The problem is all of those digital processors and parametric EQ's completely butcher all the dynamic subtleties that you get with really high end gear.
Every DSP based system I've ever heard has been pretty lifeless.
Jeff, I find your comments very interesting, considering that you have listened to a large number of different systems. What I find particularly interesting is the comment about dynamic subtleties. I am theorizing here and may well be wrong, but is it possible that those digital processors optimize the response for frequency sweeps, which are essentially concatenated sine waves, missing the fact that music is anything but steady-state sine waves.
What we need now is for you to visit Jonathan's man-cave.
...
Well, Jeff is invited to visit when he’s in town for CEDIA, so hopefully he’ll be able to report back his impressions (good, bad or otherwise) of my setup.
Jeff, I’ll agree with you that Parametric EQ applied across the entire band is not the greatest. It solves many, many problems, but then adds some new ones, such as phase shifts at many points in the spectrum.
Even my $5K DriveRack 4800 speaker processor, which does better than most parametric EQ’s is no match for a phase-coherent EQ process based on FIR processes (e.g. Audyssey).
I would contest the ‘lifeless’ part, as if one is indeed fixing serious room modes, it will sound quite different, with much less room-induced overhang and ringing. These changes can be interpreted as being ‘less’, well, because they are indeed less ringing and less resonance build-up.
Bernard, as for whether its music vs tones, I’m sorry, don’t buy that. No science to support that contention. Please read up on modern multi-frequency tone burst measurement process.
Now, a user running the Stereophile (sine) test tones and using an SPL meter to try and manually adjust an EQ will never yield good results.
What does yield good results is:
- A multi-point measurement process that takes 6 or more measurements of each speaker in the room and applies advanced algorithms to integrate the overall room response into the filter coefficient calculations.
- A ‘filter’ that is effective in both frequency and time-domains (implies an FIR-based corrector)
In practice, the above results in over 90 individual measurements (10 mic locations X (7.1 speakers + paired rears)) feeding into the room analysis model. No manual process will ever support that.
Trust me, I tried; I used to do six measurements of three speakers (18 measurements) and try and correct based on the modes I would ‘see’ in the charts. So I was more attentive to this than most, yet the automated Audyssey Pro results are miles and miles ahead.
I cannot stand my system with Audyssey off. It lacks clarity and there are clear room and speaker resonances that ‘smear’ the results.
With it on, the cohesion in spectrum and time, as well as the astoundingly accurate soundstage (2ch or multichannel) makes listening a real pleasure.
I’ll trot out my favorite analogy on this topic. Room correction is much like eye correction (using Glasses). It vastly improves one’s ability to see. And just like I listen with Audyssey on, I watch movies with my glasses on as well. Both for the same reason, I can perceive more of what’s ‘there’.
