|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 6, 2017 19:53:49 GMT -6
With all respect (because most of what you've posted in this thread is great), that statement is nonsense.
You're asking for some measurement of what we hear without the effects of phase, time differentials, Fletcher - Munson curves (and similar effects of perception) and the neural processing that allows such parameters to give us spatial cueing, as well as various other aspects of how human neural audio processing works to create our perception of audio.
It's a very complex subject that is at this time rather poorly understood.
You cannot remove psychoacoustics from human audio perception. If your do all you're left with is a raw signal as from a microphone, and microphones do not hear the same way people do.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 6, 2017 21:15:57 GMT -6
The test is the range from acceptable noise to acceptable distortion. Deane Jensen designed a preamp having as wide a useable dynamic range as one of the better tube preamps but never got it beyond the prototype that I had the opportunity to try out.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jun 7, 2017 9:36:56 GMT -6
One man's acceptable distortion is another man's unacceptable. That's what modern pop/rock is these days. It's not 1975 when everyone wanted clearer sonics.
Dynamic range of a well designed mic preamp is so far beyond the playback mediums now it's not an issue. 120 db is about all we can do now, about 119 db more than is needed right now.
Future recordists will appreciate the technology we have developed for them once the current fashion of distortion and restricted dynamic range plays out.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Jun 8, 2017 2:05:43 GMT -6
HI Dave, great paper! I don't remember seeing it before. Great exploration into why tube amps can be driven further into overload than transistor amps and op-amps before the sound gets too bad. Very interesting observations the author makes about the objectivity of musicians' ears. I've found musicians to be amazingly discerning.
Quoting Dave/aamicrophones: "I am looking for some methods of measurement that confirm what we hear minus the psycho acoustics." (Sorry my quoting skills often prove to be inadequate on this site.)
The term "psychoacoustics" has unfortunately acquired a negative connotation, as if it's marketing snake oil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your sentence that I quoted just above, it sounds to me like that's how you're using the term. The "book" definition of the term is more like, "the scientific study of the perception of sound", and I believe that is how the term is used in the paper you cited.
Hi Duke, thanks for your observations. I think we are both right!!! What I mean by perception of sound is how the ear perceives sound. Which relates to the Fletcher Munson Curve. For, example there is a 10db difference in the perceived low frequency energy between monitoring at 60db than 80db. Music generally sounds better when its louder. This often fools folks. If you take the inner mesh away from a condenser microphone the level will go up because you have increased the sound pressure reaching the capsule's diaphragm. So, if you compare the before and after at the same preamp setting it will usually sound better with the inner mesh removed but you have most likely reduced the headroom several db. Notice, the Beatle's engineers added a 3rd metal "pop" filter to front of the U47's used at Abbey Road. This would have reduced the overall level reaching the microphone's diaphragm and softened the attack. It would reduce the popping also but effect the HF at 15khz by less than 1/2 db. Now, the Fletcher Munson Curve is the frequency response of the listeners ears at different monitoring levels. They took a group of folks and did listening test and averaged out the results to get the Fletcher Munson curve. So, we all hear slightly differently from each other at different volumes levels. So, each of us will have our own personal Fletcher Munson curve. It is important to pick a consistent montor level when you are referencing gear that average listener can agree too. Probably not your friend "Animal" the Heavy Metal Harley driving, guitar player with a double stack of Marshall 100 watt amps that he likes to turn to 11. At the Kim Novak mixing theatre on the Sony Picture's lot, they have a SPL meter and the average level must never exceed 85db SPL at the mixing desk. Psycho-acoustics also suggests that we hear differently on different days depending on the humidity. Today, in a studio control room with good HVAC we can usually keep the humidity consistent. In Howard Tremaines, The Audio Encyclopedia he alludes to Sound Stages in the LA during the 30's, misting the air before takes to increase the HF response when they had very dry days with low humidity. Sound travels faster as the air becomes more humid. However, this increase in speed, is quite small. Sound travels about 0.35 percent faster in 100 percent humidity than it does in zero percent humidity. Someone must have heard a difference or just got back from science class?? I know that humidity seemed to made a huge difference to the sound of our Reverb Plate. Sound travels on average 343M/Sec in air but in stainless steel it travels 5790 m/sec. I had two 40 watt light bulbs in series inside the plate reverb to keep it at a consistent temperature and humity. A properly working Neve 1073 or API 512 will often make a mediocre microphones sound "better" than the average transformerless preamp to my ears. I see you are using Bi-Radial horns in some of your speaker designs. We had a pair of JBL 4430 speaker in Control Room "A" at Ocean (circa 1980) that we custom flush mounted in the soffit. The had very even dispersion horizontally compared to the Altec 604E which were in vogue at that time. The didn't sound as harsh as the Altec's when the volumes go rocking. You could also listen to them longer than the Altec 604E speakers without as much ear fatique. The also had a time aligned passive crossovers. There was a great article on the design in AES magazine. We drove them from a Sansui BA-5000 that could deliver 300 watts per side RMS into 8 ohms. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 8, 2017 11:32:57 GMT -6
Hi Duke, thanks for your observations. I think we are both right!!! What I mean by perception of sound is how the ear perceives sound. Which relates to the Fletcher Munson Curve. For, example there is a 10db difference in the perceived low frequency energy between monitoring at 60db than 80db. Music generally sounds better when its louder. This often fools folks. If you take the inner mesh away from a condenser microphone the level will go up because you have increased the sound pressure reaching the capsule's diaphragm. So, if you compare the before and after at the same preamp setting it will usually sound better with the inner mesh removed but you have most likely reduced the headroom several db. Notice, the Beatle's engineers added a 3rd metal "pop" filter to front of the U47's used at Abbey Road. This would have reduced the overall level reaching the microphone's diaphragm and softened the attack. It would reduce the popping also but effect the HF at 15khz by less than 1/2 db. Now, the Fletcher Munson Curve is the frequency response of the listeners ears at different monitoring levels. They took a group of folks and did listening test and averaged out the results to get the Fletcher Munson curve. So, we all hear slightly differently from each other at different volumes levels. So, each of us will have our own personal Fletcher Munson curve. It is important to pick a consistent montor level when you are referencing gear that average listener can agree too. Probably not your friend "Animal" the Heavy Metal Harley driving, guitar player with a double stack of Marshall 100 watt amps that he likes to turn to 11. At the Kim Novak mixing theatre on the Sony Picture's lot, they have a SPL meter and the average level must never exceed 85db SPL at the mixing desk. Psycho-acoustics also suggests that we hear differently on different days depending on the humidity. Today, in a studio control room with good HVAC we can usually keep the humidity consistent. In Howard Tremaines, The Audio Encyclopedia he alludes to Sound Stages in the LA during the 30's, misting the air before takes to increase the HF response when they had very dry days with low humidity. Sound travels faster as the air becomes more humid. However, this increase in speed, is quite small. Sound travels about 0.35 percent faster in 100 percent humidity than it does in zero percent humidity. Someone must have heard a difference or just got back from science class?? I know that humidity seemed to made a huge difference to the sound of our Reverb Plate. Sound travels on average 343M/Sec in air but in stainless steel it travels 5790 m/sec. I had two 40 watt light bulbs in series inside the plate reverb to keep it at a consistent temperature and humity. A properly working Neve 1073 or API 512 will often make a mediocre microphones sound "better" than the average transformerless preamp to my ears. I see you are using Bi-Radial horns in some of your speaker designs. We had a pair of JBL 4430 speaker in Control Room "A" at Ocean (circa 1980) that we custom flush mounted in the soffit. The had very even dispersion horizontally compared to the Altec 604E which were in vogue at that time. The didn't sound as harsh as the Altec's when the volumes go rocking. You could also listen to them longer than the Altec 604E speakers without as much ear fatique. The also had a time aligned passive crossovers. There was a great article on the design in AES magazine. We drove them from a Sansui BA-5000 that could deliver 300 watts per side RMS into 8 ohms. Cheers, Dave Hi Dave,
Thank you very much for taking the time to educate me about the effects of filters (electronic and mechanical) and even humidity on microphone performance! Extrapolating from what you said, I'm guessing that humidity probably affects speaker high-frequency performance as well. Next time I do an audio show in some dry place like Las Vegas, I'm going to bring something for misting!
Yes the JBL 4430 was imo a revolutionary design. To the best of my knowledge, among other innovations, it was the first time anyone had combined a constant-directivity horn with pattern-matching in both the horizontal and vertical planes in the crossover region. While I believe there have been improvements in horn design since then, I do not believe that basic concept has been improved upon.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,941
|
Post by ericn on Jun 8, 2017 13:33:29 GMT -6
Hi Duke, thanks for your observations. I think we are both right!!! What I mean by perception of sound is how the ear perceives sound. Which relates to the Fletcher Munson Curve. For, example there is a 10db difference in the perceived low frequency energy between monitoring at 60db than 80db. Music generally sounds better when its louder. This often fools folks. If you take the inner mesh away from a condenser microphone the level will go up because you have increased the sound pressure reaching the capsule's diaphragm. So, if you compare the before and after at the same preamp setting it will usually sound better with the inner mesh removed but you have most likely reduced the headroom several db. Notice, the Beatle's engineers added a 3rd metal "pop" filter to front of the U47's used at Abbey Road. This would have reduced the overall level reaching the microphone's diaphragm and softened the attack. It would reduce the popping also but effect the HF at 15khz by less than 1/2 db. Now, the Fletcher Munson Curve is the frequency response of the listeners ears at different monitoring levels. They took a group of folks and did listening test and averaged out the results to get the Fletcher Munson curve. So, we all hear slightly differently from each other at different volumes levels. So, each of us will have our own personal Fletcher Munson curve. It is important to pick a consistent montor level when you are referencing gear that average listener can agree too. Probably not your friend "Animal" the Heavy Metal Harley driving, guitar player with a double stack of Marshall 100 watt amps that he likes to turn to 11. At the Kim Novak mixing theatre on the Sony Picture's lot, they have a SPL meter and the average level must never exceed 85db SPL at the mixing desk. Psycho-acoustics also suggests that we hear differently on different days depending on the humidity. Today, in a studio control room with good HVAC we can usually keep the humidity consistent. In Howard Tremaines, The Audio Encyclopedia he alludes to Sound Stages in the LA during the 30's, misting the air before takes to increase the HF response when they had very dry days with low humidity. Sound travels faster as the air becomes more humid. However, this increase in speed, is quite small. Sound travels about 0.35 percent faster in 100 percent humidity than it does in zero percent humidity. Someone must have heard a difference or just got back from science class?? I know that humidity seemed to made a huge difference to the sound of our Reverb Plate. Sound travels on average 343M/Sec in air but in stainless steel it travels 5790 m/sec. I had two 40 watt light bulbs in series inside the plate reverb to keep it at a consistent temperature and humity. A properly working Neve 1073 or API 512 will often make a mediocre microphones sound "better" than the average transformerless preamp to my ears. I see you are using Bi-Radial horns in some of your speaker designs. We had a pair of JBL 4430 speaker in Control Room "A" at Ocean (circa 1980) that we custom flush mounted in the soffit. The had very even dispersion horizontally compared to the Altec 604E which were in vogue at that time. The didn't sound as harsh as the Altec's when the volumes go rocking. You could also listen to them longer than the Altec 604E speakers without as much ear fatique. The also had a time aligned passive crossovers. There was a great article on the design in AES magazine. We drove them from a Sansui BA-5000 that could deliver 300 watts per side RMS into 8 ohms. Cheers, Dave Hi Dave,
Thank you very much for taking the time to educate me about the effects of filters (electronic and mechanical) and even humidity on microphone performance! Extrapolating from what you said, I'm guessing that humidity probably affects speaker high-frequency performance as well. Next time I do an audio show in some dry place like Las Vegas, I'm going to bring something for misting!
Yes the JBL 4430 was imo a revolutionary design. To the best of my knowledge, among other innovations, it was the first time anyone had combined a constant-directivity horn with pattern-matching in both the horizontal and vertical planes in the crossover region. While I believe there have been improvements in horn design since then, I do not believe that basic concept has been improved upon.
Duke The effects on humidity on speakers varies with material, I do know Electrostatics love constant humidity!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 8, 2017 17:39:22 GMT -6
The Fletcher Munson Curve is a bit misleading. An easier way to understand it is that our hearing compresses everything above around 500 Hz.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on Jun 8, 2017 18:00:09 GMT -6
You're asking for some measurement of what we hear without the effects of phase, time differentials, Fletcher - Munson curves (and similar effects of perception) and the neural processing that allows such parameters to give us spatial cueing, as well as various other aspects of how human neural audio processing works to create our perception of audio. It's a very complex subject that is at this time rather poorly understood. You cannot remove psychoacoustics from human audio perception. If your do all you're left with is a raw signal as from a microphone, and microphones do not hear the same way people do.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 8, 2017 18:24:37 GMT -6
Q. Audiophiles: Are they hearing something we're not? A. The sound of snake oil salesmen sucking their wallets dry!
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jun 8, 2017 20:07:45 GMT -6
I think they are feeling something as opposed to hearing. I think we are as well. Humans are pretty emotional. We're also pretty smart and use science and art to build pretty amazing things. Sometimes those things make pretty sounds and we get excited. Lot's of people make a career or a hobby out of that excitement.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 8, 2017 21:27:55 GMT -6
Hi Dave,
Thank you very much for taking the time to educate me about the effects of filters (electronic and mechanical) and even humidity on microphone performance! Extrapolating from what you said, I'm guessing that humidity probably affects speaker high-frequency performance as well. Next time I do an audio show in some dry place like Las Vegas, I'm going to bring something for misting!
Yes the JBL 4430 was imo a revolutionary design. To the best of my knowledge, among other innovations, it was the first time anyone had combined a constant-directivity horn with pattern-matching in both the horizontal and vertical planes in the crossover region. While I believe there have been improvements in horn design since then, I do not believe that basic concept has been improved upon.
Duke The effects on humidity on speakers varies with material, I do know Electrostatics love constant humidity! I had been thinking in terms of the transmission of high frequency energy through the air, but you are right, with electrostatics humidity is a significant factor. For many years I lived with electrostats that had a user-adjustable bias voltage control, and the optimum bias setting definitely changed with the humidity.
Paper-based cones can be hygroscopic (tend to absorb moisture from the air), which can change the cone's mass and probably its rigidity and, *ahem*, internal damping as well. I'm under the impression that most paper cones are sufficiently sealed that this is not normally an issue, even if they're not treated to the point of being "waterproof".
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 9, 2017 1:43:35 GMT -6
Q. Audiophiles: Are they hearing something we're not? A. The sound of snake oil salesmen sucking their wallets dry! No, they appear to be deaf to that...
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jun 10, 2017 9:51:13 GMT -6
Q. Audiophiles: Are they hearing something we're not? Answer: They are hearing all the flaws in your recording chain and all of your production mistakes, plus your noise floor too. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean they can't. Something to remember if you are thinking of cutting a corner or two...
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 10, 2017 12:47:26 GMT -6
Q. Audiophiles: Are they hearing something we're not? Answer: They are hearing all the flaws in your recording chain and all of your production mistakes, plus your noise floor too. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean they can't. Something to remember if you are thinking of cutting a corner or two... I'm not trying to troll or start an argument, Hmm ..maybe I am ;P But seriously, I do agree this is an important question for the pros. My sense is that you have to be somewhat of an audiophile in the first place in order to be a good engineer. As for amateurs like me who try to preserve our performances with technically flawed recordings, I sure do hope they are "hearing" the same music.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 10, 2017 13:57:29 GMT -6
It's all about not allowing sonic flaws to distract from the performance.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 10, 2017 23:41:28 GMT -6
My understanding is that the goal posts are in slightly a different place for recording engineers than for high-end home audio, at least when it comes to loudspeakers. You want to hear what's wrong so you can fix it, and that's usually not the top priority in home audio.
And recording engineers have so many things they need to spend money on that most hard-core audiophiles are going to out-spend them many times over on the playback chain, source -> preamp/amp -> speakers -> room... EXCEPT for that last one. You guys usually have a far greater appreciation for the role that the room itself plays, and so you spend money on professional-level room treatment. Relatively few audiophiles do so.
Also, at least in the playback chain, you guys are much more inclined to figure out the best way to plow with the horses you have, before you start spending money on a new toy that promises to deliver better sound. You approach setup professionally, giving priority to results, whereas many audiophiles give top priority to something else, perhaps aesthetics. Not only do you make measurements whenever it makes sense to do so, but your ears are really well calibrated.
So I would say that many if not most audiophiles are in a position assemble a "better sounding" (which may or may not include "higher resolution") system than most recording engineers, but relatively few of them capitalize on that. It seems to me that you guys are getting 110% of the potential out of what most audiophiles would consider to be a budget system.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 11, 2017 7:34:41 GMT -6
The only difference is that many audiophile speakers are too flattering or have dips in the response which can lead one into a rude awakening when listening elsewhere.
Transparency and full range rules for mastering.
For mixing less transparent "reference speakers" are required in addition for setting balances. This is because balance isn't nearly as critical with transparent speakers. Some "reference speakers" have been found with experience to "work" while others haven't. The usual problem is too many dips in the response.
For tracking it is important that the speakers musicians judge performances with are not so revealing that left brain audio problems that can easily be fixed later are not distracting from right brain performance.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 11, 2017 8:06:16 GMT -6
The only difference is that many audiophile speakers are too flattering or have dips in the response which can lead one into a rude awakening when listening elsewhere. Transparency and full range rules for mastering. For mixing less transparent "reference speakers" are required in addition for setting balances. This is because balance isn't nearly as critical with transparent speakers. Some "reference speakers" have been found with experience to "work" while others haven't. The usual problem is too many dips in the response. For tracking it is important that the speakers musicians judge performances with are not so revealing that left brain audio problems that can easily be fixed later are not distracting from right brain performance. Damn, now I need 5 pairs of speakers.. It's funny, I feel like I've been peripherally aware of this, both in practice and also in that a lot of on-line discussions I've read allude to it, but thanks Bob for just coming out and saying it. I have a set of B&W matrix 2's sitting in mothballs that I have avoided using for all of the reasons you have outlined. I would just add (and especially for those of us amateurs who for any number of reasons rely heavily on headphones) that I'm pretty sure the same principle applies. In addition to my cheap monitors, I have two different pairs of headphones that I refer to when mixing, and even different sets of headphones for tracking. Now that I've been psuedo-mastering my stuff and really need to consider giving it to pros to work on, maybe I should pull the B&Ws out.. All that said, I don't miss my NS-10s one iota. I think I almost gave up writing songs because of them. They drove me nuts.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 11, 2017 9:09:00 GMT -6
The only difference is that many audiophile speakers are too flattering or have dips in the response which can lead one into a rude awakening when listening elsewhere. Transparency and full range rules for mastering. For mixing less transparent "reference speakers" are required in addition for setting balances. This is because balance isn't nearly as critical with transparent speakers. Some "reference speakers" have been found with experience to "work" while others haven't. The usual problem is too many dips in the response. For tracking it is important that the speakers musicians judge performances with are not so revealing that left brain audio problems that can easily be fixed later are not distracting from right brain performance. Yes!! Some variation of the "smiley-faced" curve shows up in a lot of audiophile speakers. And a dip in the 3-4 kHz region can help make a speaker "more forgiving". Imo that region is the most important to get right, and a dip there is "cheating", but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.
I often shoot for a gently downward-sloping trend, rather than "flat", for high-end audio. However ime the closer the system comes to full bottom end extension, like all the way down to 20 Hz, the closer to "flat" the general trend can be without the tonal balance sounding bright and therefore tending to be fatiguing long-term.
Could you elaborate on this statement?: "For mixing less transparent "reference speakers" are required in addition for setting balances. This is because balance isn't nearly as critical with transparent speakers."
Why is balance less critical with transparent speakers, apparently making them less desirable for mixing?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 11, 2017 9:57:18 GMT -6
You can hear more deeply into the sound of transparent speakers. What sounds like apples vs. oranges on the transparent speakers can sound like right vs. wrong on less transparent speakers.
With my Duntechs I learned that when diffraction is properly handled, a speaker that measures flat will sound flat. When I remove the felt diffraction treatment, the speaker measures the same but sounds bright as all get-out.
Where NS-10s excel is sitting on a large console meter bridge. The low end goes away anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jun 11, 2017 10:19:14 GMT -6
A better speaker will handle larger dynamic swings which may be truly out of balance, yet sound fine because the brain adjusts and accepts and there's no technical indication of a problem. A lesser speaker may obviously fart with the same material, alerting you to a mix problem.
I was doing some late night listening on Klipsch La Scala at low volume. They sound so huge and loud at any volume, I usually have an urge to turn them down on the assumption i must be disturbing someone. Pulled the SPL meter out, they were running at roughly 48dB, which was roughly 10dB louder than ambient background. Yet they seemed loud, clear, and full. I could detect the bottom resonating the walls and floor.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 11, 2017 12:57:02 GMT -6
You can hear more deeply into the sound of transparent speakers. What sounds like apples vs. oranges on the transparent speakers can sound like right vs. wrong on less transparent speakers. With my Duntechs I learned that when diffraction is properly handled, a speaker that measures flat will sound flat. When I remove the felt diffraction treatment, the speaker measures the same but sounds bright as all get-out. Where NS-10s excel is sitting on a large console meter bridge. The low end goes away anywhere else. I would not have thought of apples & oranges vs right & wrong. Well that makes figuring out where the goal posts are for a really good mixing monitor considerably more complicated!
What you say about the Duntechs makes total sense. Diffraction has very little effect on the frequency response, but can be a significant source of audible coloration because it is not covered up by the ear/brain system's "masking" mechanism. Masking doesn't work in the time domain, and diffraction arrives a little bit later due to the additional path length, which in effect it makes those sounds last longer. And while an SPL meter wouldn't pick up on this difference, the ear/brain system interprets "lasts longer" as "louder". The frequency region where the ear is most sensitive to diffraction is right around 4 kHz. This just happens to be at the bottom end of most tweeters' ranges, where their radiation patterns are extremely wide, and therefore where they are sending a lot of energy towards the enclosure edges where it will be diffracted.
Any small speaker's low end will be increased by boundary reinforcement from placement on a large console meter bridge, but the NS-10 seems to have been specifically designed with just such reinforcement in mind.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 11, 2017 13:02:51 GMT -6
A better speaker will handle larger dynamic swings which may be truly out of balance, yet sound fine because the brain adjusts and accepts and there's no technical indication of a problem. A lesser speaker may obviously fart with the same material, alerting you to a mix problem. I was doing some late night listening on Klipsch La Scala at low volume. They sound so huge and loud at any volume, I usually have an urge to turn them down on the assumption i must be disturbing someone. Pulled the SPL meter out, they were running at roughly 48dB, which was roughly 10dB louder than ambient background. Yet they seemed loud, clear, and full. I could detect the bottom resonating the walls and floor. Good mixing monitors are considerably more complicated and specialized little beasts than I had realized! I would not have thought of dynamic compression as a virtue in a monitor, but what you say makes a lot of sense. And obviously something like the La Scala would be the wrong tool for judging how much compression to use in the mix.
Are there tasks in the recording and producing process where speakers that reveal the full dynamic range of the recording would be an advantage?
I've seen speakers that look like midfields at first glance advertised as being suitable for both mixing and mastering. Please forgive the naive newbie question - is that reasonably feasible, or mostly marketing?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jun 11, 2017 13:07:04 GMT -6
La Scala will definitely tell you when there's too little dynamic range, everything sounds overly-present and fairly harsh.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 11, 2017 13:10:57 GMT -6
The NS 10 was a small high-end consumer speaker and not designed for monitoring. For a while the Yamaha NS4 was the biggest selling consumer speaker and was used for mixing as the JBL L-100 and KLH6 had previously been.
The optimal setup is BOTH reference speakers and full range speakers.
|
|