Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Curtis,
Thanks for the suggestions.
I had that concern about the Behringer - unfortunately I haven't been able to find any analog parametric equalizers. And graphic equalizers don't allow for such precise adjustments, so I'm not sure that I'd be happy with results from those. Have you used any analog graphic equalizers? If so, what's your experience been like with them?
This isn't my first system - I've gone through a number of different speakers. And I used to regularly go to our local bricks and mortar audio dealer to listen to things there. Sadly they went out of business - hard to compete with the internet I would guess.
Also, when traveling on vacation once, I was able to listen to the Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy speakers at a dealer in Ohio - that was a treat! The whole system cost about $75,000, and that was a long time ago.
I grew up listening to music, both live and recorded, and it's always been important to me. About 20 years ago, I picked up a Stereophile magazine, and got interested in audio stuff. Some of what I learned helped to explain things I'd heard years earlier, but without an understanding or vocabulary to describe them.
That makes sense to me about the crossover, and it's why I'm interested in Vandersteen speakers and how they compare to Ascend. When I listened to the 1C at a dealer with my test tones, I could hear some lumpiness right around the crossover region. I don't hear that with my Towers - I figure that's because of the higher-order crossovers.
It would be great if I could easily switch out the Towers for the Vandersteens, and listen to them at home for a while with my equipment/room/music, but that's not really possible. So if anybody here has experience with Vandersteen speakers, I'd be grateful if they would share it.
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
I don't understand that comment - what do you mean by "calibrated"?
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
In retrospect, even though they were very impressive, I'm not sure I'd like to have the Wilson speakers. They really brought the music into the room and up close to the listener, and I prefer to have the music across the room from me - less immersive.
And I'm not sure that they didn't exaggerate the soundstaging a bit.
At the time, I didn't have my test CD, so I just listened to some music - Oscar Peterson on Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz show and a couple of other things.
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
James
I don't understand that comment - what do you mean by "calibrated"?
Just accuracy...that it is accurately reproducing a tone at a given level.
How do your PC speakers sound to you...or headphones that you use?
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
curtis
Just accuracy...that it is accurately reproducing a tone at a given level.
How do your PC speakers sound to you...or headphones that you use?
They sound limited of course, especially in the bass region.
But they seem fine for those tests I mentioned, especially tests on how small a volume difference or timing difference you can hear.
I wouldn't expect to hear a full 20-20kHz sweep on them, by any means.
We could use the I-Pad and do the tests while listening to the Towers, which would be interesting - if I can convince my wife on that one :-)
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
James
They sound limited of course, especially in the bass region.
But they seem fine for those tests I mentioned, especially tests on how small a volume difference or timing difference you can hear.
I wouldn't expect to hear a full 20-20kHz sweep on them, by any means.
We could use the I-Pad and do the tests while listening to the Towers, which would be interesting - if I can convince my wife on that one :-)
Wouldn't you be interested in the frequency response of those speakers before you did the test?
Before any test like that, wouldn't you want to know the playback equipment was accurate?
You want to correlate what you see FR graph to what you hear, but you take a test on your hearing without knowing the FR graph of the output device?
I thought you sent test tones to your Towers already. How did you do that?
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
curtis
Wouldn't you be interested in the frequency response of those speakers before you did the test?
Before any test like that, wouldn't you want to know the playback equipment was accurate?
You want to correlate what you see FR graph to what you hear, but you take a test on your hearing without knowing the FR graph of the output device?
I thought you sent test tones to your Towers already. How did you do that?
It doesn't seem necessary, especially for the tests I mentioned. The one testing audibility of volume changes uses an a440 tone, which is clearly played by my computer speakers. I'm not testing my hearing with it the way that an audiologist does - I go to one of those every year for that. I guess we have to trust that their system is accurate.
You should really check out the website - you might find it interesting. And you seem to have plenty of knowledge about your system to feel confident it's reproducing the various tests accurately.
I have the Stereophile Editor's Choice CD, and it has the Chromatic Scale test on it. This streaming stuff through an I-pad is new to me - I haven't had that capacity for very long. Over the last few years of owning the Towers, I've moved them around a lot, changed toe-in, listened with and without the grills. Every time I make a change, I listen to music for a while to see if I hear any changes, then play the Chromatic Scale test.
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
It's kind of a microcosm of the larger issue, isn't it? How do you know that your system is accurately reproducing a 1db volume level test?
Get a mic and the REW software, and you can learn a lot, for sure. But how do you know if the mic is accurate?
It seems like there's a strange sort of problem there - you can only gauge accuracy by measuring, but how do you know the tools you're using to measure are accurate? By using other tools, but then...
The Chromatic Scale test on my CD is supposed to be a set of evenly spaced 1/12 octave tones at the same volume level, but I just sort of trust that's true - I don't know for sure there aren't some errors in it, either as far as tonality or volume.
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
James
It's kind of a microcosm of the larger issue, isn't it? How do you know that your system is accurately reproducing a 1db volume level test?
Get a mic and the REW software, and you can learn a lot, for sure. But how do you know if the mic is accurate?
That is why you get a calibrated mic.
A popular one is the UMIK-1 which comes with a calibration file. They are each tested before shipped to the retailer and the corresponding calibration file is available online. That calibration file can be loaded into REW. It can also be used with Dirac.
I believe the dB meter we used during our demo session, Dave sends out once in a while to get tested/calibrated.
You have to have the right equipment to do the right job.
Re: Measurements, EQ, and what we actually hear
Well, yes, that's the one I was looking at - it's very reasonably priced, and can be used easily with the REW software.
Can you post a picture of the frequency response of the one you have?