Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: 'Fundamental rich' listening, or is RTA even close to accurate?
Post Subject: lemme rephrase that, thenPosted by stuck.wilson on: 8/19/2007
romy-
i have resisted using RTA for the very reasons you're citing-- learning to read the visual data, as well as methods of how to get it accurately, are as equally time consuming as any other pursuit in audio. anyone can be a reader of meters-- the scientist is a whole other level of sophistication. i am working through the bugs of being the meter reader- however, i come to it with the understanding that the top octaves of RTA are seldom very trustable without very solid gear. the microphone (an akg 451) is an industry standard-- the mic pre is a mackie mixer-- nothing out of the ordinary.. but certainly respectable- the program is trueRTA- and as to it's accuracy, i don't know. (thanks for the suggestion op.9-- no behringer though!) hearing that RTA is often an accurate tool, that my particular driver has the capacity to go shrill with bad power, that in this application, expectations of exceeding 12.5k aren't really reasonable, and that maintaining full frequency evenly is tough for any system- not only a speaker system-- all of those strike a resonant chord validating what i'm experiencing-- so none of that is nothing insofar as 'food for thought' is concerned! and you are speaking to EXACTLY what i'm getting at in terms of the auditability vs. measurability of frequency extremes, in an oblique manner- hence asking- is 'flat 20-20k' a myth.
i ask this question using RTA as one of the quirks in my experience butting heads with 'common knowledge': is it really necessary to have HF at the same amplitude as fundamentals to seem 'natural', or much like in concert halls, does the frequency response at your seat change from, say, the conductor's position due to proximity-- so that at some seats in the house, there is less HF information? BECAUSE-- what i am hearing (which i trust more than my measuring) sounds distinct, in scale, and natural to my ears-- but only when my measurements (taken in multiple positions- both from mono and stereo sources) read as non-linear 20-20k- or more precisely- downwardly linear past 2k at about 6db/octave.
no doubt, it's again, the lack of really good systems as a yardstick- and the relative vaccuum of people experimenting in this vein that i know personally. distinguishing between a 'very refined upper midrange and HF' at the proper amplitude and one that's turned down as to be less audible isn't a distinction i have the listening ability to make, presently. but asking the question as to the proper SCALE of that frequency range seems an important part of the question, to me. it's difficult to ANSWER..i'd have to hear it, obviously. but regarding the proper use of the tool-- i think you're right-- i don't attribute magic to it.. maybe i'm using the software incorrectly!
only thing that will really answer my questions will undoubtably be more dicking around and listening- and getting the 'benefit' of adding the top octave- right or wrong- to see what it does to the sound!
regardless-- thanks for the sounding board to keep the process intellectually honest.
d
Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site