Gracious... All this furor over a little meter...

Azryan, I think much of the heat that you are taking is because, as Smart Little Lena noted, you haven't actually tried using a meter. Absolutely, there are differing opinions on how to "properly" use one, of that there is no doubt. You can always find one more unaccounted-for variable. Hell, you can probably find a dozen more without even trying, even beyond the ones you've already named. Anything can and will have an effect. Will the folded shade on the lamp next to the couch cause more distortion than a smooth lamp shade would? If you shave the cat, will the reduction in cat hair in the air help with airflow through the ports on the speakers? At some point, we all have to quit second-guessing ourselves and do some listening. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you have decided that the variables you've pointed out make using a meter pointless in setting speaker levels. Your decision is atypical, as most people find the meter a helpful tool for quickly getting their system adjusted, but we all do some atypical things from time to time. You did point out that steves had the right idea in his response to your original post -- allow yourself to tinker with it, don't take the meter's word for it. Since that's the approach I use, I will agree with both of you (steves in particular, as I use the meter to get my starting point). I know that you tend to get very "in" to what you are talking about, and I recognize what you're going for, but you are getting flamed (heck, you even predicted it in your original post!) because people get the impression that you are saying "don't use a meter, it's stupid!" when you haven't actually tried one.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Thank you Gonk, best laugh all Monday!. Don't think I'll mention this story to the boys...as I have a cat and he would be very offended. Plus he never stays in one place for long.....drat...another variable..and then they might think of the super glue....
Your a sweetheart Gonk.

-- Glad you enjoyed it! I have two cats myself, both long haired (a Persian and a Maine Coon), and I can guarantee that both would be highly offended at the idea.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Thanks Gonk. This thread was starting to drift or get too technical. Either use one or don't. Personally, I did and found improvement, IMHO. Just my 2 cents. Was it Monty Python? "and now, for something completely different..."
DMC

perhaps I should have said that we are splitting "hairs" here I respect everyone's opinion here.
DMC

Hello, I hope everyone is well.
In the professional realm,meters, from the most basic SPL through spectrum anylizers and TEF boxes and beyond, are used as a starting point when dialing-in rooms and gear. It gives you an unbiased reference. Then,the Engineer tweeks things to his/her own liking. Meters give you good, useful information and anytime I change any parameter in any listening space I always 'take the system back to zero' re-meter, and tweek the system again.
IMHO this technique gives a good reference that you can then adjust to your own liking. It keeps you from trying to adjust a horribly out-of-calibration system. When you start off very far from metered calibration, it makes getting good results just that much more difficult.

Az- Sidenote. I completely agree with using a phantom center for listening to music. When using a phantom center for surround applications, aren't you losing the artifacts that were specifically mixed for the center channel? If not, wouldn't one of the digits in the 5,6,7.1 formats be extraneous? Just a thought.
Until next time,
Mix

steves,
I DID read what you wrote. The word 'IF' in your statement doesn't invalidate my statement and I didn't miss it when I read it the first time.
It implied that you condone altering the levels after SPL calibration. I see from your later post that you do not. You needed to clarify that though to make that point.

Now you're not just disagreeing with me, but also all the other people who adjust their levels slightly per source after level calibration (by ear of SPL meter) -which I'd bet is most of us here. At least many.

Lena,

Why the "Tsk, Tsk"? You seem to be criticizing me for discussing the use of an SPL meter when I don't use one myself -as if I didn't mention that fact, or I don't know what I'm talking about?

Obviously I never hid that I don't use an SPL meter, and in fact stated it outright. That's how you knew I don't use one- 'cuz I said it!?
No deception or anything on my part.

I understand very clearly how an SPL meter works. How they're meant to calibrate the speaker levels. How the results -if completed as intended- will improved a surround system. Seriously "No offence",but most likely more than you yourself do.

Most importantly (IMO) I understand how lots of variables alter this method into inaccuracy.

I've yet to be told (civilly or uncivilly) how to take into account for all these variables (or ANY of them individually even) and factor them out of the process.
I'm prefectly willing to learn from you or anyone on this issue.
So far I think I just put thoughts in people's heads that they'd rather not think about.
Uncertainly often causes uneasiness which comes out as anger -which you see here from others who are ticked at me.

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

I challenge people to think deeper and lots of people hate that. Some people learn something though. I know I have when I've been challenged in the past (and I'm sure in the future).

I certainly don't know squat compared to some of these elec. engineer / custom modification / DIY speakers building / super high end audiophiles who post on certain other forums.

I've said things in the past that I knew I was far from the first to say -things I thought were just 'understood facts', and they busted me by telling me the details of what I never thought or knew about, and I learned from it. And I've busted other people on it.

Some like to learn stuff on forums, some just like to post to chit chat and be friendly w/ people who bought the same stuff they did.

You do seem to understand the points I'm making about the many many variables in the calibration method.
I believe you mentioned one yourself about pointing the meter up or pointing forward, but maybe that wasn't you who said that (I can't read the past posts while I'm making my own post -they don't show up on this comp.). No offence if it wasn't you ok?

I'm also NOT telling you that you did not hear an improvement when you used your SPL meter to calibrate your system. I trust that you DID. You misunderstand if you think I disbelieve you. I have no reason to not take you at your word. Nothing you've ever said has ever seemed untrustworthy IMO.

BTW, of all the mentions of rat shacks' SPL meters, 99 times out of 100 people rec. the analog over the digital, so I wouldn't worry about not having the digital model.
I believe the 'gist' of it is that the analog meter is more accurate since you directly see the meter needle w/ your own eyes, whereas with the digital model reads the analog input and tells you (presumed w/ less accuracy) what it thinks it read.
A cleaner reading from the cheaper model.

Gonk,

No need to worry about me getting flamed. I knew that I'd be in the minority on this issue, and I took a guess that some people would assume I'm telling everyone that they're wrong in using an SPL meter and turn 'mob mentality' on me.

I'm glad you can see what I really mean regardless if you agree or disagree w/ me.
Yes, I'm very 'forceful' a lot of times, I can't disagree with you on that. But you bring out the worst AND the best in others when you challenge them. I intend the latter (most of the time -heh).

Just as you stated all kinds of variables that are funny yet actually do effect things, you see my point about how you just have to accept variables that you can't correct for.

Let me ask everyone... how WRONG were you when you went from 'by ear' calibration to trusting the SPL meter results? And how do you know that factoring in some/any/all of the variables I listed, that you are still far more accurate (if any more) than you could get by ear?

Personally I'm just curious at how bad you all feel your ears are at listening to test tones and how accurate you think your specific method ('cuz no two people here do it exactly the same) of SPL calibration is.

It's not a big deal for me really. I would only be using a meter to level match my pair of rear speakers and my subs to my mains. My room is totally symetrical so I'm sure the mains and the rears as pairs are the same to eachother (meaning I don't need to guess about a left rear that's farther away than the right rear).

Since I hear a totally solid surround field and obviously specifically adjusted these levels till I fealt that's just what I heard, I really really doubt an SPL meter would improve on that.
Nor would I be confident in the least that the method I'd choose to use that meter would be without it's own equally bad flaws.

-and face it these very tiny flaws are would directly relate to just the sort of 'slight' db adjustments the SPL meter is intended to correct!

MixFixJ,

Since the downmix of the center chan. is totally in the digital domain you don't lose ANY of the information encoded in it when run in phantom mode. I'd be against it if it was a compromise like that.
The only 'red herring' you'll hear mentioned is a 'comb filtering effect' as the center chan. is being projected from two speakers. This you can hear w/ your own ears is not a real world issue (or you'd have heard 2 chan. audiophiles complaining about this effect for decades -where instead you still have some of the VERY best audio systems in the world being pure 2 chan. -not that I'm against multi chan audio).

I highly rec. you try a phantom downmix to at least hear how well (or poorly) it works in your system. You'll learn a lot no matter which you think is better for you since you still listen to 2 chan. CDs just like the rest of us.

I seen a lot of people who set their mains too far apart which isn't too bad when their watching movies 'cuz their center is more of a gap filler than the critical component it should be.

If the mains are too far apart the phantom center image will be more of a dull, cloud-like image than it could be. They mix the center speaker back in and say 'Oh yeah! It's a LOT clearer/sharper and more 'locked to the screen' and without a doubt... it is!

Thing is.. you should be able to get just as sharp/clear an image from your mains if you played with the set up more critically (improving your 2 chan. imaging on CDs in the process).
You won't have that 'locked to the screen' effect though.
But that's not what you should want.

That effect is mainly caused by the horizontal placement of the drivers (in most -not all- center speakers) which is ONLY like that so it can fit on or under a tv. It's NOT because that's a better position soundwise.
It throws more sound vertically than horizontally so the speaker doesn't sound as open or transparent by design (even with the best of components). Look at how Martin Logan has to use cones and domes in thier center speakers to counter this effect on their thin horizontally mounted 'stat panel.

In case anybody asks -"Yes I HAVE used center speakers in the past. Several."

There's just a ton of variables in this too though (you'll notice I'm keen on that word in this thread-heh).
Line source designs like long ribbons (which my Newforms are), Martin Logans, or multi cone/dome arrays are the best for a phantom center (I believe because the two vertical planes of sound blend easier than the circular outputs of cones/domes), but I have a set of Axiom Audio bookshelf speakers (cone/dome design) and find I can also produce an incredibly open and solid front soundfield compared to having a center in the mix.

Psychoacoustics are really massive big brained stuff. The vast details are beyond me, but the extent that I know and that I've heard, I much prefer the inherently perfectly matching phantom center to any center speaker I've ever heard (and I've heard several that cost far more than my mains combined).

The cool thing is that it's free for you to test, and if it's an improvement you just got better sound for free, and can sell that center speaker, save an amp, etc...

Kinda depends on the tv too. When I had a 32" tv and first changed to a 4.1 system to 5.1 it was VERY weird to hear the soundtrack smoothly pan across the my ~7 1/2' spaced speakers (and far beyond them) when all the action was taking place in a ~2' box in front of me.
For exam... someone walks across the screen. The picture shows the person walk across the small screen, but the sound has him perfectly smoothly pan across my entire room -exactly as the mix is designed. Super hard to blend a center speaker in as good, and impossible to blend better. And why add the cost if you don't have to?

Now that I have a 65" RPTV, this smooth/open panning is much prefered (though I prefered it from the begining).

As for surrounds. I use 2 rear monopole speakers 120 degrees behind dead center. Owning plenty of amps and plenty of loudspeakers I've tested 6 and 7 chan. set ups and found them to be less smoothly blended than just the two rear Newforms blending into the mains.

I was all set to sell the rear Newforms and get 4 all new side/rear speakers (when I compared the 4 identical speakers I own now), but it was just unnecessary to add more when the only goal is a totally solid surround field NOT any specific number -and 4.1 was enough for my 17 1/2" x 23' room.

If you have a VERY large theater and want the sound to be diffuse and as even as possible through out the whole room, you should add as many surround speakers as you can preferably dipoles throwing sound all over the place before it even hits your ears.

This is the design of a movie theater. They need all the seats to be about the same or everyone would kill to sit near the center of the room (which pretty much happens anyway), and this is one of the reasons why even so-so set up HT's sound far better than movie theaters. I don't use THX or movie theater in general as a reference point.

I think HT crazed answered that one when he started this thread! Myself, I did set levels by ear initially and wasn't very close (according to the meter). Wasn't very happy with the results either. If you use the SPL meter you will eliminate one of the biggest variables going- our inability to set levels by ear only. IMO most of us just can't do it. Go get a meter az and give it a try. The way I see it, I'm way ahead of you- I've already done it both ways

When I started this thread, it occured to me that there couldn't possibly be anything less controversial I could say than "use an SPF meter, it's a good thing." Especially since every receiver or processor manual has similar instructions on page 1.

Those following my posts in the past will know that being uncontroversial isn't a major motivation of mine. (And I did feel a bit ashamed.) But I just wanted to add some emphasis based on personal experience for those holding out.

If there can be hot debate on whether it's a good idea to use an SPF meter, I can't think of any other topic that could possibly go unchallenged.

Seperates sound better than receivers? Quality interconnects are a good thing? Bombing poor third world countries is a bad thing? OK I give.. Let the debates continue!!!