telecom forever and applied training in JND testing. The only reason to do this is to get the mean right. But asking people who buy stereos for enjoyment (not to be lab tools) to train themselves up to the level of the producer just so that what seems accurate to them is closer to the theoretical ideal strikes me as ludicrous. I agree that they should train themselves before making declarations regarding absolute accuracy, but don't confuse the two. If they are untrained and have perceptions that accuracy is better attained through technical inaccuracy, then technical inaccuracy is the right answer for them as it better achieves the end goal of the perception of accuracy for them.
As people with an interest in the science (ie making this predictable) we need to be able to distinguish the two, and I'm one the biggest fans and earliest adopters of Toole/Olive/Queen/Gressingers/Blaurts/name drop/name drop etc etc work but that in no way invalidates the perceptions of the untrained listener to them.
I think it's wishfull thinking to think their tastes don't affect the rendition. For example, many 70s DG classical recordings have a horrible 1st row perspective to the tonal balance. I'm sure it was "realism" to the conductor but ghastly to the me as an audience member. Multi-mic studio recordings are artificial and recording is tweaked to taste.
Different speaker design types even betray an obvious bias towards main floor (stand mount) or balcony (line source).
For me personally, I strive to train myself to be able to detect accuracy and true differences (I have CD training material and headphones at my bed side: Critical Listening Skills for Audio Professionals by F Alton Everest), but I would never presume to be authoritarian and to expect this to be ubiquitous, or to make light of other's perceptions if they don't pursue this path
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Wow, now that is funny stuff.
Thank you Earl, you've said all you ever need to say. My sides hurt. That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Or one of the most blindingly naive. Wow. So far from reality as to make one's head spin. If you are serious, that's even funnier. Crikey! Let me catch my breath....
Anywho.... this isn't a thread about what's right our wrong or about Earl's philosophy of sound reproduction that he wants to push onto anyone who will listen.
It's about a real, quantifiable effect that can be neutralized. If you are curious about it and want to hear it, give it a try. If you like it, use it. For me it solves a problem of stereo playback. It make make no difference or even have a negative effect for some who try it.
That's all the thread is about.
It's about a real, quantifiable effect that can be neutralized. If you are curious about it and want to hear it, give it a try. If you like it, use it. For me it solves a problem of stereo playback. It make make no difference or even have a negative effect for some who try it.
That's all the thread is about.
Sigh. Sorry. Just answering a question directly asked me, not trying to derail your thread.
Last edited:
And then there's reality . . . that "reproduction" was printed CMYK, and "proofed" at the press under an at best questionable light source and then viewed by you illuminated by a light source of almost certainly different color temperature and spectrum. You won't see what the pressman saw, and neither of you will actually have compared the "reproduction" to the original. Even if you did agree on a color "match" under one light source it almost certainly wouldn't match under another, because of the different pigments in the original painting and the reproduction's ink. And then there's the texture difference between paint on canvas and ink on paper which causes more differences to appear depending on the angle of illumination.
Now try 2d reproduction of a 3d object like sculpture or even woven fabric. The problems multiply . . . rather like they do in music reproduction.
You want to hear what the recording engineer or producer heard in the control room on who-knows-what monitors, and regard that as your "standard". I want to see through that and hear what it plausibly sounded like Row H center, or first row balcony . . . but in my 16x24 ft. listening room. Sometimes that takes some "fixing" . . .