|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 7, 2015 9:25:22 GMT -5
Interesting that your results are as flat as they are - despite what Tony's graphs show what the predicted response would be. Thanks for posting those links - I'm very familiar with all of those threads. I used to be very active over at the shack. I learned a lot when programming a Behringer Feedback Destroyer and later a MiniDSP to try to tweak my subs. Those are great threads about house curves. However, I believe that the stock calibration file rolls off the low content - not increases it? Would be curious to see a comparison of the original cal vs a flat on from CSL - and see what Omnimic shows. I understand if you're happy with the original cal - so no worries. I think Omnimic is a great tool. Some have complained that Dirac's results are very bright because of an increase in response above 10k post Dirac. I'm not getting that for whatever reason. Am I happy with the stock results? No. I like more at the bottom end and I can very simply edit the cal file and experiment with the results. I've settled on one that increases the Bass by about 8 dB starting around 90 Hz down to 30Hz. I've not touched the default cal file above 100 Hz. It's a very simple thing to do with Wordpad or Notepad and a few minutes of your time. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 7, 2015 9:36:46 GMT -5
I would be curious to see what you think, George, if you were to try Tony's solution....just because of your weak bass results.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Feb 7, 2015 9:49:29 GMT -5
Interesting that your results are as flat as they are - despite what Tony's graphs show what the predicted response would be. Thanks for posting those links - I'm very familiar with all of those threads. I used to be very active over at the shack. I learned a lot when programming a Behringer Feedback Destroyer and later a MiniDSP to try to tweak my subs. Those are great threads about house curves. However, I believe that the stock calibration file rolls off the low content - not increases it. I don't understand why - when you'd think if you were building a house calibration - you'd put a small boost. Would be curious to see a comparison of the original cal vs a flat on from CSL - and see what Omnimic shows. I understand if you're happy with the original cal - so no worries. I think Omnimic is a great tool. Jim, Here is the predicted with house curve in place (post dirac) (note the 2db scale). The Emotiva file does not address below 30 since the emotiva cal does not below 30hz. Red line is the difference between the CS and emotiva calibration + factoring in a +3 to -3 from 30hz to 20k (basically a graph of what emotiva determine sounded good). The blue line represents just a house curve of +3 to -3 and is what I expected to see for the results. Since Lonnie stated that the calibration file found in the program is wrong, and that they designed the house curve to sound good. (not measure good), this graph shows how easy that could of been done if you are aiming for flat instead of the house curve displayed in Dirac. However, I hope that once they get the correct 90 made (which was confirmed) that they just use that in the LE and remove the house curve if that is the end result that they are trying to achieve. Plus it would fix below 100hz and above 12khz.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2015 10:03:04 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Nice post, as usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Feb 7, 2015 10:08:25 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Nice post, as usual. Though, I still like my curve.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2015 10:11:22 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Nice post, as usual. Though, I still like my curve. Yep. Me too. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 7, 2015 10:23:23 GMT -5
I would be curious to see what you think, George, if you were to try Tony's solution....just because of your weak bass results. Mark I like the results of Tony's file but as I mentioned to him I get a bit of a dull upper end. And I still have to add some bass because Tony's does not account for personal tastes in the way of a pseudo house curve. It's better but still about 4 dB shy in the bass to my liking. I prefer about 8dB from just below 90 down to 30. I just edit the stock file to give me an increase in the bass and with trial and error I was able to get some excellent sound without changing anything at the other end of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrebel on Feb 7, 2015 10:23:17 GMT -5
The problem is, as with a lot of other correction systems that generate a flat response, most people don't like the sound of flat and will hate it. You can sit on REW forums all day long and laugh, what measures flat and "technically correct" will be followed with "It just doesn't sound great, what did I do wrong". People have been so conditioned to re-engineered/processed sound (via secondary broadcasters) in their everyday life that when they hear the content in the manner is was mastered in they feel its "less than engaging" vs what they "think" it should sound like.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 7, 2015 10:28:00 GMT -5
I would be curious to see what you think, George, if you were to try Tony's solution....just because of your weak bass results. Mark I like the results of Tony's file but as I mentioned to him I get a bit of a dull upper end. And I still have to add some bass because Tony's does not account for personal tastes in the way of a pseudo house curve. It's better but still about 4 dB shy in the bass to my liking. I prefer about 8dB from just below 90 down to 30. I just edit the stock file to give me an increase in the bass and with trial and error I was able to get some excellent sound without changing anything at the other end of the spectrum. I do not think that one intended end result will please all in all rooms with all speakers. The file I created works for me in my room with my stuff and I would not expect it to be best for everyone. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 7, 2015 10:29:53 GMT -5
So George is "all about that bass, not the treble"!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 7, 2015 10:36:13 GMT -5
So George is "all about that bass, not the treble"!!! Oh, I'm quite fond of good treble and I just cannot listen to dull recordings. I very much like the open airy sound a nice high end gives me. Maybe the silk domes of the 8.3s are less prone to producing shrillness which I can't stand either. And from reading the articles over in the REW forums an 8dB house curve is not at all an uncommon preference. 6 to 10 is not unusual at all. It looks like Dirac LE is about 2dB boost at the bottom end which is close to nothing. So I'm not by any means a bass head if that's what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2015 10:44:59 GMT -5
So George is "all about that bass, not the treble"!!! Oh, I'm quite fond of good treble and I just cannot listen to dull recordings. I very much like the open airy sound a nice high end gives me. Maybe the silk domes of the 8.3s are less prone to producing shrillness which I can't stand either. And from reading the articles over in the REW forums an 8dB house curve is not at all an uncommon preference. 6 to 10 is not unusual at all. It looks like Dirac LE is about 2dB boost at the bottom end which is close to nothing. So I'm not by any means a bass head if that's what you mean. Everybody is secretly a bass head. It's OK if you have more than one sub. We won't judge. |
|
|
|
Post by rswood on Feb 7, 2015 11:56:27 GMT -5
Well, I for one find it troubling how many people still don't see the problem after seeing it illustrated with Tony's graphs and all the data. You can't take a calibration, use it on a different axis and say "it's all good, move along". But that's the response I'm reading. Am I off base here? I've been on vacation. This is a black and white issue. Either the calibration is correct or it's not. The data argues that the included calibration being wrong. It is really quite simple. For many of us (and given the number of XMC-1 units in the field, and the number of owners who have posted about the issue, I think "many" can reasonably be defined as "the vast majority") this is a non issue. I ran Dirac with the original cal file. I did NOT lose my bass, I did NOT get shrieking highs, and my system sounds better than ever. Better detail, clearer more defined voices, any way you care to describe the quality of the sound my system reproduces is better, with no discernable negatives. While I am not closed to the idea of trying a different cal file, that is due to simple curiosity, not to any dissatisfaction with my results. It all boils down to how it sounds. That is what matters to me. Not what the graphs look like, or what the data from someone else's system looks like. I am not here to tell anyone else that they should be happy with the way their system sounds if they are not satisfied, but at the same time I don't need any one telling me something is wrong with mine when I AM satisfied. But don't you agree that something could be wrong with yours and you could still be satisfied, I don't believe those two things are mutually exclusive. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,855
|
Post by LCSeminole on Feb 7, 2015 11:56:46 GMT -5
Oh, I'm quite fond of good treble and I just cannot listen to dull recordings. I very much like the open airy sound a nice high end gives me. Maybe the silk domes of the 8.3s are less prone to producing shrillness which I can't stand either. And from reading the articles over in the REW forums an 8dB house curve is not at all an uncommon preference. 6 to 10 is not unusual at all. It looks like Dirac LE is about 2dB boost at the bottom end which is close to nothing. So I'm not by any means a bass head if that's what you mean. Everybody is secretly a bass head. It's OK if you have more than one sub. We won't judge. If having 2+ subwoofers is classified as a bass head, then I fully admit my love of lfe's. Once I went a 2nd SVS, there was no going back.  |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Feb 7, 2015 12:37:40 GMT -5
Everybody is secretly a bass head. It's OK if you have more than one sub. We won't judge. If having 2+ subwoofers is classified as a bass head, then I fully admit my love of lfe's. Once I went a 2nd SVS, there was no going back. Its a disease... Started with 1, bought 2 more, built 1 and have 4 waiting to be built. Front 3 speakers have built in subs as well. Trying to produce good bass results for 7 seats has become a costly challenge. Right now the 4 subs are just for producing even response for the front 3 seats. The rear 4 are still a bit heavy and need more room treatments, more room treatments means more subs. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by rswood on Feb 7, 2015 12:41:26 GMT -5
If having 2+ subwoofers is classified as a bass head, then I fully admit my love of lfe's. Once I went a 2nd SVS, there was no going back. Its a disease... Started with 1, bought 2 more, built 1 and have 4 waiting to be built. Front 3 speakers have built in subs as well. Trying to produce good bass results for 7 seats has become a costly challenge. Right now the 4 subs are just for producing even response for the front 3 seats. The rear 4 are still a bit heavy and need more room treatments, more room treatments means more subs. Tony Bassaholics anyone! 21 steps and you will be OK. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,033
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 7, 2015 13:17:18 GMT -5
It is really quite simple. For many of us (and given the number of XMC-1 units in the field, and the number of owners who have posted about the issue, I think "many" can reasonably be defined as "the vast majority") this is a non issue. I ran Dirac with the original cal file. I did NOT lose my bass, I did NOT get shrieking highs, and my system sounds better than ever. Better detail, clearer more defined voices, any way you care to describe the quality of the sound my system reproduces is better, with no discernable negatives. While I am not closed to the idea of trying a different cal file, that is due to simple curiosity, not to any dissatisfaction with my results. It all boils down to how it sounds. That is what matters to me. Not what the graphs look like, or what the data from someone else's system looks like. I am not here to tell anyone else that they should be happy with the way their system sounds if they are not satisfied, but at the same time I don't need any one telling me something is wrong with mine when I AM satisfied. But don't you agree that something could be wrong with yours and you could still be satisfied, I don't believe those two things are mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then how do we know what is "right"? Or is there such a thing? Is my Dirac, Audessey, MCACC, etc. really, truly correcting my room and sound optimally? Is it all just a compromise? So, are the folks like Viper6 and myself who seem happy with Dirac LE results just buying fools gold? I'm honestly asking. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 7, 2015 13:50:08 GMT -5
But don't you agree that something could be wrong with yours and you could still be satisfied, I don't believe those two things are mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then how do we know what is "right"? Or is there such a thing? Is my Dirac, Audessey, MCACC, etc. really, truly correcting my room and sound optimally? Is it all just a compromise? So, are the folks like Viper6 and myself who seem happy with Dirac LE results just buying fools gold? I'm honestly asking. My two pennies, if it sounds right to you then be at peace with yourself and consider it right. Like you say, what exactly does "right" mean? Because of our sense of hearing, a linear bass response will sound like the bass is not strong enough. There's a house curve to correct it in which the lowest frequencies are boosted to adjust for this. So is a linear response technically "right" because that's what is measured, or is a house curve "right" because that's adjusted to account for the way we hear? In either case, people hear differently and have different preferences so would either of these truly be "right?" |
|
|
|
Post by rswood on Feb 7, 2015 13:55:04 GMT -5
But don't you agree that something could be wrong with yours and you could still be satisfied, I don't believe those two things are mutually exclusive. If that's the case, then how do we know what is "right"? Or is there such a thing? Is my Dirac, Audessey, MCACC, etc. really, truly correcting my room and sound optimally? Is it all just a compromise? So, are the folks like Viper6 and myself who seem happy with Dirac LE results just buying fools gold? I'm honestly asking. The only thing that really maters is that you like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 7, 2015 14:04:19 GMT -5
It's all reference vs preference.
If you're talking about movies -
You're trying to reproduce the results that were heard by the rerecording mixer at the dubbing stage (generally a very flat FR - and using good Genelec monitors in many cases) - what the director intended. My understanding is that although dubbing stages use the X-curve - rarely does it apply to home theater size rooms.
Otherwise, you're making a curve up that isn't consistent with what was heard when it was mixed - but you like how it sounds more.
For music, there really isn't a benchmark. Half the stuff produced these days is meant for iPod earbuds.
For movies, I like a bump in the LFE range - but I generally put faith in the re-recording mixers doing their job correctly - and wanting to reproduce that experience.
Is reference "right"? it's all relative.
|
|
