Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear

[davef]

This is funny - everything has shifted 180 degrees.

I'm the one who trusted my hearing, and I was told that I shouldn't, and that measurements like the REW software offers are more reliable as far as what's really happening.

Now you're saying what you hear is more important, regardless of measurements.

No, this is a completely wrong conclusion and I believe you know this. You can trust your ears to determine what sounds good to you, that is it. No different than trusting your taste buds to determine if you will like the taste of that chocolate bar you bit into.

Measurements determine the actual performance and accuracy of a speaker. They are an excellent visual representation of speaker performance. No different in needing the actual ingredients and percentages of the ingredients to determine if that chocolate bar is healthy for you.

You have been trying to trust your own hearing with sine-wave test tones to determine the measurements of a speaker.

Interestingly, I find the towers response in my living room doesn't seem to follow the PIR that you posted - it's much more even than that.

Would you trust your taste buds to determine the ingredients and the amount of those ingredients? Of course not, not even professional chefs can do this.

When you have accurate measurements of a speaker that you like, if a different speaker measures very similarly, you can make the assumption you will like that speaker too. If there are aspects of a speaker you don't like - after properly measuring the speaker and playing with equalization, you can then take steps to improve what sounds better to you. Or, if you are after absolute accuracy, you can use the measurements to apply EQ to help tame room issues or correct problematic response issue with the speakers.

Do not assume accuracy and what sounds good to you are one in the same. (they are never related)

Then why get the REW software and use it to measure and equalize stuff? You can just as easily just get an equalizer and do it manually, the way I'm probably going to do it.

Because then you haven't actually learned anything and have no baseline of determining what frequency response sounds good to you.

Personally, I'm very interested in the correlation (or lack of it) between measurements and what I hear. If/when my test tones correlate with what I hear in music it makes me happy. If I got the REW software and it showed a vastly different response than what I hear, it would bother me.

Trust me when I say this, the measurements you will see will indeed show a VASTLY different response than what you think you hear. You have already proved this in a previous statement you made, which I quote above. You won't be happy, but you will be on your way to learning more.

[James]

Ok, I can get that idea - it's a combination of measurements for accuracy and your hearing for your tastes.

I do think that some people have more refined palates than others and they can tell more of what's in a dish than others. Professional chefs, for one. And just like you can damage your hearing by listening to very loud sound for too long, you can probably dull your palate by eating a lot of salty, spicy food.

I'm not really trying to determine the REW measurements of our speakers by listening to them. It's more like eating something and thinking there's not much salt and then finding out there's a ton of salt in it. While I don't think I could tell exactly what ingredients are in a dish in exactly what proportion, I'd like to think I can taste that there's a lot of salt in it.

I know from personal experience with reducing my salt intake that I now can more accurately taste when there's a lot of salt in a dish. And I value that, as I value testing my hearing and being able to hear small volume or timing differences.

That's interesting - is it really true that nobody likes accuracy? I believe that I want an accurate system - that's one reason I bought the Ascend speakers, which show good accuracy in the measurements section. And it's why I bought my other components, which had reviews showing decent neutrality.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood that part - why would accuracy and what sounds good to me (or anybody else) never be related?

[James]

I'm really torn about the REW.

On the one hand, it appeals to my perfectionism and wanting to hear an absolutely neutral/accurate reproduction (even if it turns out I prefer some imperfections).

But on the other, if there are massive imperfections in my current set-up, then they'd require massive corrections, and I also have some purist tendencies.

And, from what I've read, it's a very complex program and I think it would take a long time and a lot of effort to be sure I'm using it correctly.

The worst of both worlds would be to find out there are massive imperfections, but then not be able to fix them.

[James]

Also, just intellectually, I find it hard to reconcile that there might be large deviations from neutrality that I don't hear.

I can hear 1db volume changes on a test (nothing smaller).

On the test tones, I don't hear huge changes in volume. If they're there, why wouldn't I be able to hear them?

[davef]

And what exactly do you consider to be a neutral in-room response?

[James]

I feel like that's a trick question somehow :-)

Generally, I consider neutrality to be an accurate representation of the source signal. So if the test tones are recorded at the same volume level, I should hear them that way.

Is there another definition of neutrality that would apply to this question?

[davef]

I feel like that's a trick question somehow :-)

Generally, I consider neutrality to be an accurate representation of the source signal. So if the test tones are recorded at the same volume level, I should hear them that way.

Is there another definition of neutrality that would apply to this question?

So, in other words, you are stating that you consider a neutral in-room response to be listening to your test tones at your main listening position such that you hear all of them at the same amplitude, correct?

[James]

That's hard to answer yes or no.

I would be hearing a neutral accurate reproduction of the source that way, I think.

It's possible because of Fletcher Munson that the measured in-room response could be tilted up in the bass but I wouldn't hear it that way.

So the measured response wouldn't be neutral, but I would hear it as neutral. Especially at lower volume levels, which is how I generally listen.

If the REW measurements showed more volume in the bass than I was hearing, that would be in-line with my understanding of the Fletcher Munson curve. It's really the 15db peak-to-trough graphs not in the bass that throw me - could I really not be hearing that sort of thing?

One of the things I'd expect to change if I had an equalizer is that I'd boost the bass levels until I could hear it as flat down to about 40Hz, to be able to fully hear the low E of the double bass.

[davef]

That's hard to answer yes or no.

I would be hearing a neutral accurate reproduction of the source that way, I think.

It's possible because of Fletcher Munson that the measured in-room response could be tilted up in the bass but I wouldn't hear it that way.

So the measured response wouldn't be neutral, but I would hear it as neutral. Especially at lower volume levels, which is how I generally listen.

I am just repeating your own statements James. It is a very simple question, for which I didn't mention anything about equal loudness curves or measurements.

Basically, you keep repeating yourself that what you consider to be a neutral response in a speaker, for your own ears, is you hearing equal amplitude in your test tones. (assuming those test tones were actually recorded at the same amplitude). James, there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve what YOU consider to be a neutral response in a speaker placed in your room. However, the definition of a neutral speaker is not based on one's hearing, and for very good reason.

Further to the point, please see the attached measurement. If listening in your room, which of these frequency response measurements would you expect to sound more neutral to your ears? Black measurement or Red measurement?

image1.gif

[James]

What I want is to hear a neutral, accurate reproduction of the source signal. I want to hear what's been recorded, without additions or subtractions, as much as possible.

The question we're discussing is how to achieve that, isn't it? For various reasons, it seems that REW measurements show some large-ish deviations from that at a normal listening position.

I know the "right" answer to that question is the red line, from some reading. And I can understand (at lower listening levels) why the bass boost sounds neutral. But I don't really understand why the treble should be reduced like that - the Fletcher Munson curve shows decreasing sensitivity at lower levels to the treble as well as the bass.

And, I can see with some of the REW measurements that the sort of average curve is sloping downwards, which would fit the red line. But they also show peaks and dips that I would think should be audible.