upvote

points

by jurf13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ssl-35 hours ago|
next
[-]
No speakers have flat frequency response. If that's the target (it usually isn't[1] even with very elaborate systems that include a great deal of DSP grunt, in my experience), then they all miss -- every single one of them misses.

All speakers have resonances that add to the sound in ways that frequency response, alone, does not measure. All speakers also have imperfect dynamic response. All speakers have imperfect impedances, which can matter quite a lot to the power amplifier that drives them. All speakers have non-linear phase response. All speakers have different dispersion characteristics.

All speakers then operate within acoustic spaces (like a room in a house) that introduce even more variables.

[1]: https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/Dolby-Atmos-...

reply
upvoteby majormajor10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Speakers were never subjective (unlike earphones)

I don't think this has been true in my lifetime, at least. Some brands being known for "warmth" vs "brightness" is ages old, before the idea of audiophile earbuds was even a thing. At the extreme end, you can go back at least 40 years to see people with dedicated sub outputs and massively-oversized non-flat subwoofer setups.

reply
upvoteby jurf9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure but they’ve always been mastered with the same setup, so the bar has not changed. And anything flavoured will not work universally for all types of music or other kinds of audio (like voice calls are really hard to understand with bassy speakers).
reply
upvoteby ProfessorLayton9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Mastering is done with the target in mind. There's tons of great videos by Masahiro Sakurai (Creator of Smash Bros.), one of which covers how they use typical household TVs to tune the audio/video for the game because relying on top-end audio/video equipment will result in worse results for the player.
reply
upvoteby tgv9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Speakers, at least the great majority of them, are not flat. Can you not hear differences between speakers? Studio monitors typically aim for a flat response, but most barely make an acceptable approximation. And then we're not even discussing phone and tv speakers or the fact that a flat response for pure tones doesn't necessarily translate to one for complex sounds.
reply
upvoteby jurf9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe I should’ve said “never meant to be subjective” – I meant the target.
reply
upvoteby redhed9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I have heard that audio engineer's don't necessarily master to a flat EQ because such a small section of listeners are listening with a flat EQ. Most are using car speakers, airpods, etc so they master it based on those expectations.
reply
upvoteby perching_aix8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In my understanding, this whole thing is basically 1:1 with color spaces in display tech, except with pictures/video you at least get to encode what you targeted, versus with audio, you don't.

Is this incorrect?

reply
upvoteby redhed7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah that's pretty good way to put it, except I'd say the average person is using way better screens with smartphones than the quality of speakers/headphones their using.
reply
upvoteby doubled11211 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The definition of sound quality tends to change between people.

My definition is pretty much the same as yours here, but I know quite a few people who hate listening to music on anything with a relatively flat frequency response.

reply
upvoteby jurf9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I wonder how much of this comes down to marketing… I keep coming back to Posy’s “Desirable Nonsense” video [1].

[1]: https://youtu.be/B_8HDPBfvHI

reply
upvoteby SomeoneOnTheWeb11 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Why would speakers be any different than earphones? Botu are subjective ; I personally hate flat eq. I've listened to numerous products, some worth thousands of dollars, and I'll always take some sort of slight bass and treble boost over flat eq. I'll even take a big bass boost over no bass boost at all.
reply
upvoteby namibj10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Earphones are forgoing the outer parts of your ears and skull.

Speakers don't; a "good" speaker setup with eyes closed and no wind/perceptible airflow and no smell and truthful thermal radiation surroundings is effectively indistinguishable from the real place.

Like, literally.

It's not _possible_ with earphones because you can't not feel their presence without being numb on a good bit of your head.

reply
upvoteby 9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby LoganDark9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Tangent, but I found that a bass shaker / transducer massively improved my speaker experience without requiring a subwoofer. I built the subwoofer first, but it would annoy everyone around me and it was really spotty depending on its location, the exact layout of the room, etc. Slapped a bass shaker underneath me and it really completes the experience without annoying everybody else.
reply
upvoteby Giefo6ah10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Why would speakers be any different than earphones

There are various "ideal" EQ targets for earphones depending on what your model of an ideal audio source is. They all start with a flat response speaker, from then you can model:

- Two speakers right next to the listener's ears. (flat)

- A single speaker 1 metre away in the x axis, in an infinitely-sized anechoic room. (free field)

- Two speakers 30 cm away pointing to a plastic torso at a 90° angle, in a room with reverberations. (B&K/Harman)

- A spherical room lined with speakers, point listener in the centre with no reverberation. (diffuse field)

- An infinite wall of speakers 1 metre away in the x axis. (another method for free field)

- etc

reply