How many of you run your systems flat?

[soundboy]

Just curious how many of you with JBL systems, even monitors, run your systems without any eq on the low end.
I have always designed my cabs with flat tuning...example: The 4430 tunes the 2235H in 5 cu ft to 34 hz. My tuning for the same driver in the past was 28 hz.
My systems for both live and at home, are very flat down through the mid bass...which makes most CD's sound lean and, well, needing a slight hump in the 80-125hz region. Especially my live rig, but now I find, unless speakers are in a fairly small room that enhances this region, the bass needs some warmth and thump added.
Seems everyone I know, that is audiophile or not, enhances the low end, or uses a "Kosmos" or "BBE" type unit, etc....and generally, they sound great. Which leads me to wonder...
1. Are most studios small enough to enhance those frequencies, so they are left lean on most commercial recordings?
2. Are most monitor systems, like JBL, using a low end hump, so they sound good, but the final product, the music, is lacking?

My old 4301B's sound great in a fairly small room...but they have a bass peak around 60-80hz, and the room further enhances it.
My Dynaudio/2245H sub system is flat below 200 hz, and mostly sounds lean without a couple db of boost below 160hz...but it is in a fairly large L shaped space.

Are you all running things flat, or making up for all those recordings with an added bass EQ....or higher Q on your woofer tuning?

I have always hated loudness contours, but the low end contour on my modified 565 Adcom preamp sounds great on most of my CD's. It only adds a couple db at moderate levels in the midbass region. Should I have "non purist guilt" for using it on bright material?:blink:

Who else boosts their low end a bit, and if not, what is your woofer Q, and room response below 200hz?

If your system is ruler flat...are you happy?

Thanks.

[boputnam]

Just curious how many of you with JBL systems, even monitors, run your systems without any eq on the low end.
I have always designed my cabs with flat tuning...example: The 4430 tunes the 2235H in 5 cu ft to 34 hz. My tuning for the same driver in the past was 28 hz.
My systems for both live and at home, are very flat down through the mid bass...which makes most CD's sound lean and, well, needing a slight hump in the 80-125hz region. Especially my live rig, but now I find, unless speakers are in a fairly small room that enhances this region, the bass needs some warmth and thump added.I don't know your set-ups, but intentions of design and actual results are different, relating to room response and unintended cabinet resonance, etc.

Are your observations subjective or have you measured the response to see if indeed the FR is lacking in the 80-250Hz - that is, does the FR curve have a saddle, or low area there? If so, it would be appropriate to remedy that. Remember, these JBL Monitors are not intended to be "plug and play" - they require appropriate set-up. It could be your 80-250Hz region is flat, but overwhelmed by an imbalance with the HF, and you should be notching, there.

To your question, I do run flat, both in the home and in SR. I have modelled the response of my cabinets in both environments and notched the EQ where needed. In SR there are always room anomalies I try and tame, but not all can be. There is a slight bass coupling with the 4345's on a wooden floor, but it is not pronounced.

I have found the most uniformly accepted and pleasing response is flat. If it doesn't work for you, get a better speaker...:p

[BMWCCA]

I'm no where near a knowledgeable technology expert but I do trust my ears. Of course those ears are colored by growing up with an 030 system!

I use EQ in all my systems because the source material requires it, room variations benefit from it, and volume levels also influence the balance of the sound (Fletcher-Munson and all that). I always found my old McIntosh C20 loudness control effectively dealt with hearing characteristics related to sound level and never hesitated to use it. Likewise my Soundcraftsmen Pre-EQs are generally set for room variations but I can't resist tweaking them based on individual audio engineer's decisions on how they recorded the material. Some sound great flat, beyond the room EQ, and I often fantasize that those engineers used JBL monitors. Others really need help, IMHO. Back in the old days, I bought into JBL's advertising thinking that if 90% of what I listened to was recorded using JBL monitors, then my L112s should reproduce those pieces as intended. I'd kick out the EQ when playing Little Feat at high volume and imagine Lowell George tweaking the mix at similar levels with similar monitors at the creation of the recording.

But in general, no one put all those knobs on there so they'd not get used! And, in my experience, running everything flat quite often shows a lack of creativity or insight on the part of the system owner. I don't think my car and bike manufacturers optimized their suspensions, but rather spec'd them to some lowest common denominator, and they don't know how I drive! That's why Bilstein makes shocks, H&R makes springs, and why Dinan and others make so much money tweaking high-performance cars. You fiddle until it's right for you and no one can tell you you're wrong. Don't be a slave to "flat". There are seldom two rooms that are exactly alike, much less two sets of ears. As Steve Winwood loved to sing, "Do what you like!" (But then he also sang "I'm wasted and I can't find my way home", too.) Of course I'm not smart enough to design my own cabinets or crossovers like Bo, so I have to do it in the EQ. I've also not yet mastered my new Crown VFX2-A's yet, either, so what do I know? (I know that answer at least....)

[edgewound]

If your system is ruler flat...are you happy?

Thanks.

Yes.

[SEAWOLF97]

I have found the most uniformly accepted and pleasing response is flat. If it doesn't work for you, get a better speaker...:p

Oh boy, must be no body on the forum today to let a statement like that go....sounds like a cheesy ad slogan from a second rate marketing company.

So what if I haul home my new Everest's , and because of my room acoustics AND/OR amp AND/OR aging ears AND/OR whatever, the most pleasing response ISN'T flat ? Should I now get better speakers ? You could chase your tail forever if you follow that advise.

Maybe Bo is independently wealthy and can afford that strategy, (tho most likely not) , but most of us buy the speakers we want and then try to adjust the environ ( room OR amp OR EQ) to make the most pleasing response.

You were joking , wern't you , Bo ?

[lfh]

volume levels also influence the balance of the sound (Fletcher-Munson and all that)

I think you nailed it: Assuming that the speaker positions, listener position and general room acoustics has been sorted out for a reasonably flat FR, a level dependent bass boost is often -- at typical domestic listening levels -- called for to achieve a psycho-acoustically correct tonal balance.

When playing "loud" (say 80 dBA average) I run my system flat, but when listening "silent" (say 70 dBA or below average) I often kick in the progressive loudness on my preamp and adjust it by ear.

[Zilch]

I run flat, except with undamped titanium drivers, which get a 0.5 to 1.0 dB/octave downward tilt.

I "wing" it in the bass by ear, 'cause I don't have accurate means to measure it in the first place, and given the substantial role of room/positioning, though in doing that, I am conscious of the respective Qs of various driver/box combinations here. :yes:

No EQ though, I merely rely upon gross balancing to accomplish that.

[Hofmannhp]

Hi All,

the reason why I don't run flat is this:

[soundboy]

I don't know your set-ups, but intentions of design and actual results are different, relating to room response and unintended cabinet resonance, etc.


Are your observations subjective or have you measured the response to see if indeed the FR is lacking in the 80-250Hz - that is, does the FR curve have a saddle, or low area there? If so, it would be appropriate to remedy that. Remember, these JBL Monitors are not intended to be "plug and play" - they require appropriate set-up. It could be your 80-250Hz region is flat, but overwhelmed by an imbalance with the HF, and you should be notching, there.


To your question, I do run flat, both in the home and in SR. I have modelled the response of my cabinets in both environments and notched the EQ where needed. In SR there are always room anomalies I try and tame, but not all can be. There is a slight bass coupling with the 4345's on a wooden floor, but it is not pronounced.

Look at the response of the 4345 low end....from 300 down, is it not bumped up a couple db? Thats my point. So if you put that same woofer in a flat alignment, lower tuning, so it is flat....it may sound lean, huh?


I have found the most uniformly accepted and pleasing response is flat. If it doesn't work for you, get a better speaker...:p

On good recordings, I agree. I am assuming the last sentence is a misprint, bad day, or a joke. It doesnt have anything to do with the speaker, at all...it could be any system...it is just something I have noticed. And yes, I have measured my systems, third octave, and the dyna JBL sub system is within a couple db from 25 hz to 250 hz. No hump between 80-125hz...and no suckout, either

My little 4406 sound nice...they also have a hump around 100 hz....if it was in a bigger cab tuned lower, or "more accurate"....I bet they would sound like "I need to turn the bass up a couple notches....there, that sounds better...."

Just another note...if your live sound rig is flat, and you eq 80hz on the kick drum about 6db, and add about 2 to 3 db to the lower mids on a guitar cab to make the band sound killer......and if you dont do that, there is no kick, and the guitars sound a bit wiry and thin, right? Just food for thought....Not trying to start any arguments, or have a contest on whose system is flatter...or who needs "new speakers".:)

[Thom]

I guess the "better speaker" rule is cool. Do we have some accepted rule for determining "better"? (I know, "look it up dude"). I've been told by persons, who may or may not know, that lots of music is mixed to sound "best" on the equipment it's most likely to be played on. (doesn't mean to sound better on that equipment than on better equipment, rather to sound better on that equipment than if mixed accurately.) Capitalism and the market place being what they are it makes sense to me but I'm not in a position to Know. (connections and such.) Egos also being what they are I'd guess you probably get some of both. Even if you are a purest wouldn't it still be proper to dial in a curve from a audiologist if you were playing for yourself? People who favored tape used to refer to it as a "flat" media. Did that mean they didn't trust the RIAA curve. I've always wondered about that. I'm probably the only fool in the universe that didn't know what they meant. They're your dollars. Spend them and adjust them the way they bring you the most enjoyment. And ask your questions, because some of the information you get may help you set things up so that you enjoy them more, but if it's your room and your equipment and your music. You get to make the rules.

[boputnam]

Look at the response of the 4345 low end....from 300 down, is it not bumped up a couple db? Thats my point. So if you put that same woofer in a flat alignment, lower tuning, so it is flat....it may sound lean, huh? Any "hump" measured in the response would be flattened by subtle EQ. I use SmaartLIVE, but there are a number of platforms.


I am assuming the last sentence is a misprint, bad day, or a joke. Wouldn't be a "misprint", but is a joke. Don't stress, dood - I even put a smilie face after it... :)


It doesnt have anything to do with the speaker, at all...it could be any system...Exactly. That is why all systems in all settings need be measured to determine how they are interacting with the room.


And yes, I have measured my systems, third octave,OK, but is that with RTA or FFT? RTA doesn't help at all, because what is of interest is the difference between what you are sending to the cabinets (signal) and how the room deals with it (response). FFT shows the difference between the two, time-aligned, and allows for "tuning" the system to the rooms response - removing from the signal those frequencies which have resonance in the room. You may know all this - just trying to be clear.


My little 4406 sound nice...they also have a hump around 100 hz....That is not obvious on their response curve, but I don't know the 4406.


...if (the 4406) was in a bigger cab tuned lower, or "more accurate"...Neither statement is accurate. My 4301B's, for example, have astonishing bass response, but that is within the range of their intended application. Likewise, the 44xx series is damned accurate.


Just another note...if your live sound rig is flat and you eq 80hz on the kick drum about 6db, and add about 2 to 3 db to the lower mids on a guitar cab to make the band sound killer......and if you dont do that, there is no kick, and the guitars sound a bit wiry and thin, right? :no: to all points.

You are confusing system response with instrument / artist tonality. They are separate things. With my system flat, I stand a better chance of getting honest tonality out of every input. Specifically, with no "humped" low-end in the system, I don't have to add +6dB at 80Hz on the kick because since my LF is not muddy the kick comes through nice, punchy and with good tonality. More often, I take 80Hz out, add some 1kHz and futz around with the MF quite a bit until I get the sound of their particular can and skin.

For instruments through their own Fender/other amp, I often switch out the strip EQ - I want their tone. If there is a problematic resonance on-stage that their amp mics are contributing to, I will notch that slightly, but I cannot remember a time when I have boosted the EQ on an amp strip. I also have expanders on the front-end of all amp mic inputs so that between songs these mics close and so do not provide sources of feedback - with this, I am less needing to do any EQ on the amp strips.

My approach is, with a flat system my needs are to keep the mud out - removing MF and LF when it interferes with vocal intelligibility and instrument tonality. This allows for lower SPL for the audience, and greater GBF for the artists.

All this said, none of my systems lack for bass response, and I do not feel the need to tweak the "tone" knobs - case-in-point, my home system pre-amp doesn't even have any "tone" knobs"...

[boputnam]

Maybe Bo is independently wealthy and can afford that strategy, (tho most likely not) , but most of us buy the speakers we want and then try to adjust the environ ( room OR amp OR EQ) to make the most pleasing response.

You were joking , wern't you , Bo ?Ha!!

No, and yes.

I am not "independently wealthy" - I have a day job that provides for the family, and my SR hobby comprises the equivalent of our yacht and summer home. I have no other cash outflows.

And yes, it was my frustration with the bass response of the 4312 L/R that led me to the 4313B's - a remarkable improvement, and yes, that is going to a smaller cabinet and from a 12" to a 10" woofer. The 4313B is simply better. THAT, ultimately led me to the 4345. Case closed.

However, in-parallel, I have gone through many, many iterations of my SR system over the years. And, this includes mains I own, and mains built-into clubs that I have to struggle with. I have learned I stand a better-than-even chance of looking genius starting with mains modelled for flat response (using EQ presets) and being able to tame the room response. Better cabinets do matter. JBL's SRX line is very good - I've used their SRX712M's as stage wedges for going on three-years, and they require the least EQ in fewest frequencies for flat response of any wedge I've encountered. I almost never have feedback and never any complaints on their sound. Current mains are L-Acoustics XT115's - the cabinets have almost no resonance and are a dream to work with.

[boputnam]

Hi All,

the reason why I don't run flat is this:But maybe we need to define "run flat", HP...?

I do not promote running "straight" from the CD to the amp, if that's what you mean - Many purist audiophiles do this, but that approach assumes the speaker cabinets are performing optimally in their setting with no unexpected room resonance(s) or nulls. Running "straight" doesn't allow for accommodating to room response.

[SEAWOLF97]

, and yes, that is going to a smaller cabinet and from a 12" to a 10" woofer. The 4313B is simply better.

I think I agree.

Have both 4412 and 4410's . Basically the same speaker but with 12in (4412) and 10in (4410). It may be sacrilege , but I prefer the 4410. They are so "honest" , but still need a little LF boost.

But all I know is just personal prefs...I also prefer the 2 way L26 over the 3 way L36, and they are both 10in LF's.

[edgewound]

You are confusing system response with instrument / artist tonality. They are separate things. With my system flat, I stand a better chance of getting honest tonality out of every input....

Great points, Bo.

All this does is point to the fact that you can't polish a turd.

A live sound engineer shouldn't have to struggle or be "creative" to make a live band sound "killer". The band should already sound "killer", and it's the sound engineer's job to present it to a bigger audience.

A great speaker system just simply uncover's great or not-so-great recordings...the same goes for live performers.

[Robh3606]

I generally run flat on my active set-up except for the last octave 40Hz and down where the subs run. Those levels are up a bit mainly from room loading. If I run them flat they don't blend right with the E-145's and it sounds a bit lean.


My Dynaudio/2245H sub system is flat below 200 hz, and mostly sounds lean without a couple db of boost below 160hz...but it is in a fairly large L shaped space.

I think most people are used to some bass bloom and when you do run flat it can take a little getting used to. The advantages are the tonality and clarity are much improved with good source material.

The 4344's on my second system are run with no EQ what so ever. Between room placement and careful set-up on the individual driver balance I didn't think they really needed any.

Rob:)

[Ian Mackenzie]

Its a bit of a double edge sword.

If your loudspeaker system can reach down to say -30 hertz cut off (-3db) on the one hand you may perhaps have less of a need for enhanced bass because of the natural extension and room gain

On the other hand such system will show up recordings that are lacking natural bass balance. In this instance some ehancement may be helpful.

I dont bother with enhancement but I might down the track.

As recall there was an old article in US audio mag that described a 20,000 watt system (Dick Burwen?) where bass bosst was liberally applied because some recordings were bass shy.

[Thom]

I think loudness switches are particularly troublesome to owners of JBL speakers because unless you are running separates and turn the power amp down quite a bit you are listening quite a bit louder than the calibration of the loudness circuit. Because, you have the preamp in a range where the loudness circuit is set up for a lot lower level than the high efficiency speaker plays. It's like the first time you set up a pink noise generator and blindly follow the settings and you turn it on and it blows your wife over the fence.

I set one up and after I turned the power on it dawned on me that when who ever wrote the cheat sheet wrote it he might have figured on me having speakers with 1w 1m of 85 db or something. Got my wife back from the neighbors and never used that setting again. Parrots wouldn't speak to me for weeks.

[JBL 4645]

What about having matched (full-spectrum frequency analyzers) each one set with pink noise or spot frequencies so that you know each one as been calibrated. Now play the source material whether its vinyl tape CD laserdisc or DVD what ever.

With the full-spectrum frequency analyzers you’ll be able to see what’s happening and if its bass shy so be it that’s the way it was mixed, unless it’s a re-mix where it might show more or less of the original recording.

[SEAWOLF97]

As recall there was an old article in US audio mag that described a 20,000 watt system (Dick Burwen?) where bass bosst was liberally applied because some recordings were bass shy.

I think Ian has hit on a good point. If you are in a studio listening to just what you produce, well thats one thing , but if listening to music that spans 40+ years, well thats another. (be it canned or broadcast)

Some classic rock or LIVE recordings will just plain sound bad FLAT . Many recordings are lacking in THIS or THAT. I really wish that leaving settings FLAT and everything sounded perfect was an option , but not in the real world, especially on mixed sources.

My pre-amp is outside the cabinet , handy , because I'm constantly re-adjusting to suit the music.

[Steve Schell]

I have found over time that I prefer a system balance that downslopes across the full audio bandwidth at about 1dB per octave, or perhaps a bit less. This is measured with a 1/3 octave RTA at the listening chair, using pink noise as the source.

[Robh3606]

My pre-amp is outside the cabinet , handy , because I'm constantly re-adjusting to suit the music.

Great example of different strokes for different folks, we are the complete opposites on this;). I am a set and forget. Once I get the speakers and room dialed in that's it. No other changes. The program material is what it is. If it's recorded bass shy or fat bottomed thats how it gets played back. I never use my tone controls in either set-up.

Rob:)

[boputnam]

...when you do run flat it can take a little getting used to. Absolutely. If you've "trained" or conditioned your hearing to any particular EQ curve (boost here, cut there, etc.) flat can sound less complete. However, if done properly it will produce an even-handed, honest reproduction of what was recorded, and how it was recorded.


I have found over time that I prefer a system balance that downslopes across the full audio bandwidth at about 1dB per octave, or perhaps a bit less. That is very interesting, Steve.

If you measure and adjust a system using Pink noise and the Fast Fourier Transform method, you adjust to achieve a flat matched response between the reference and measured signals. Switching to music, the RTA will show a subtle slope just as you describe.

I watch for this during SR. While I mostly watch the FFT trace (and FR vs time sweep, or "Spectrograph"), this is an interesting double-check.

[JSF13]

Great example of different strokes for different folks, we are the complete opposites on this;). I am a set and forget. Once I get the speakers and room dialed in that's it. No other changes. The program material is what it is. If it's recorded bass shy or fat bottomed thats how it gets played back. I never use my tone controls in either set-up.

Rob:)

Ditto for me.

[X_X]

I have measured my room with an RTA and my system wasn't flat. I compensated with para EQ and it didn't sound quite right. I had a hearing test done and now I use an EQ setting that compensates for my hearing sensitivity. I hear some freq "louder" than others, probably due to a slight scar tissue build on one of my ear drums. I put a slight dip in that region and now it sounds right (enough). Still- everytime I change to another recording I feel the need to adjust the EQ to compensate for the recording technique. Such is the nature of audio playback. I have concluded that "flat" is a relative term.

[Mike Caldwell]

Great points, Bo.

All this does is point to the fact that you can't polish a turd.

A live sound engineer shouldn't have to struggle or be "creative" to make a live band sound "killer". The band should already sound "killer", and it's the sound engineer's job to present it to a bigger audience.

A great speaker system just simply uncover's great or not-so-great recordings...the same goes for live performers.


Very well said Edgewound!!

I'm sure Bo can relate to this.....festival type of show, multiple bands.
Some bands you never have touch a knob and they sound great other bands there's no amount of turd polish that can make them sound like a band who members are all playing the same song in the same key and you begin to think something is wrong with your system!!!! Funny thing it is usually the later type of band who is the worst complainer about getting "their sound" and that normally is a sound that no one wants to hear.

Getting too far off topic
Mike Caldwell

[soundboy]

Some bands you never have touch a knob and they sound great other bands there's no amount of turd polish that can make them sound like a band who members are all playing the same song in the same key and you begin to think something is wrong with your system!!!! Funny thing it is usually the later type of band who is the worst complainer about getting "their sound" and that normally is a sound that no one wants to hear.Since were are off topic, my previous comment about boosting the kick , or tweeking a bright guitar now has some credibility, I guess:blink:. Not all the groups I have run sound for have Killer tone. Even some of the more talented have a dead sounding floor tom or kick to bring to life. That is where a good ear and knowledge of your toys comes in...even if the FOH system is flat, and sounds great with recorded tunes you are familiar with. Maybe Bo has been luckier than me, and all of his gigs are for tonally perfect players...reproduced perfectly, with hardly a tweek, through a flat system. I can only count on one out of four!

Ya know, J. Gordon Holt, of Stereophile fame, once stated back in the 80's, something to the effect of "I am finding that unless a speaker system has a slight rise between about 100hz and 300hz, it sounds too lean"...or close to that. And he was comparing untold hundreds of speaker comparisons, with unamplified acoustic recordings. Whether he was talking about combined response in room, or just the speaker, I don't recall. And the crusty Mr. Holt even had some nice things to say about a few JBL's.

That's kinda been my experience, somewhat, too. That's why I was curious what others thoughts are, and why I started the thread.

PS Instrument tonality and system response are not the same thing. Sorry if I was unclear bout that.:)

[boputnam]

I don't think one can be off topic on this topic... :p

soundboy - I'm glad you (again...) raised the topic. IIRC, we've done this about 6-times over the past +4 years, and it's always interesting and polarizing. I chimed-in, because each time it arises, I (should I say we...?) have more experience to bring to bear - it makes the discussion quite interesting.

I don't know where you live (or even what your name is...), but if you get a chance, invite someone running Smaart to a half-dozen of your shows. Measure and study your situation - the system, the room, the influence of waterbags, etc., and study/measure your system in a non-gig condition. It is profoundly informative. Investing in a Smaart platform was a big expense and commitment for me. That said, for what I do, I was foolish to have ever undervalued it's importance and ability to contribute to my understanding. I learn a great deal at every single show.

[4313B]

I have found over time that I prefer a system balance that downslopes across the full audio bandwidth <snip>.I'd have to agree.

[Mike Caldwell]

Hello
I don't set up SMAART at every show and even if I do the final test is the the tried and true voicing/ring out with the vocal mic of choice for that event. I get the system large or small to sound as natural with a human voice as possible, generally the voice/singer is the most important content. I never rely on just playback music as a reference to set a system up with unless it is going to be used only for music playback. For overall system EQ I never boost, I will cut what frequencies sound bad leaving alone what is good. Over all system processing does apply the CD horn EQ boost. At the board I may add a little here or there on some channels if needed. Way too many times I hear a mix and or a system that is all low end with no clarity what so ever. What's unfortunate many times these are "professional systems" with a "professional" at the board!

Mike Caldwell

[louped garouv]

if you using your EQs as cut only, would it be worthwhile to get cut only EQs? I have read that they tend to be "quieter" and "more transparent" than cut/boost designs.....

[Mike Caldwell]

Hello
I have never used a cut only EQ. I know Klark Teknik, White and Urie all had a cut only models
as was as JBL, I sure the JBL model was actually a Urie on the inside. My main system EQ is a BSS FCS960.

Mike Caldwell

[soundboy]

Hello
I[QUOTE].....the final test is the the tried and true voicing/ring out with the vocal mic of choice for that event. I get the system large or small to sound as natural with a human voice as possible, generally the voice/singer is the most important content. I never rely on just playback music as a reference to set a system up with unless it is going to be used only for music playback. For overall system EQ I never boost, I will cut what frequencies sound bad leaving alone what is good. Over all system processing does apply the CD horn EQ boost. At the board I may add a little here or there on some channels if needed. Way too many times I hear a mix and or a system that is all low end with no clarity what so ever. What's unfortunate many times these are "professional systems" with a "professional" at the board!

I agree.
I want to try SMAART someday....Bo is right, too. Every system using this tool has sounded great to me.
Thanks for all the input.:)

[soundboy]

I wanted to add, that my complaint with the big shows I have seen recently, is they tend to be overly bright. Peter Cetera, Los Lonely Boys.....both venues had 8-10 JBL Vertec arrays per side, with subs below. Great stuff, obviously....but I am thinking the FOH guys are loosing their hearing. Both concerts were overly bright.....pulling down 2K and up would have helped immensely. Every instrument and vocal was very clear....but kind of sterile and edgy. More natural richness would have been nice. The venues were either outdoors, or in a state of the art theatre, so acoustics wasn't an issue....just the engineers ears, IMHO. They both sounded that way with recorded music, as well. :blink:

[SEAWOLF97]

well , some new experience to add.

I just switched out amplifiers in my system , went from 126wpc to 400+wpc. same brand and series and vintage amps.

Had to throttle back tone settings to neutral.(flat) with new amp. This is at fairly low/normal listening levels. My guess is that the quality of power being sent to your speakers affects tonality too.(although I thought both were pretty hi qual)

Now, running with "tone bypass" on the pre and EQ off, it sounds great. More authority. (how do you measure authority ??)

[Allanvh5150]

Hi guys,
What are we meaning by "running flat". Are you saying that you dont use any "EQ"? All amplifiers add color to a system, as do the speakers. Most speaker designers will try to make their cabinets flat. i.e. all frequencies are equal. In the real world it is not easy to do of course. Tube amps have a lot of color caused by various types of distortion. it sounds nice to our ears so we dont worry about it. Mosfet amps are very neutral with very little distotion. They sound very cold, hence alot of "audiophiles" dont like them. Sorry to use that word here. I was a sound engineer right through the eighties and I have always used EQ to fill in the holes or cut when there was too much. This "flatens" the system and the room. The system is flat but the EQ is not. With no EQ, the eq is flat and the system is not. I prefer a flat system so I use 31 band EQ's to acheive it. EQ is very subjective. Some people like a lot of bottom end, some dont. I like an all around flat system.

Allan.:)

[Mike Caldwell]

Hello
I think most people who would listen to a truly flat system would find it a little overly bright and thin sounding. A gentle slope or roll off in the power response/frequency response generally sounds more natural. There are many ideas on where the slope should start and the rate per octave. Human ears give or take are more sensitive in the midrange and higher to a point. Evolution and the mechanics of the ear made us that do to in part so our very earliest or ancestors could easily hear the saber tooth lion that was about to attack them!
With our ears generally being more sensitive in the midrange and above area by reducing that area in a systems response it will sound "flat" to our ears and brain. The big thing in a systems response is to tame the peaks and nulls to smooth them out regardless if your going for ruler flat or a sloped response. I remember reading post on a live sound message board about a system operator whole strives for a flat 20 to 20,000 response from his system and could not figure out why he was blowing so many components!
A few times I have tuned/voiced/EQ'd my systems by ear and then looked at the response via SMAART just to see if I really am hearing what I think I hear and so far so good!

Mike Caldwell

[57BELAIRE]

If my listening room was an anechoic chamber and all my
recorded material was mixed to my personal preferences
on each and every tune I guess I could set everything flat
and forget about it....but alas, I don't live in a perfect world
or perfect room so....

[Steve Schell]

Soundboy, as a piano technician I have often been bothered by the bright, thin, tilted up sound of most live shows. Usually the piano is close miced (a couple inches from the strings) and EQed to punch through the mix. The result often sounds like BBs hitting a plate glass window.

One time at a jazz festival I was particularly annoyed by the tinny house sound of a Yamaha 9' grand that sounded lush up close. I asked the board engineer if he could tweak the piano sound a bit. With the twist of a couple of knobs it instantly sounded much more real. I wondered then what the overall house sound could be like if all the channels were adjusted so that all the various instruments simply sounded like themselves.

In the case of one large Vertec equipped venue I work at frequently, the sound is mixed from the balcony. The sound is actually pretty good up there, but sounds much thinner and edgy on the main floor... sigh.

[soundboy]

Yeah, Steve....I hear ya. Obviously, most dynamic mics, even the good ones (I use mostly Audix) have a rising response, need to be placed correctly...and even a good condenser on piano has to be placed correctly and tweaked somewhat. I am a purist...but only if it sounds good! If it is transparent as hell, detailed to every chair squeak...but is irritating to listen to...so what? I dunno...I still think some of the sound guys are deaf above 2K. Lot's of thump, lot's of high's...and not enough natural mids. :barf:
This is blasphemy....but you know what? Most of the bright shows are using JBL FOH systems.....and every FOH EV system I have heard...well, it sounds smooth, natural, detailed....and right. Just my experience in the Oregon, Washington area shows I have seen over the years. Obviously not the speakers at fault, but just my observation. :blink:
I still say...it's not the toys you have, it's what you do with them that matters...if it measures great, but sounds bad...it is bad.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't measure for a starting point...that's for sure. Sometimes only a couple db here and there makes a huge difference, all right.

[JSF13]

This thread has gotten a little out of context from what I inferred. By running flat I mean I fiddle with room acoustics and speaker placement and speaker controls until I have the best sound i can get with preamp flat. And that's how I leave it. I don't keep jumping out of my chair for each tune I play and start twisting knobs.:) But I find I do gravitate toward music that sounds good on my system and I have developed a preference for certain artists,labels and recording studios/engineers that I know have a better than even chance of providing that. Now if I had a remote control equalizer that I could use from my listening position...I'd probably drive myself nuts.:blink:

[johnaec]

Now if I had a remote control equalizer that I could use from my listening position...I'd probably drive myself nuts.:blink:That's my preferred method, expecially when using my DBX DriveRack 260 via a laptop. But I've also done it with other analog EQ's also, with long patch cables.

And even though I've got several sources of pink noise and calibrated mics, 'ya know what still has sounded best to me? That's when I use a little Neutrik Minirator (http://www.nti-audio.com/Home/Products/Minstruments/tabid/56/Home/Products/Minstruments/MiniratorMR1/tabid/70/Default.aspx), and have it generate discrete sine waves on the standard ISO 1/3 octave center frequencies, then adjust each band on the EQ manually so that they all sound equal to my ears, usually around the 85 dB level. To date, that's the best I've ever heard recorded music played back!

John

[Zilch]

Infredible put his DEQ2496 on long cables at his listening position.

64 presets and a cross-reference. Heh.

I have enough difficulty deciding what to play, let alone what EQ to use with it.... :p

[JSF13]

I have enough difficulty deciding what to play, let alone what EQ to use with it.... :p

LMAO :yes:

[boputnam]

I wanted to add, that my complaint with the big shows I have seen recently, is they tend to be overly bright. Peter Cetera, Los Lonely Boys.....both venues had 8-10 JBL Vertec arrays per side, with subs below. Great stuff, obviously....but I am thinking the FOH guys are loosing their hearing. Both concerts were overly bright.....pulling down 2K and up would have helped immensely. Every instrument and vocal was very clear....but kind of sterile and edgy. More natural richness would have been nice. The venues were either outdoors, or in a state of the art theatre, so acoustics wasn't an issue....just the engineers ears, IMHO. They both sounded that way with recorded music, as well. :blink:Lot's of stuff, here - jives with my experiences, too.

Line arrays provide opportunity to really throw a great amount of SPL - they are amazingly efficient and their wave guides focus sound like beams (in the vertical plane). This avoids comb filtering with the adjacent stacked cabinet, but also creates some very focussed sound. If the engineer is striving for 100dB (or more) at FOH, these speakers are so efficient they will throw nearly that SPL into the cheap seats. That is good, and bad. Better would be to drop to 95dB, max. IMO, line arrays are really good for long-throw applications - certainly most outdoor and some larger theatres. I do not like them in small amphitheatres or clubs. Just the wrong application in my opinion.

That said, over-compression could also have contributed to what you are describing. I've heard some great conventional systems give this result when the band engineer squashed everything too hard. That really sucked...

That that said, hearing loss is endemic to the profession. I've watched (and worked with) many really good engineers that just drive it too hard. Unneccessarily so. I watched an otherwise great FOH guy at Prince in Vegas and was bummed by his approach. Painful loud. And, he was using a digital desk with all manner of control which provided all sorts of signal data feedback (info) - each VCA / Group, the Mains and any solo'd input appeared on tall LED strips on the meter bridge. These stayed green until the top LED lit (I'm guessing +21dB...?). Once saturated, then the entire strip went hot red until saturation faded. It was very cool, and gave great info to the engineer. However, most of the night those LED strips were ALL hot red, completely saturated - never able to go green. I brought with me, and wore ear plugs...

[Thom]

Infredible put his DEQ2496 on long cables at his listening position.

64 presets and a cross-reference. Heh.

I have enough difficulty deciding what to play, let alone what EQ to use with it.... :p

You mean the goal is to get all these cables plugged in and play music? I guess that's what my wife was yelling about.

[Valentin]

on JBL SEDEC user manual they tel you that after making testes in many different types of room the room response has been found to be better in a tilted way

Not the speaker response in free field conditions (anechoic)






Target Curves:



Intuitive logic would tend to indicate that the best sound would be achieved when the system delivers flat frequency response. While this is true for all other components in the audio chain, this is definitely not true in the case of loudspeakers installed in listening rooms. There are several reasons for this, and it has taken many years of research to establish just what the most desirable performance characteristics are.


• Ideal Low-Frequency Response


Room boundaries (walls, ceiling and floor) tend to contain low-frequency energy within the room. Simply stated, this results in a boost in low-frequency energy. This is true whether it is a speaker or a piano producing the sound. The exact frequency at which this effect begins and the amount of boost realized are a function of the room size, shape and wall construction. No two spaces are ever exactly alike. This same low frequency enhancement also occurs in recording studios, and the recording engineers know this will occur during playback. They balance
their recordings in anticipation of this. Therefore, it would be wrong to “flatten” the speaker system response in the playback environment. To do so only results in a thin bass sound.
By surveying many listening rooms over the years, JBL engineers have established a low-frequency response characteristic that delivers the most consistently satisfactory results. This has been confirmed through extensive subjective evaluation tests.





• Ideal High-Frequency Response

Above a few hundred Hz, the perception of sound quality, or timber, is determined by a complex combination of
the direct sound – the first arrival at the listener’s ears, the early reflected sounds – those sounds that have
reflected from the floor, ceiling and the side walls, and the reverberant sounds – sounds that arrive after many
reflections, from many directions over a period of time. Two ears and a brain are powerfully analytical of this
soundscape, and they arrive at a kind of “weighted” combination of them. All of the components are important,
but not equally so, and not always so, depending on the kind of sound that is being listened to.
We know, from many carefully controlled listening tests, that all three components must be timbrally-neutral in
order for a loudspeaker to be rated highly by listeners. The design criteria, therefore, can be summarized as “a flat
on-axis frequency response, with a directivity that is constant as a function of frequency”. This is something that
can only be measured properly in a laboratory, during speaker design. Once they are installed in a room, it is
difficult to impossible to make measurements that reveal this behavior of the speakers.
In a room, all of the sounds are mixed together, arriving at the measurement microphone at different times,
from different incident angles. While two ears and a brain deals with such sounds in different ways, the “dumb”
measurement system has no such discrimination capability. The room measurement, therefore, while not
entirely useless, is an unreliable indicator of what a listener hears except, perhaps, in the gross sense of
overall sound level.

27

4.1

OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW

The fact that the “room curve” is not perfectly flat should not be upsetting. One would expect a gentle highfrequency
rolloff from even the most perfect loudspeaker. The absorption of high frequencies by drapes, carpets,
upholstered furniture, etc. ensures that not all of the radiated energy reaches the listener, or microphone. it is
much the same in recording studios, so this is part of the normal playback circumstances. If the speakers have
been properly designed to begin with, it matters little what the room curve looks like at high frequencies.
Synthesis speakers are properly designed. In fact, attempting to adjust the room curve may undo a lot of careful
design effort on the part of the speaker engineers.
The Synthesis target curves are derived from data collected in many typical installations. They represent a trend
of what should be expected, not a specific shape that must be achieved for good sound. They help in the setting
of overall levels, and are useful for diagnostics or troubleshooting.

[JSF13]

"By surveying many listening rooms over the years, JBL engineers have established a low-frequency response characteristic that delivers the most consistently satisfactory results. This has been confirmed through extensive subjective evaluation tests."





I assume the "zero" positions on the speaker pots are where JBL assumes optimum performance from their speaker sytems, all else being equal?

[Valentin]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c7/ValentinR/jblsedeccurve.jpg
this is the manuals curve

[JBL 4645]

If my listening room was an anechoic chamber and all my
recorded material was mixed to my personal preferences
on each and every tune I guess I could set everything flat
and forget about it....but alas, I don't live in a perfect world
or perfect room so....

Oh yes that would sound idea, but you have to have a little refection for the sound just a little.:D

http://www.audioheritage.org/images/misc/2000-tour/northridge/thumbs/anechoic2_small.JPG

I’ve heard rumours that you can hear the blood pumping in you’re ears when inside these rooms, wow that’s freaky.

[Allanvh5150]

The rumours are nearly true. When you talk it sounds like you are talking directly into your own ear! It is real strange.:)

[Zilch]

Ultra-Curve Pro's AutoEQ "Room correction" is 1 dB/octave downward tilt.

Stereophile's "Exemplary" K2-S9800 in-room curve:

[Thom]

"By surveying many listening rooms over the years, JBL engineers have established a low-frequency response characteristic that delivers the most consistently satisfactory results. This has been confirmed through extensive subjective evaluation tests."





I assume the "zero" positions on the speaker pots are where JBL assumes optimum performance from their speaker sytems, all else being equal?

I assume the "zero" positions on the speaker pots are where JBL assumes their speaker systems will compete best on the dealers listening room floor, all else being equal.

[Thom]

Rather than assuming why don't you guys just look at the old system EDS documents I took the time to upload for you...
I wasn't aware that JBL used pots anymore. If they are then they should stop.

Presuming that I'm right. I could be. It happens now and again. I hardly expect them to say "we set our crossover up so that when it's at norm it should be just a bit more impressive at the store". Now if I'm wrong, and I'm a cynic so I could be, if the purpose is benign, Then maybe they would give a straight answer. Remember this is the company that ran over millions of dollars of Studer parts just to obsolete the machines sooner. (I could have the actual act and scale off, I'm not sure. Bud the motive and results are dead on.

Anybody ever heard of r4esults? My spell check was going to allow it.

[boputnam]

I assume the "zero" positions on the speaker pots are where JBL assumes optimum performance from their speaker sytems, all else being equal?Consider it "neutral", no emphasis added nor removed. It is likely not "optimum" for any one room /position in your home.


Ultra-Curve Pro's AutoEQ "Room correction" is 1 dB/octave downward tilt.As I posted on another thread, if you run Pink Noise in a FFT mode - comparing the system output (reference) signal to the measured (mic) signal (both time-aligned and of equal gain) - and you adjust EQ as needed to affect a flat result, in RTA mode you will get the response curve you are describing.

To be clear, all results I have described previously on this thread relate to running FFT* on SmaartLIVE (http://www.eaw.com/products/software/EAWSmaart/index.html). This is a sophisticated and expensive set-up which is not in most home use. When used properly, Smaart FFT will provide "flat" response - no peaks or valleys on the FFT trace, and a gently sloping RTA trace.

You do not want to set your EQ for a flat response on the RTA. :scold:

__________________________________________________
* - now termed "Frequency Response Magnitude" in v6.0

[4313B]

Thanks Bo! :)

[JSF13]

Thom, did I miss something? :) I can only find one post in this thread by Giskard and this is it.



I'd have to agree.



Where did this one come from?

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giskard http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=173856#post173856)
Rather than assuming why don't you guys just look at the old system EDS documents I took the time to upload for you...
I wasn't aware that JBL used pots anymore. If they are then they should stop."

Did a search on EDS documents but only this thread came up.

Sorry if pots is incorrect terminology, I've just always called them that.:blink:

[Zilch]

* - now termed "Frequency Response Magnitude" in v6.0Good thing, as FFT is a mathematical algorithm, not a specific measurement mode employing it.

DEQ2496 uses a "warped" FFT algorithm with pink noise to produce its RTA results and display. CLIO's RTA is also an FFT process, apparently, though I don't know the details. User specifies the source....


Did a search on EDS documents but only this thread came up.
EDS = "Engineering Design Specifications," here:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=12

Including the stock frequency responses, under specified conditions.

I believe Giskard's saying there's little point or value in making stuff up, when the actual fact is provided here.... :yes:

[JSF13]

Thanks for the link Z.:)

[Thom]

I believe Giskard's saying there's little point or value in making stuff up, when the actual fact is provided here.... :yes:

If one is looking for motive, factory literature can not necessarily be taken at face value.

I knew he was considered wise and his contribution valuable but I had no idea that we only borrow his words for a short time before he retrieves them. I guess if we're not on our toes we don't deserve the benefit of his wisdom.

[JSF13]

I guess if we're not on our toes we don't deserve the benefit of his wisdom.

I guess we poor people who have to work are SOL unless someone happens to reply with a quote before it disappears.:D

[4313B]

I knew he was considered wise and his contribution valuable but I had no idea that we only borrow his words for a short time before he retrieves them. I guess if we're not on our toes we don't deserve the benefit of his wisdom.Two things.

First, the constant negative remarks wear on me and baiting me with these kinds of posts doesn't work anymore. Some of you love provoking me because I am known as a person who is easily provoked. In real life you wouldn't bother and that's the real kick in the pants that makes this text based forum interaction absurd at best.

Secondly, I often disengage from a thread if it is more trouble than it is worth. I deleted my post because, frankly, I didn't like the way I worded it and it evidently required additional interaction which I couldn't engage in at the time. I thought if people would look over various JBL documents they could then come back and comment about what they surmised. Suffice it to say, the zero position on the L-Pad foilcal is most often flat response. As an example compare the 4344 and 4345 L-Pad foilcals along with the system components.

So, here is a post many times longer than my original post and it has sucked up a small part of my life's time that I can't get back and that would have been better spent doing something more constructive. :)

[Thom]

Two things.

First, the constant negative remarks wear on me and baiting me with these kinds of posts doesn't work anymore. Some of you love provoking me because I am known as a person who is easily provoked. In real life you wouldn't bother and that's the real kick in the pants that makes this text based forum interaction absurd at best.

Secondly, I often disengage from a thread if it is more trouble than it is worth. I deleted my post because, frankly, I didn't like the way I worded it and it evidently required additional interaction which I couldn't engage in at the time. I thought if people would look over various JBL documents they could then come back and comment about what they surmised. Suffice it to say, the zero position on the L-Pad foilcal is most often flat response. As an example compare the 4344 and 4345 L-Pad foilcals along with the system components.

So, here is a post many times longer than my original post and it has sucked up a small part of my life's time that I can't get back and that would have been better spent doing something more constructive. :)

I didn't mean anything negative towards you. I thought it was funny, though certainly allowable, that you only left your post a few hours and someone looking for your post, that had been quoted, couldn't find it. If I didn't recognise your positive, although sometimes thin skinned, contribution. I'd be a fool. I was going for a laugh, but I wouldn't have if I had thought it would irritate you. I suppose I don't know you and probably shouldn't take liberties. Still, I don't think you were disparaged.

[4313B]

Alrighty then! :)

Like I said, these forums are proving to be of limited use over the long haul. It takes a huge chunk of time to do a post justice and to use grammar/composition/terminology everyone can appreciate. I asked Don once how long it took for him to come up with his good posts. :p The answer was as figured. Just the other day I said "Pardon me" to someone because I didn't hear what they said and they took total offense and let me know that one never says "Pardon me" to another person. I just looked back blankly. Evidently it's a regional thing. Whatever...