21–30 of 58 posts
'I tested different EQ presets on "Levitating" by Dua Lipa (Youtube Music, Music video on Youtube). The song is fantastic, and I've been listening to it on repeat these last few days' Stopped reading
> The music video is fantastic too and so, so beautiful except for the rap part which I don't like.
> when Motion+ is connected to my phone via bluetooth, and when it's connected to my laptop via aux-in Why not for it's always interesting to experiment but one is lossy (all bluetooth codecs are lossy AFAIK) and the other is analog. Probably on top of an already lossy source too. They "sound" the same the same way a pixelized color print of Mona Lisa next to the real Mona Lisa looks identical if you're far enough. Y…
I know I'm rehashing the same argument that has been had around and around for decades but - because it often doesn't matter. In 2024 a 320Kbps or whatever high quality lossy source over a recent bluetooth codec into a Chinesium amp + DAC into a mid-range $500 pair of speakers sounds _awesome_ and the amount of time and money you spend going above that may be a fun hobby but it's really not worth the effort for most people.
Always hear my audiophile friends talking about this company/product: https://www.dirac.com/live/
Shammy. You cannot truly correct for a room without actually changing the room itself.
I used to be in-principle anti-EQ, but the AutoEQ project for headphones completely changed my opinion (though obviously headphones are far easier to EQ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered... is there some way to mathematically "solve" for this with multiple microphones and multiple speakers? Like with 2 of each, or 3 of each, where you play the same waveform through every possible pair of speaker and microphone, you can solve some kind of system of matrix equations to determine the only possible combination of responsiveness at each device at each frequency? Or do you just need a…
I believe it's hardly different from trying to deduce perfect distances from multiple rulers of dubious precision: you need to compare them to one of extreme precision. Arranging 4 rulers into a perfect square proves that they have equal lengths, but you still don't know their offset from standard length. However, if you ignore tolerances and assume that every microphone of a given model number has equal response, th…
But that's fine for microphones -- the question here isn't to determine their absolute volume, which is of course unsolvable. It's to determine the relative "volume" (response) at each frequency. It's the shape of the curve that matters, not its offset.
And again, I'm not looking for a practical solution (like getting the info from a manufacturer) -- I'm just curious about it in theory. If it's inherently solvable or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's hardly different from trying to deduce perfect distances from multiple rulers of dubious precision: you need to compare them to one of extreme precision. Arranging 4 rulers into a perfect square proves that they have equal lengths, but you still don't know their offset from standard length. However, if you ignore tolerances and assume that every microphone of a given model number has equal response, th…
> but you still don't know their offset from standard length. But that's fine for microphones -- the question here isn't to determine their absolute volume, which is of course unsolvable. It's to determine the relative "volume" (response) at each frequency. It's the shape of the curve that matters, not its offset. And again, I'm not looking for a practical solution (like getting the info from a manufacturer) -- I'm j…
Years ago at uni, one group chose as their control systems term project to take a known bad speaker (2 inch from transistor radio), measure its response, then build an inverse function to make it perfect using an analog computer. Don't know what the result was but they did have fun.
Years ago at uni, one group chose as their control systems term project to take a known bad speaker (2 inch from transistor radio), measure its response, then build an inverse function to make it perfect using an analog computer. Don't know what the result was but they did have fun.
That will be tough because any attenuation will have to be cancelled by a gain, but the gain will amplify both noise and signal. So the end result might have the right spectral balance but be noisy in the frequency bands where the original signal was weak.
Everything was implemented using transistors, so it involved a lot of calculations, and simulation in LTSpice.
You need a calibrated measurement microphone to do this for real. Otherwise the microphone’s frequency response will skew the results.
I've always wondered... is there some way to mathematically "solve" for this with multiple microphones and multiple speakers? Like with 2 of each, or 3 of each, where you play the same waveform through every possible pair of speaker and microphone, you can solve some kind of system of matrix equations to determine the only possible combination of responsiveness at each device at each frequency? Or do you just need a…
You need a calibrated measurement microphone to do this for real. Otherwise the microphone’s frequency response will skew the results.
I've always wondered... is there some way to mathematically "solve" for this with multiple microphones and multiple speakers? Like with 2 of each, or 3 of each, where you play the same waveform through every possible pair of speaker and microphone, you can solve some kind of system of matrix equations to determine the only possible combination of responsiveness at each device at each frequency? Or do you just need a…
You don't do it every day, which is why an outfit like Bruel & Kjaer can charge a lot for their gear. ;-)