16-Nov-2016, 14:04
I hope I will not be banned for the words I'm going to say 
hence it is 180° the experience of the thread owner.
Every time I've heard a digital room corrected music signal I had the analogy of a 'Loudness For 3D-Appearance' feeling in my mind. During the first minutes it is astonishing how much better a voice or instrument is placed on the virtual stage in front of me. But, and it's a big but for me, if I listen closer for me it's like cutting out all the single soundobjects out of the original recorded 3D-Matrix and placing them onto a completly artificial virtual stage (matrix). It seems as if all the recorded room/stage informations in the music were taken and puzzled together with the plan of the designer of that room correction element.
When I think of it in a theoretical way the feelings I have appear logic to me. Correct me, if I'm totally wrong with the following.
We all strive for a Bit-Perfect reproduction of an original recording. I would describe it as a 3D-Matrix similar to a hologram but made of sound.
So the ingredients are: two channels, time, frequency, volume. If there's something else, even better. These ingredients are woven together (during recording) in a manner they are absolut dependent on each other to reproduce the original 3D-Matrix in front of us (stereo). If 'something' falls apart the whole 3D-Matrix would get holes or diffuse sound sensations because this 'something' isn't there with it's frequency, at the right time and with the right volume in respect to the other sound objects. I hope you get my point.
It's all 3D in the end.
Now we room correct the music signal. We take time, frequencies and volume and cut with the 'help' of this three right through the 3D-Matrix of the recording (bit-perfection...aaah... gone). And, if we take a frequency (e.g. 90Hz -6db) we suck this frequency out of every sound object in this 3D-Matrix hence we can not assign it solely to the contrabass which resonates with our room-modes and our nerves.
Am I getting this the wrong?
For me, every time I hear room correction, its benefits go at the expense of natural sound, natural room information, homogeneous mapping of the original recording, vibrating air between instruments, flow of the music and at least of the music itself.
My thoughts are, if you want your listening room to be better sounding, you have to alter the room.
If you want your speaker to have less phase shifting, deeper bass, you can not simply go SAM and be done because you are altering the original music signal. You have to alter positioning, placing, anything with the speaker itself (perhaps vend them).
Is there anyone with me?
gui
hence it is 180° the experience of the thread owner.Every time I've heard a digital room corrected music signal I had the analogy of a 'Loudness For 3D-Appearance' feeling in my mind. During the first minutes it is astonishing how much better a voice or instrument is placed on the virtual stage in front of me. But, and it's a big but for me, if I listen closer for me it's like cutting out all the single soundobjects out of the original recorded 3D-Matrix and placing them onto a completly artificial virtual stage (matrix). It seems as if all the recorded room/stage informations in the music were taken and puzzled together with the plan of the designer of that room correction element.
When I think of it in a theoretical way the feelings I have appear logic to me. Correct me, if I'm totally wrong with the following.
We all strive for a Bit-Perfect reproduction of an original recording. I would describe it as a 3D-Matrix similar to a hologram but made of sound.
So the ingredients are: two channels, time, frequency, volume. If there's something else, even better. These ingredients are woven together (during recording) in a manner they are absolut dependent on each other to reproduce the original 3D-Matrix in front of us (stereo). If 'something' falls apart the whole 3D-Matrix would get holes or diffuse sound sensations because this 'something' isn't there with it's frequency, at the right time and with the right volume in respect to the other sound objects. I hope you get my point.
It's all 3D in the end.
Now we room correct the music signal. We take time, frequencies and volume and cut with the 'help' of this three right through the 3D-Matrix of the recording (bit-perfection...aaah... gone). And, if we take a frequency (e.g. 90Hz -6db) we suck this frequency out of every sound object in this 3D-Matrix hence we can not assign it solely to the contrabass which resonates with our room-modes and our nerves.
Am I getting this the wrong?
For me, every time I hear room correction, its benefits go at the expense of natural sound, natural room information, homogeneous mapping of the original recording, vibrating air between instruments, flow of the music and at least of the music itself.
My thoughts are, if you want your listening room to be better sounding, you have to alter the room.
If you want your speaker to have less phase shifting, deeper bass, you can not simply go SAM and be done because you are altering the original music signal. You have to alter positioning, placing, anything with the speaker itself (perhaps vend them).
Is there anyone with me?
gui
"Oh, you can buy the other. But then it is a cost intensive learning process"
berlin
