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...

128x128johnread57

and even if you were so fortunate as to get truly accurate playback that was within a whisper of the control room's playback, you might not even like it that much. we all hear differently, lord knows i've heard mixes that made me scratch my head in wonderment at "what in tarnation was that blinkin' engineer thinking, was this recorded by a daggone committee?

It’s supposed to be…..I still like to use my ears, remember we’re “audio” philes.

 

@cmcaelestis 

Sigh ......

This is wrong. Ideally you are trying to match to what was done at the time of mixing and mastering. It is almost guaranteed that was done near field, one of the reasons why a flat direct sound is important, more so moving forward as studio monitors are fast becoming all active with very close to flat responses.

A room response declining in frequency matches more closely what a venue may do to the overall sound. Think about how music is recorded. Microphones close to the artists, absent the impact of where they are recorded. Not exclusively, but most. When someone is working on the mix and master, they are playing with left/right levels, and maybe frequency balance to place the artist in the recording, and then they are adjusting the overall tone so that it sounds right.

 

Sigh…

(1) Aspiring to make the the room response flat is desirable because it helps to remove the particular way that a particular room alters the sound of recorded media upon playback—it’s a room-specific endeavor, not a global ideal, and the point is not “it sounds good.” The point is accuracy. If the recording is bad no equalization will make it sound “good;” EQ to your heart’s delight to make it sound “good” to you;.

@kenjit, The OP is not talking about room response. He just wants to know if flat is right or wrong. I have answered that. 

 

You provided an answer that is both correct recognizing differences in rooms, speakers, people, while ignoring or not understanding there are two critical aspects of frequency response, direct, and room. If you use EQ, you will adjust both at the same time. You may fix the room response, which may provide you good tonality, while breaking the direct response which is necessary for good imaging, and for the correct sound of attacks.

Personally, and this is just me, I want to hear music that is as close to what the musicians played as is reasonably possible.  That means as close to flat as I can get from my equipment.  There are external factors that I have varying degrees of control over, but at least I know my equipment is not a (significant) part of the problem.  So for me, yes, flat is ideal.