There are many factors involved in reproducing a recorded signal. Some are more important than others which is why when some factors are not done well the sound may still be better than when other factors are done well. But the goal is for every factor to be accurate. Flat response should always be a goal although I consider it a secondary factor. I find dynamic linearity, minimal compression of level changes of all magnitudes from micro to macro a primary factor in sounding real. But anyone not attempting to achieve flat response to be in error.
Is a FLAT response the IDEAL?
Sounds in nature are not a flat response, quite often, there are natural attenuators, accelerators and amplifiers, including horns (caves), wind and water, let alone reflections, absorption and diffraction.
Similarly the holy grail (one of them) of recreating outdoor, concert or live music, and so on, abound with these shifts in the environment or context where the experience happens and the recording takes place. Are we depending on the mic positioning, and mic performance, along with mixing equipment, format and so on, to enable recreation of the environment when moving to playback. How does a flat response curve help?
Of course, we have DSP. For Club, Hall, Rock, Indoor, Outdoor and may other shifts to music recordings. And mastering adds reverb as another way to create a 3D version of context/venue. These are averaging processes that apply universal shifts to shape a standard curve across the music stream continuously.
So why is it that we pursue flat response curves? Or DSP generated fixed curves? How does flat recreate that live ’being there’ experience.
When designing equipment including components, such as DACs, and speakers, most seek to judge against a flat frequency response.
Mind you, how on earth can we allow other than flat. Turntables as most here know, use the RIAA curve to fix the problems of hearing that itself is not flat. But even that is aimed to deliver a flat hearing response.
I don’t understand. If we are trying to model or capture the original event, how does flattening everything help? And, what are the alternatives? How do we achieve close to the venue or location, given so many unique variables, that our approximations just don’t seem close to the original. It’s no wonder... Have we selected flat because it is the best average we’ve got?
Do immersive audio methods of sound reproduction do it better? Some prefer pure stereo, some like DSP, some multi-channel and multi-speaker methods including ambiophonics.
Where does the ’flat curve’ fit into the equation here, vs say cross-over design or powered speakers or upgrades as a priority? Should we care about it?
Well that’s enough to launch this inquiry...
- ...
- 43 posts total
@kenjit ,
No you can't. An EQ will change both the direct sound and the room response. Fix one and you can break the other. EQ is not a substitute for a good speaker and the matching room. |
The OP is not talking about room response. He just wants to know if flat is right or wrong. I have answered that. An EQ has already been used even before you plug in your speakers. The mastering engineer and the mixing engineers would have used plenty of EQ unbeknown to the audiophile. The EQ would have been used to balance the sound but you will need to retune the sound because everybody has diffferent hearing, different room and different speakers.This is why every speaker on the market has a different frequency response curve. Every speaker designer has their own opinion about what sounds good and so every speaker is tuned according to their preference and their room. The goal of an audiophile is to go out and find a speaker which is miraculously tuned exactly to your requirements and that of the speaker designer, which is highly unlikely wouldn't you say? |
AFAIC the only way you could truly get true reproduced flatness in record playback is if your listening room and playback equipment are identical to that which recorded it. other than that it is a crapshoot. the most you can hope for in the real world is to avoid the noted audio sins of shriek and boom and to have sound clean enough and close enough to relative neutrality that you can discern something of what the original recording engineer heard in his studio control room. you are NOT gonna hear but an approximation of what went on in the studio auditorium itself, not even with krell and wilson on hand. it is, with the exception of minimally mic’ed direct to stereo recordings in real spaces, all a game of manufacturing and consuming sonic sausages. |
- 43 posts total