Az,
Interesting stuff on the phantom vs. actual center channel. For a change, I don't disagree with you! Although your method of 'challenging' others I find questionable. To each his own. I have listened to my system without the center using phantom mode. It works very well. My components are all matched and the levels balanced, so the sound field is seemless. At this time I'll continue to use my center channel as I like the way it sounds. I'm changing my projection unit in the next few weeks so my use of a center channel may change.
Back to the subject. I, personally, would advise the use of an SPl meter for the reasons that I stated above. You might be pleasantly surprised at the results. You could also then speak from direct experience with it's use rather than conjecture. This would only strengthen your argument and knowledge base.
Mix

I coulda' posted nothing, or I coulda' posted "Yeah, SPL meters rule! Everybody hug! We're all right!"

Thats a good line and your 100% right about the center channel. I use phantom mode all the time and its great.



[This message has been edited by e-dogg (edited August 06, 2002).]

HTcrazy,

Yeah, if it wasn't for my big fat mouth I'm 100% that this issue would be as completely uncontended as you assumed it would be.
Sorry if that upset you or anything. Not my intent.

steves and MixFixJ,

You both continue to rec. I use an SPL meter ignoring my list of variables as being any kind of issue.
(Please don't take this to mean I'm mad here or anything).
I assume then you consider all of these variables myself (and other before me) as irrelevant, and your position seems to be (correct me if I have this wrong) that no matter which way you choose to use an SPL meter you pretty much can't go wrong and you'll in fact be totally (or at least very close) to accurate and without a doubt end up with results that will surpass a 'by ear' setting of levels by hearing the test tones.

Is this correct?

And MixFixJ,
I don't mean to 'challenge' people in a bad way (like to make them feel bad or dumb or anything), but rather to get people to look further into an issue than they normally would (as this thread would have been), and possibly learn more than they knew the day before (whether from me of anyone else). Something I think far too many people don't challenge themselves to do these days.
I think some out there may agree with this point (esp. those in working in our nation's school system).

I certainly have been open to having someone explain to me the 'correct' procedure of using an SPL meter and/or explaining how it's wihout a doubt better than a 'by ear' method (A method I also 100% believe to ALSO be somewhat flawed -my debate being over which is more flawed).

No one's done so to my dissapointment. I've just gotten some people mad at me, and some people just repeating that 'I should use an SPL meter' -clearly not understanding my point of contention about it's use, and claiming 'conjecture' yet not able to technically make any points that contradict my previous statements.

Azryan, I just posted I liked using a meter, I never advocate my cup of tea well blended for all.
I shouldn’t be brave enough post any opinion, as I am skating on the barest base of knowledge in A/V, and don’t I know it! Facts right now tend to slide away from me just as I'm reaching for new ones.
I agree completely with your challenge to think deeply, otherwise I would still be lining up for the latest Bose model demonstration at CC or I’d have my baby sister’s Sony HTIB in my Living Room. Or even more likely, - I’d probably be just rolling my eyes at my guy, saying just drop me at the clothing department if your going to look at those things again! Some part of me in my recent past, dug in my heels, and said, there has to be more to AV than THIS.!!!! I will never understand why I do the things I do, like becoming interested in a subject heavily dependent on knowledge I have no grounding in, - but for me, -‘The journeys the thing’, and unwisely or not I don’t’ have the sense GGM to be intimidated by that intriguing side-trail I see in the road. I was just surprised to read you had never calibrated. One of the first things I ran into was THE GREAT cable/interconnet debate. So typical to me, I said let’s pull out all the cable we can find, cause I want to see for myself.
I did not realize I had put on my flaming party hat, I am now posthaste to the kitchen where the fire extinguisher lives.
You asked: ‘how WRONG were you when you went from ‘by ear’ calibration to trusting the SPL meter results?
For JUST me, very wrong. I’ve always had personal preferences on how a sound system sounds to my ears, yet never bothered to learn, WHY a system sounded better to me?
Since I have not spent years tweaking the nuances of 2 channel, stereo, (CD’s). I was first playing in the DVD boom and bang range of predominately Home Theater type stuff. I think I made a newbie’s mistake of equating all surrounds working noticeably with how riveting or enveloping the movie experience would be.. Therefore I tended to keep pushing the surround db’s up. Many DVD’s really don’t make all that much use of the surrounds, so I’d push and push, and then put in Disc with DTS recorded. Whoop-see, - back to tweaking the other direction, to keep from waking the neighbors with the long distance effects mainly of LF through the mains and the SW.
Over emphasizing my surrounds would periodically land on a serendipitous blend with an individual recording where things opened up and life was good. Unfortunately, 90% of the time, since I did not tweak for every single thing I listened to, I ended up with my levels grossly out of whack.. I thought I was tweaking to an effect which I felt would be pleasing - more surround on movies. After calibrating, very quickly, it was clear…I had destroyed the soundstage for most of my listening.
Even though I had purchased a meter myself before my 950 came, it looked intimidating and I was waiting on my husband to sit down with me on this, I honestly felt at that time, how much difference can calibration ultimately make because I trust my own ears and had vague notions that I could create time delay effects using trim to account for my not so optimum speaker placements and other such thoughts on how to handle aspects and variables unique to my room.
Using my trim this way, for my level of expertise, was heavy handed and grossly inefficient lacking in finesse. Akin to using throttles to bank a plane if you were to lose aileron and rudder control.
Right now I only have my beginner’s ticket and if my plane is in balance (in this instance, calibration)
I need less pressure applied to get movement in any direction I want. You probably don’t need that central fulcrum to start from; since I am not seasoned, - right now I do.

Now If you ever need my expertise, my next classes will be held starting Aug 28, e-mail for scheduling:
A sampling of courses offered this semester:

Topic 1 – The toilet paper roll: Do they grow on the holders?
Round table discussion.

Topic 2 – Loss of Identity: Losing the remote to your significant other.
Helpline support and support groups.

Topic 3 – Is it Genetically impossible to sit quietly as she parallel parks.
Driving simulation included.

Topic 4 – Learning to let go of impossible tasks including keeping flighty brains on serious topics.
Shock Therapy sessions and /or full Lobotomies offered.

Lena,

How do you know that your spl meter readings you've taken are correct? Isn't it that -
1 -faith that it was done exactly right, despite a bazillion variables that can't be accounted for?
and
2 -to your ears, you find the surround field now much better than before?

1 -this answers itself. Too many variables to ever trust your results we're accurate (as I would mistrust my own readings for the exact same reasons).

2 -how can you trust what your ears hear now sounds more correct, when you were wrong about trusting what they heard before as more correct?

It sounds like (but correct me if I got it wrong) you 'kept messing' with the levels all the time (or frequently), and now that you have an SPL meter, you've set it to one exact set of levels that also 'to your ears' sounds correct, and now you don't mess with it at all -or 'not much', and then at least you know what the original spl settings are so you can change it back if you want.

I'm more than willing to trust your claim of improvement if this was the situation.

Have you tired to sit dead center (I assume exactly where you spl meter was) and listening to test tones judge for yourself the levels that they should be set at, so that when set -as you tap the 950's remote to quicky cycle through the speakers, they all sound evenly leveled... and then don't mess with that setting and listen to clips of assorted DVD's?

That's what I've done, but right off the bat I flaw my results... since I calibrate at dead center, but watch 100% of all DVD's with my wife next to me -so neither of us are sitting dead center.
How do you account for this in your home? Do you demand center seating at all times or ignore this proven error?

An SPL meter is incapable of correcting this flaw as it is w/ many other flaws that 'real world' just can't be gotten rid of.

I don't 'judge by eyes' my distance setting. I use a tape measure... but again from dead center, ending up flawed as I don't sit dead center when watching movies w/ my wife. I don't find this to be a big deal though.

Just like Gonk's jokes about 'shaving the cat' and all that (though I think that might have just been a 'Freudian slip' in his case -heh). You can't account for all sorts of variables, but you do the best you reasonably can.
I just don't find the methods people use in SPL meter calibration to be reasonably without major flaws.

I submit that my set up being a perfectly symetrical dedicated HT room and L/R speaker placement and only 4.1 is probably much easier to judge by ear than a system of varied speaker distances and several more speakers -which sounds like what your system is like (by your wording of it in your last post). You mentioned varied distances, and I assume you have a 5.1 set up at least, but probably 6/7.1. Just a guess though.

I believe an exact one 'correct setting' does not exist. I also believe that the methods people are using here w/ the rat shack SPL meter are too flawed to be deemed correct IF an exact correct setting existed.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. I know I've racked my brain on this issue for years.

Here's something you might like to try... have your husband write down all the (spl meter based) level settings (if you don't have them memorized hopefully). Then have him screw up all the setting so that they're obviously 'outta' wack'.

Then you sit down exactly where you'd put the spl meter and try to set it back to the right levels (using whatever 'variable' you used for the spl meter -950 test tones, Avia, V.E. whatever).
Now write that down and compare the settings.

There's a 99.999% chance the two numbers are diff. of course, but listen to a few diff. DVD's and try to guess which one is which (your husband would have to reset the settings) AND which you feel sounds more correct.
I bet you'll have a VERY hard time deciding -esp. if you're using DVD's with varied surround levels (which just throws the whole thing into an opinion question), and in the end you just CAN'T know you which is more 'correct'.

Most of my comments have been about main speaker levels (mains, center, surrounds).
I believe sub leveling is a whole 'nother can 'o worms...

The rat shack meter is progressivly inaccurate between 2-20db from ~80-ishHz down to ~10Hz (and worse down to 0).

I'm guessing no one here corrects for these faulty readings by doing some very detailed math, since the test tones you guage by are an equal output of all these tones at the same time, but then again... maybe they're not?
Are you sure what exactly the chosen test tone is outputting? Some of you may not be.

Then factor in room modes that change the bass level throughout the room beyond the tiny point you SPL metered at.

Then play a CD with weak bass and want to up the level. Then put on the DD intro on Phantom Menace and bottom out your sub.

'Real world' it just works/sounds better to guage by ear by knowing you system inside and out.

How many use wall 8' bass traps in the corners of the room to cut these standing waves? I do, and my bass is tighter and more accurate than it was previously.
How many have thought about how the distance from mains to the sub effects it's phase accuracy?

Now tell me you have have that sub set perfectly, or more prefectly than mine is.
At least think about it before you disregard my comments as being 'not what most people do'.

Most people use TV speakers. Or do you mean most 'HT users'?

Most of them use Bose. Or do you mean 'HT forum posters' like here?

Most of them use SPL meters in assorted methods that all (or 'all but one') must be at least somewhat inaccurate.
They judge with thier ears that this is more accurate than when they judge with thier ears. Odd ain't it?

The people with the most advanced knowledge and radical thinking about hi-fi are by far in the minority.
Note- I don't claim to be one of them, but just possibly more-so than some who assume the majority is typically correct just 'cuz they're the 'majority'.

Azrayan - Actually I don't think your comments succeeded in angering anyone. I should have figured that some of those that fancy themselves steeped in audio knowledge would suffer some phallic shrinkage at the thought of a $40 piece of hardware bettering their own golden ear.

Lena- You crack me up. Thank you!

Az- You keep repeating 'how do you know that the readings on your SPL meter are accurate?' and going on about variables. It doesn't matter if your meter isn't reading an exactly correct SPL when you start. The meter could be off more than 10% percent in either direction without becoming useless. (I can't believe that I have to explain this, but I will anyway.) I'll say it again. You are looking for a reference point in your mains to which you will balance your surrounds and center. Get it? Your meter could say 'x', and if you set your other speakers to 'x' your levels would be balanced. And all of the variables that you mention are relevant to varying degrees, but don't overcomplicate things. The meters have omnidirectional mics so pointing them at the ceiling while sitting in your listening position is a good compromise. As far as other listening positions, you are going to have those very same variables whether you use a meter or not.
The meter is a tool. It gives you physical representation of what you are just 'guessing at' by not using it. The variables remain the same with or without the meter. The thinking man uses all tools at this disposal.
Do what you will, but can we move on to something else now? See you on the next topic.
Mix

HTcrazed,

I never indended to anger anyone and I never claimed to have golden ears. I think you just don't understand my comments or maybe didn't read them all.

How do you know SPL ..Readings..are correct
I probably was not very good at it, but assume with repetition, it will become easier, (although it seemed easy enough) and more familiar.

Faith…despite a bazillion variables…
I would say I’m a control the things “I can change” kind of person, and “not worry about the things I can’t.” (or am not ready to attempt yet…).

to your ears, ..find surround field ..much better..
Yes, is that bad?

How can you trust ..your ears…when your were wrong..about trusting ..before..more correct
I was hearing what I thought sounded wrong, or flat, or dead spots frequently, I could affect it, but not with any consistency…again remember my unfamiliarity with several (novel to me) controls I have no finesse adjusting… and my current difficulties grasping all parameters that might effect how moving one setting can often effect 3 things related.
You might say, I highly recommend a meter for someone like me, and I would not be surprised if I am unlike anyone elseanywhere. I do see that many who appear to me to be at different levels of expertise or for whatever rational suits them, post satisfaction with the results they feel they get from calibrating. I don’t know how else to validate my personal liking for calibration other than the fact that I ponder what anyone has to say on any given subject… then if I have time or ability…test the waters myself..accept/discard and continue on.

..now you don’t mess with it at all-or-not much…
Less, since after calibrating the sound became more pleasing to me, over a broader range of recordings.
I try to be a mouse in those settings now instead of an elephant, for …however long into my future,…it continues to please me.

dead center (I assume exactly where your SPL meter was…since I calibrate at dead center but watch 100% of DVD’s with my wife…neither of us are sitting dead center….
Nope, I’m selfish, you see there is one area all try to claim first in this house, My husband and I sit close together, and we’re the alpha male and female..I let all other ‘ears’ fend for themselves.

I don’t judge by eyes my distance settings
This made me laugh (due only to family characteristics) when we set up the 950, I said to himself,..”Get the tape measure”. His response was in the same vein he treats directions, don’t need a tape measure, its this and this …just set it…..(He was in a hurry to power up). When I calibrated, I got out my tape measure.

have him screw up all the settings so that they’re obviously ‘outta’ whack and try to set it back
Just my kind of game, some long winter night…I love that stuff….when I’m more centered on what’s just right for me, and what works smoothly together to get it there.

guessing no one here corrects for these faulty readings by doing some very detailed math..
Do you mean measuring gain that occurs from the sum of the mains factored in with the SW combined? If I got that right, math is not my strong point and I don’t feel ready to go there yet. My understanding is the Radio S meter, is not the choice if you get into that amount of precision. I’ve seen a Sound Engineers rule of thumb for a +2 or +3 (I think) setting for the SW above the rest of your set reference levels. That this setting or close enough is used by engineers when mixing, and generally works best with many sources. I tried this but changed it back as it was too much for my ears currently.

They judge with their ears that this is more accurate than when they judge with their ears. Odd ain’t it?

That is a GREAT Line, well-said, it’s a mystery to me.

PS. I did contemplate why Outlaw would recommend “point to ceiling” Vs the Meter manuals direction to “point to each speaker”….My logic (not necessarily understandable to any but me, went like this) What I’m hearing is a blend somewhere out there in the sweet spot, so if the sound I’m aiming for is the best blend at that acoustical crossroad I’m concerned with. I want it measured THERE, I felt that pointed to each speaker would weight the results more towards their individual locations. That’s why I went with Outlaws recommendation. For kicks, I should try the ceiling (I meant, towards the speakers)


[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited August 07, 2002).]