Thank you very much pedal !
And ... you just confirmed something I did not
want to do myself, but will now : increase the bass volume (at the filter side).
Please allow me - as usual
- to backup your findings with IMO a related story of mine. For my own mind setting it's always good to write about things anyway :
First, please read this post :
Re: 0.9d vs u/i 0.9j;
This, btw, also shows why it is important to archive things the way I do it, and why your feedback is so important.
Well, whether all is really true as how I described it in that post or not may be not the most important, but the sole fact that with 0.9s-1 the bass output got less -while at the same time being sure that it is for the better because of bass output being more clean (indeed)- this again will be about less standing waves in the room. Must be ...
Might you not have taken the time to read that long post I just referred to ...
it is about a 26dB increase of the sub-low frequencies, only because of a software player working out ... well ... not the best ? And this 26dB is indeed in a frequeny range 99% of audio freaks won't even notice because they aren't ready for the subwoofer era.
Now, as a kind of side story, the way I tweaked my xovers already shows a more or less ridiculeous dip in the middle, or better, boosted bass and boosted highs. I won't again refer to the topic where I brainstormed about my reasons for uplevelling the highs (it must be worked out better / more decent), but for in here it might be important that the output
as measured from the speakers already was uplifted crazily and now will go in the same direction for the bass.
Sidenote : Be aware that in my case the highs are to be interpreted as coming from horn speakers, measured at the mouth, meaning : the output is rather directional, the room far far less contributing to it by means of reflections. For the bass output this is unrelated (the room will do her work here anyway).
Since I am too deep into listening carefully how things should sound, and which nowadays is ONLY about nature, and near nothing about removing distortions (or IOW not about "how will my system sound the least disturbing" -> history) I myself am dead sure that there is nothing wrong with my uplevelled highs, as well as that nothing will be wrong with uplevelled lows. Now, assuming I am right, we get this :
When a loudspeaker (or in fact system) is measured, this doesn't go through XXHighEnd, right ? whatever it goes through, it is not what we listen through playing our albums. Now you tell me : if a stupid piece of software player can incur for 26dB lifted sub low frequencies (as it works out in the room !!), what is there to say from whatever measuring software ? And oh, I do not say that this software (or device) would be wrong, but I sure say
it works out differently.
But ... when we all, by means of absolute judging/listening/hearing come to the conclusion that XXHighEnd her output is good, then that leaves us with the withgoing conclusion that the output of the measuring will be wrong(ish ?). And obviously there is no reason why our measuring software is not subjective to the same matters our software player is, knowing that the differences emerge at the DAC side ...
Of course, nothing tells us that it is
necessary to adjust the frequency output of our speakers, but as far as I can tell many things are going on beyond our knowledge, and when a frequency curve as I imply does so much good to natural sound (which is explicitly not subjective to what I like or whatever), then something must be going on.
Peter