|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 23, 2018 17:21:35 GMT
• "THD is not that perfect as a means to compare full bandwidth, as far as I know." • "Imperfect DA conversion and inadequate filtering could lead to an incomplete signal with little distortion and inaudible noise, but still incomplete." • "If it is only loudness differences, it would be really easy for manufacturers to start a new kind of loudness-war to support sales." • "It is entirely possible for equipment to measure exactly the same and not sound exactly the same." • "All that is saying is that for that particular measurement, there is no perceptible difference. Real soundwaves in complex dynamic passages are much more complex than recorded measurements. Our hearing is even more complex than that." • "You just can't reduce differences between components to comparing distortion numbers... There's a LOT more to it than that." Do any of these statements contain an amount of truth? No. That was easy! Well, in fairness, there's more to fidelity than distortion. And the nature of the distortion affects its audibility. But mostly those are all meaningless claims with no basis in fact.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Feb 23, 2018 20:53:19 GMT
No. That was easy! Well, in fairness, there's more to fidelity than distortion. And the nature of the distortion affects its audibility. But mostly those are all meaningless claims with no basis in fact. Thanks, Ethan. I feel reassured again. :-) By the way, are the differences that people hear between DACs and amps due to loudness? What other non-psychological parameters define fidelity? You said that there is more to fidelity than distortion. If indeed audiophiles are biased towards thinking that one amp sounds better than another due to volume differences, would one be able to crank up the volume of an el cheapo DAC/amp combo to make it sound better than an expensive system?
|
|
Trdat
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Trdat on Mar 1, 2018 12:50:03 GMT
But Ethan,
We understand the basic theory of amps, perception and placebo. So putting aside amplifiers I am keen to understand what happens when you upgrade a speaker?
Wouldn't we get some sonic benefit upgrading from 5 inch woofer in a 20 liter boxed speaker (2 way) compared to a 8 inch woofer in a 3 way?
Or is that a placebo as well?
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Mar 1, 2018 19:49:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 3, 2018 2:26:21 GMT
I have a question about a word subjectivists use to describe the quality of amplification. I would like to know the translation in objectivists' language. So, I have heard some people saying that more powerful amplifiers have a better 'grip' on the speakers, probably meaning that they can move the woofers more effortlessly and more accurately than weaker amplifiers. What does this mean? Is there any technical basis for such a claim? I read once a post (on another forum), where a user claimed that his cheap amplifier was barely able to move the woofers of his high-quality tower speakers (B&W 800D2), whereas his expensive amp was doing that effortlessly (with the corresponding sonic improvement, of course). Correct me if I'm wrong but it's important to match your amp to your loudspeakers in terms of power. I don't remember the details but something about if you crank a low power amp you'll get square waves and with too much power you can get damaging peaks. While I'm talking out my putt I should mention that, around the time I got my 602's, I bought a Sony receiver instead of a Denon. The sales guy warned me not to do that but I did anyway. Immediately, I noticed that something wasn't right with the imaging. Now, bear in mind this was in an Army barracks room with no treatment. After returning the Sony and getting a Denon the problem was resolved. There is no way for me to compare the specs because I've forgotten which Sony 7.1 receiver it was. On the guitar topic: I remember Ethan mentioning that some of these technical specs don't apply to guitar amps. Well I'm not sure but, like I said, I'll bet a six pack I can pick out that VHT vs a 9200 in a blind test even after a six pack. Any takers?
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Mar 3, 2018 13:13:31 GMT
Sorry to pester you again about this, but I am getting lost again. I am either falling for another subjectivist trap or there is some real science behind this: these are some quotes from members of another AV forum, trying to answer my question about why two modern prepros (from the same company) sound different, yet their distortion numbers should make both transparent: • "THD is not that perfect as a means to compare full bandwidth, as far as I know." THD is actually irrelevant to bandwidth. It's not a way to characterize frequency response, etc. Instead, THD is a way to characterize nonlinear distortion. Background: All music is composed of a combination of pure sine waves at various frequencies and amplitudes. Therefore, all possible errors in reproducing and/or storing a signal fall into 1 of 4 categories because a signal is a single function (amplitude) of a single variable (time). (1) Linear distortion commonly characterized using the terms or tests: bandwidth, frequency response, phase response. This changes the size of one or more of a signal's frequency components. Linear Distortion *does not* add new frequency components that were in the original signal. (2) Nonlinear distortion commonly characterized using the terms or tests: THD, IM, Jitter, FM distortion. This changes the shape of one or more of a signal's frequency components. Nonlinear Distortion *does add* new frequency components *that are related* to those originally in the signal. (3) Random noise commonly characterized using the terms or tests: SNR, Dynamic Range. This adds new random frequency components that are *not necessarily related* to those in the original signal . (4) Interfering but non-random undesired signals commonly characterized using the terms or tests: Hum, EMI, RFI. This adds new non-random frequency components that were not necessarily in the original signal and *that are generally unrelated* to the ones that were there. *Everything* that goes wrong with an audio signal fits into one of these categories, there can be none else, and they are all independent of each other. For example frequency response variations can increase or decrease with no change to hum and noise. However, the same problem such as a bad part or a bad design can cause more than one of them at the same time. Missing data in an audio signal whether analog or digital is generally very audible as an Interfering Signal. It most commonly sounds like clicks or pops. It can't be very subtle because when data goes missing suddenly and briefly, the signal goes from being there, to not being there, and the transition is like part of a square wave. The louder the signal, the larger the click or pop, and if the signal is a low-frequency sine wave, then the clicks and pops stand out particularly strongly. The availability of more loudness is well known as such things as amplifier power and loudspeaker power handling capacity or efficiency. The influence of these things on sales is such that they are common specifications that are advertised for gear. The audibility of differences in loudnesses is so commonly appreciated that just about every audio system has a volume control for changing it. Unless you take special steps, any two pieces of audio gear you compare will gravitate naturally towards playing at a different loudness. If you try to match these differences using your ear, you will find it to be time-consuming and inaccurate. "If you match levels by ear, you will hear the remaining level differences by ear" If you are serious about matching levels, you can do it with precision equal to hundreds or thousands of times less than the smallest change you can hear with just a PC with a cheap audio interface and freebie analytical software, or a cheap DVM and the ability to play simple digital files or CDs or DVDs you can burn for yourself or purchase inexpensively. When level differences are small, they are not perceived as differences in level, but as subtle, almost indescribable audible differences. If you compare something to itself but with slight level differences, you will generally be able to distinguish the sound of the device from itself, just playing at a slightly different level and how silly is it to prefer something because its volume control is set a little bit differently? Perhaps in 1950 or even sometimes in 160. Audio measurements are not a fixed thing, but something that is constantly changing and improving, just like the rest of science. The biggest innovation in audio measurements was the ready availability of computer-based measurements based on a matchematical analysis procedure called the FFT and it being married to computer graphics. This particular revolution was pretty well established in the late 1960s. Today you can take a $200 computer or cell phone and combined with free software, duplicate or exceed tests and measurements that required from one quarter to one half of a million dollars in 1975. All music is composed of a combination of pure sine waves at various frequencies and amplitudes. All of the 4 errors I listed above change the frequencies and/or amplitudes of those sine waves that make up all music. FFT analysis can recover the frequencies and amplitudes of even the most infinitesimal changes in frequencies and amplitudes. Today, we can readily discover and quantify those errors even when they are thousands of times less than what the ear/brain can reliably perceive. This is easy to demonstrate with simple, readily available tools if you know what you are doing. Finally, a non-myth. Please see my former comments about there being 4 possible kinds of errors in reproducing or storing audio signals. Generally No, as already stated above. It could be. However, it almost always is simple, trivial things like mismatching loudness, time delays between auditions, and using different music or different segments of the same piece of music in the comparison, or preconceived notions and biases that is why people perceive audible differences between reasonably good audio gear. The proof of this assertion is that almost every time we make those issues go away with good experimental procedures, the reliable perceptions of audible differences also go away. Please notice that without the existence of reliable audible differences, preferences are meaningless. Yes. IME, one rather bad villain with this habit of making outlandish claims based on building gear with parts missing so as to create audible frequency response differences calls himself "Limpiazator" or some such. Measuring frequency response is relatively easy and in general, I do it as part of setting up a listening experiment, as does any other worker with any pretentions of doing scientifically reasonable work. Almost all modern audio gear can be reasonably easily adjusted for flat enough frequency response and low enough noise and distortion to be indistinguishable from other competitive gear, and also a simple short piece of audio cable. Proper procedures are almost always not ever used. Therefore the subjective opinions that you read most of the time on most audio forums are not worth the dynamite to blow your nose except as cultural artifacts. No, you should start engaging your brain when you listen and follow the example of say, Ethan Winer, just to mention a name that you might be familiar with. This is the opposite of following the example of say Michael Fremer, again to just mention a name you might be familiar with. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Mar 3, 2018 16:58:26 GMT
Sorry to pester you again about this, but I am getting lost again. I am either falling for another subjectivist trap or there is some real science behind this: these are some quotes from members of another AV forum, trying to answer my question about why two modern prepros (from the same company) sound different, yet their distortion numbers should make both transparent: • "THD is not that perfect as a means to compare full bandwidth, as far as I know." THD is actually irrelevant to bandwidth. It's not a way to characterize frequency response, etc. Instead, THD is a way to characterize nonlinear distortion. Background: All music is composed of a combination of pure sine waves at various frequencies and amplitudes. Therefore, all possible errors in reproducing and/or storing a signal fall into 1 of 4 categories because a signal is a single function (amplitude) of a single variable (time). (1) Linear distortion commonly characterized using the terms or tests: bandwidth, frequency response, phase response. This changes the size of one or more of a signal's frequency components. Linear Distortion *does not* add new frequency components that were in the original signal. (2) Nonlinear distortion commonly characterized using the terms or tests: THD, IM, Jitter, FM distortion. This changes the shape of one or more of a signal's frequency components. Nonlinear Distortion *does add* new frequency components *that are related* to those originally in the signal. (3) Random noise commonly characterized using the terms or tests: SNR, Dynamic Range. This adds new random frequency components that are *not necessarily related* to those in the original signal . (4) Interfering but non-random undesired signals commonly characterized using the terms or tests: Hum, EMI, RFI. This adds new non-random frequency components that were not necessarily in the original signal and *that are generally unrelated* to the ones that were there. *Everything* that goes wrong with an audio signal fits into one of these categories, there can be none else, and they are all independent of each other. For example frequency response variations can increase or decrease with no change to hum and noise. However, the same problem such as a bad part or a bad design can cause more than one of them at the same time. Missing data in an audio signal whether analog or digital is generally very audible as an Interfering Signal. It most commonly sounds like clicks or pops. It can't be very subtle because when data goes missing suddenly and briefly, the signal goes from being there, to not being there, and the transition is like part of a square wave. The louder the signal, the larger the click or pop, and if the signal is a low-frequency sine wave, then the clicks and pops stand out particularly strongly. The availability of more loudness is well known as such things as amplifier power and loudspeaker power handling capacity or efficiency. The influence of these things on sales is such that they are common specifications that are advertised for gear. The audibility of differences in loudnesses is so commonly appreciated that just about every audio system has a volume control for changing it. Unless you take special steps, any two pieces of audio gear you compare will gravitate naturally towards playing at a different loudness. If you try to match these differences using your ear, you will find it to be time-consuming and inaccurate. "If you match levels by ear, you will hear the remaining level differences by ear" If you are serious about matching levels, you can do it with precision equal to hundreds or thousands of times less than the smallest change you can hear with just a PC with a cheap audio interface and freebie analytical software, or a cheap DVM and the ability to play simple digital files or CDs or DVDs you can burn for yourself or purchase inexpensively. When level differences are small, they are not perceived as differences in level, but as subtle, almost indescribable audible differences. If you compare something to itself but with slight level differences, you will generally be able to distinguish the sound of the device from itself, just playing at a slightly different level and how silly is it to prefer something because its volume control is set a little bit differently? Perhaps in 1950 or even sometimes in 160. Audio measurements are not a fixed thing, but something that is constantly changing and improving, just like the rest of science. The biggest innovation in audio measurements was the ready availability of computer-based measurements based on a matchematical analysis procedure called the FFT and it being married to computer graphics. This particular revolution was pretty well established in the late 1960s. Today you can take a $200 computer or cell phone and combined with free software, duplicate or exceed tests and measurements that required from one quarter to one half of a million dollars in 1975. All music is composed of a combination of pure sine waves at various frequencies and amplitudes. All of the 4 errors I listed above change the frequencies and/or amplitudes of those sine waves that make up all music. FFT analysis can recover the frequencies and amplitudes of even the most infinitesimal changes in frequencies and amplitudes. Today, we can readily discover and quantify those errors even when they are thousands of times less than what the ear/brain can reliably perceive. This is easy to demonstrate with simple, readily available tools if you know what you are doing. Finally, a non-myth. Please see my former comments about there being 4 possible kinds of errors in reproducing or storing audio signals. Generally No, as already stated above. It could be. However, it almost always is simple, trivial things like mismatching loudness, time delays between auditions, and using different music or different segments of the same piece of music in the comparison, or preconceived notions and biases that is why people perceive audible differences between reasonably good audio gear. The proof of this assertion is that almost every time we make those issues go away with good experimental procedures, the reliable perceptions of audible differences also go away. Please notice that without the existence of reliable audible differences, preferences are meaningless. Yes. IME, one rather bad villain with this habit of making outlandish claims based on building gear with parts missing so as to create audible frequency response differences calls himself "Limpiazator" or some such. Measuring frequency response is relatively easy and in general, I do it as part of setting up a listening experiment, as does any other worker with any pretentions of doing scientifically reasonable work. Almost all modern audio gear can be reasonably easily adjusted for flat enough frequency response and low enough noise and distortion to be indistinguishable from other competitive gear, and also a simple short piece of audio cable. Proper procedures are almost always not ever used. Therefore the subjective opinions that you read most of the time on most audio forums are not worth the dynamite to blow your nose except as cultural artifacts. No, you should start engaging your brain when you listen and follow the example of say, Ethan Winer, just to mention a name that you might be familiar with. This is the opposite of following the example of say Michael Fremer, again to just mention a name you might be familiar with. ;-) Great post! Thanks for the clarification. I am already convinced. My only goal from now on is to find a listening room and treat it. I'm not spending any more on electronics. :-) Unfortunately, building a listening room is far more expensive than buying boutique equipment. But, at least, the returns are greater! Thanks, again.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Mar 13, 2018 13:14:31 GMT
Can someone explain to me the difference between (a) bookshelf speakers + subs and (b) tower speakers (from the same model range), in terms of 'fullness' of sound at the mid-bass frequencies? I have read that (b) provides better mid-bass compared to (a), because the subwoofers only extend to 120Hz. I am planning to save money by buying only bookshelf speakers for my 5.1 setup and I was wondering if in stereo-music listening I will then miss some volume at those mid-bass frequencies? Actually, I don't understand how there can be a difference. If the spectrum of (a) is calibrated to look flat at the transition between the sub and the mains frequencies, why do the towers sound 'fuller' at the said frequencies?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 14, 2018 8:23:41 GMT
Can someone explain to me the difference between (a) bookshelf speakers + subs and (b) tower speakers (from the same model range), in terms of 'fullness' of sound at the mid-bass frequencies? I have read that (b) provides better mid-bass compared to (a), because the subwoofers only extend to 120Hz. I am planning to save money by buying only bookshelf speakers for my 5.1 setup and I was wondering if in stereo-music listening I will then miss some volume at those mid-bass frequencies? Actually, I don't understand how there can be a difference. If the spectrum of (a) is calibrated to look flat at the transition between the sub and the mains frequencies, why do the towers sound 'fuller' at the said frequencies? I think that, if you take a measurement, and your SPL and decay responses are identical then your differences should be minimal. There may be some harmonics which are too low in amplitude to show up which can effect your sound. Those can be the result of a number of factors like phase and enclosure dampening, distortion, a different response due to a change in the location of the speakers. I'm shooting from the hip but, then again, the same argument can be made in reverse in favor for the smaller speakers for a similar or different set of reasons. Satellites with extended low end can either constructively or destructively interfere with a sub's output. Whether that's helpful or not depends on basic principles including placement.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Mar 14, 2018 15:55:06 GMT
Can someone explain to me the difference between (a) bookshelf speakers + subs and (b) tower speakers (from the same model range), in terms of 'fullness' of sound at the mid-bass frequencies? I have read that (b) provides better mid-bass compared to (a), because the subwoofers only extend to 120Hz. I am planning to save money by buying only bookshelf speakers for my 5.1 setup and I was wondering if in stereo-music listening I will then miss some volume at those mid-bass frequencies? Actually, I don't understand how there can be a difference. If the spectrum of (a) is calibrated to look flat at the transition between the sub and the mains frequencies, why do the towers sound 'fuller' at the said frequencies? I think that, if you take a measurement, and your SPL and decay responses are identical then your differences should be minimal. There may be some harmonics which are too low in amplitude to show up which can effect your sound. Those can be the result of a number of factors like phase and enclosure dampening, distortion, a different response due to a change in the location of the speakers. I'm shooting from the hip but, then again, the same argument can be made in reverse in favor for the smaller speakers for a similar or different set of reasons. Satellites with extended low end can either constructively or destructively interfere with a sub's output. Whether that's helpful or not depends on basic principles including placement. Great! Thank you for explaining. I still think I will take my chances with satellites and subs, mainly due to funding constraints, but also due to not wanting to give up surround sound. I've always imagined that having a high-end 2.0 system with large towers, for music and movies, would provide enough dynamics and imaging that would make surround sound unnecessary. I've always wondered if it would also make subs unnecessary, since the towers I am thinking of would have good low end (also, having a sub means more electronics, and I've already had to make some repairs on mine, which I can't imagine being necessary for passive speakers). But, I am not sure of these things, any more. Before reading your post, I thought that towers are only necessary if I want to play my music very loud or fill large rooms. So, I'm thinking, if loudness is the main difference, I'm OK with satellites – depending on the room I will put them in of course, although I can't imagine ever having a very large dedicated one. I guess the most attractive part of 2.0 sound is the simplicity of the equipment, which would translate to (hopefully) fewer headaches over part failures, etc. Anyway, these are just some thoughts I've been having.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 14, 2018 23:42:02 GMT
I think that, if you take a measurement, and your SPL and decay responses are identical then your differences should be minimal. There may be some harmonics which are too low in amplitude to show up which can effect your sound. Those can be the result of a number of factors like phase and enclosure dampening, distortion, a different response due to a change in the location of the speakers. I'm shooting from the hip but, then again, the same argument can be made in reverse in favor for the smaller speakers for a similar or different set of reasons. Satellites with extended low end can either constructively or destructively interfere with a sub's output. Whether that's helpful or not depends on basic principles including placement. Great! Thank you for explaining. I still think I will take my chances with satellites and subs, mainly due to funding constraints, but also due to not wanting to give up surround sound. I've always imagined that having a high-end 2.0 system with large towers, for music and movies, would provide enough dynamics and imaging that would make surround sound unnecessary. I've always wondered if it would also make subs unnecessary, since the towers I am thinking of would have good low end (also, having a sub means more electronics, and I've already had to make some repairs on mine, which I can't imagine being necessary for passive speakers). But, I am not sure of these things, any more. Before reading your post, I thought that towers are only necessary if I want to play my music very loud or fill large rooms. So, I'm thinking, if loudness is the main difference, I'm OK with satellites – depending on the room I will put them in of course, although I can't imagine ever having a very large dedicated one. I guess the most attractive part of 2.0 sound is the simplicity of the equipment, which would translate to (hopefully) fewer headaches over part failures, etc. Anyway, these are just some thoughts I've been having. I don't know about surround but if stereo was a substitute why would Dolby be investing so much in Atmos? Another thing is that, past a certain cutoff, bass becomes more local. So, if you plan on using 2" satellites then your experience may be compromised. It's complex because the LFE channel is unto itself. I'm gonna vote that 2.0 isn't the same as 5.1.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Mar 15, 2018 14:00:27 GMT
One difference is that low frequencies around the woofer / subwoofer crossover point come from different places. With tower speakers all frequencies come from more or less the same place. With a single sub, there are three locations, with one for each speaker plus the sub. But with 24 dB / octave active crossovers, the bandwidth of overlapping frequencies is very small. More to the point, it's not necessarily a problem if the same frequencies come from multiple places. For example, some people use two or even four subs to flatten the response, and that flattening happens because of the different locations! All that said, my own setup has active bookshelf speakers (Mackie HR624 monitors) plus a killer subwoofer, and I'm total happy. I'd never spend what big towers cost. If you're curious, this is a 10-minute tour of my home theater hi-fi setup: Ethan's Living Room Home Theater Tour
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Mar 15, 2018 15:40:28 GMT
Can someone explain to me the difference between (a) bookshelf speakers + subs and (b) tower speakers (from the same model range), in terms of 'fullness' of sound at the mid-bass frequencies? I have read that (b) provides better mid-bass compared to (a), because the subwoofers only extend to 120Hz. I am planning to save money by buying only bookshelf speakers for my 5.1 setup and I was wondering if in stereo-music listening I will then miss some volume at those mid-bass frequencies? Actually, I don't understand how there can be a difference. If the spectrum of (a) is calibrated to look flat at the transition between the sub and the mains frequencies, why do the towers sound 'fuller' at the said frequencies? I think that, if you take a measurement, and your SPL and decay responses are identical then your differences should be minimal. There may be some harmonics which are too low in amplitude to show up which can effect your sound. Those can be the result of a number of factors like phase and enclosure dampening, distortion, a different response due to a change in the location of the speakers. I'm shooting from the hip but, then again, the same argument can be made in reverse in favor for the smaller speakers for a similar or different set of reasons. Satellites with extended low end can either constructively or destructively interfere with a sub's output. Whether that's helpful or not depends on basic principles including placement. Since all towers are not acoustically the same or even similar, it is hard to do a decent job of answering any question involving them. With towers, you are pretty much stuck with the designer's vision of room interfacing, especially the floor. With so-called bookshelves, most bets are off, and what you got is what you got. This very limited discussion all by itself leads to the conclusion that without electrical equalization and especially without subwoofers, you are in a configuration strait-jacket.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Mar 15, 2018 15:59:30 GMT
This very limited discussion all by itself leads to the conclusion that without electrical equalization and especially without subwoofers, you are in a configuration strait-jacket. Thanks, Arnyk. And thank you all for trying to answer my question (I know it's complicated to answer without specific information about the speakers I am talking about). However, the towers I am talking about (upwards from B&W 803D3) all have heavy slabs at their base, so doesn't that isolate their interaction with the floor? I was under the impression that the main concern is not the speaker–floor boundary but the effect of the vibrations caused by the bass woofers on the mid-frequency woofer. Otherwise, isn't this 'floor-interfacing' also a problem for subwoofers? Also, like with bookshelves, one can move tower speakers around to optimise their interaction with the room. However, the optimal location could be different for the mid/high frequencies and for the low frequencies – and that's why the flexibility of positioning the subwoofers is useful. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 16, 2018 0:46:41 GMT
This very limited discussion all by itself leads to the conclusion that without electrical equalization and especially without subwoofers, you are in a configuration strait-jacket. Thanks, Arnyk. And thank you all for trying to answer my question (I know it's complicated to answer without specific information about the speakers I am talking about). However, the towers I am talking about (upwards from B&W 803D3) all have heavy slabs at their base, so doesn't that isolate their interaction with the floor? I was under the impression that the main concern is not the speaker–floor boundary but the effect of the vibrations caused by the bass woofers on the mid-frequency woofer. Otherwise, isn't this 'floor-interfacing' also a problem for subwoofers? Also, like with bookshelves, one can move tower speakers around to optimise their interaction with the room. However, the optimal location could be different for the mid/high frequencies and for the low frequencies – and that's why the flexibility of positioning the subwoofers is useful. Is that right? For my money, Ethan debunked decoupling. In that light, you could probably set your speakers on any massive slab in the event they're on the floor and your floor is shaking from bass. In my understanding about low frequencies and positioning, your mid and high frequencies are less dependent on source placement for frequency response but more dependent for imaging; the exception of boundary interference being mitigated by first-reflection treatment. So ya, if everything is in one box then you're more limited. Practically, I have never needed to conduct many placement trials of my near fields - probably because I use their included cutoff - to optimize placement with my sub. Theoretically, you can get super detailed about complimentary responses but I say leave your mids and his to do mids and his and use subs for the lows. Maybe if I had a purpose-built room with 10x my current level of treatment I would be worried about it. It took me about six weeks to get my room how it is even with it's compromises. I shudder to think the level of optimization possible with more time, money, and desire for that last fraction of perfection.
|
|