Site Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
So, has re-mastering led to the demise of the BBC dip preference?
I apologize upfront for a bit of a ramble, but I’d be interested in feedback / comments, as maybe it’s just me or the way I’ve voiced my speakers over the last several years, admittedly with a bit of BBC dip.
As a bit of personal bias; maybe back in my college dayz I was more of a ‘first upfront treble, then tight bass’ kind-of a guy… (sorry I digressed, The Commodores- Brick House) but when it comes to music (anyway), for me, it’s really all about the midrange / voices. Don’t get me wrong a nice set of trebles and a tight (but not voluminous) bass are greatly appreciated, but if the voices don’t stand forward for me in the music…
Ok, here is what I’m finding, and I may be completely off. But, over the last couple of builds and critical listening I’ve been getting a little less satisfied with the vocals, the important midrange- seems a bit distanced. So, I’ve been doing some more listening, some googling and groking. Why did the BBC dip ‘just work’ in its day? What I’m finding; older recordings were mastered with voicing up 2-4 dB putting voices front and center, much information of which is centered somewhere between 1kHz and 3kHz (from what I can derive from videos on studio mastering to enhance vocals). Critically, this range (1.5 to 4kHz +/-) is squarely within our ear’s most sensitive range, and additionally where most crossovers to tweeter (from mid, or woofer in a two-way) lay. Even if one crosses above 4kHz, even with higher orders, the crossover range will be somewhat through this frequency range. The effects of which can be heard (and seen as squiggles) where two sources are playing the same signal. And while the crossover may be optimized for ~on-axis, moving further off we get additives and subtractive effects to the waveforms. So, the BBC dip seemed to work addressing what may have been a) too forward of voicing (still netting a +1 to 1.5 dB voicing) and b) attenuating what can be problematic with crossing in this range.
But what I’m hearing now, with so many of the older albums being remastered, I’m getting the sense that with the bass being augmented and focus on treble (in the era of ‘better speakers') the voices are less accentuated, with the overall remastered recordings now actually being much more balanced. So overlay this with a BBC dip and the voices become, if not somewhat muffled at least a bit less forward. I’m not a vinal guy and don’t have an old collection for checking, but it seems an original vs. remastered comparison may back me up on this? I have now been looking a bit more closely to the albums / music I’m streaming for ‘remastered’.
So, while what is blasphemy to my long-held entrenched ways, I’ve added boost ~ 1.5dB @1850Hz with a Q1, and finding I like it (guessing now just in the range of +0.5 to 1.0 net). I like what I’m hearing with the voices. I’m not going to measure it for awhile because I don’t want to be influenced by ‘seeing’ a bit of a rise in this range (vs my old bias which would be a slight dip).
So, thoughts?
And, I know some of you may have experience in mastering in the studio and/or live – so please educated me- thx.
Comments
Haven't really noticed as far as remastered music goes, but I also have always tuned a couple dB of BBC dip into all but one set of speakers, that I have built. Currently no change of thought towards still having the dip.
The BBC dip was/is also to counter the bump in the power response of some speakers around the crossover point.
IIRC, read somewhere that people with tinnitus tend to prefer the bbc dip. Maybe not as accurate, but I tend to prefer the dip.
All I can add to this is; I have stopped analyzing the response curves (Fletcher/Munson - as a reference) since I have decided to just believe-in the SS-VSX referencing system and stop questioning myself/speakers/amps, etc.
SS-VSX targets a FLAT FR - so, my mixes reflect that by way of MY EARS FR PREFERENCES in the music mixes I produce.
I do like a bit forward in the Mids FR with some sparkle on top and a tight clean bottom - very defined/exposing nuance and I am getting closer to that objective with practice.
I get a mix that sounds good on it and that's the product. [kind of like religion/philosophy - got to believe in something as a reference/standard from an existential standpoint - otherwise I just chase my ass and become miserable/spend money unnecessarily].
As we age/mature our hearing changes as does does our physiology to the point that flesh vibrating frequencies at 120db no longer make us feel alive as do the captured nuances of excellent musicianship/vocalists now do.
Less is more.
I don't > @Steve_Lee said:
Met a local guy on FB who recently hung out with Bob Carver (!!), and he invited me over.
Nice amps and source, but he liked to play his Klipsch way into distortion territory. Trying
to figure out a nice way to tell him that he really shouldn't listen so loud without pissing him off.
But yeah, although I like a room filling bass and drums, I mostly listen for nuance.
I've gone down the CTA-2034 rabbit hole, using it as my "reference" or "crutch," so to speak, to find the tonal balance that I am looking for. Not saying that this is better or worse than any other method, just saying that this is the path that I am currently on. I also use "peer reviewed" reference speakers to make a/b comparisons, but the time it takes to switch back and forth, even if only a few seconds, makes comparisons difficult. As I go along, I'm finding that directivity matching of tweeters to the midrange drivers used is extremely important and can have a huge impact on the overall tonal balance. An on-axis BBC style dip is only used to correct a T/M directivity mismatch problem.
Agreed. While my current build I’m not having to deal with that issue (running AudioNirvanas 380Hz on up), my previous build I brought in a super-tw to cross with the mid (MarkAudio 5) - just to find the higher Xover comes at the cost of being more difficult to match up with the mid, at least in my experience. Initially, naively thinking/hoping, that a single small capacitor would be magic (seeing a mod crossover Nelson Pass designed with the super-tw in an older JBL).
In the end I’m going with these old ears, and my preferences for vocals. Starting with a combo of passive and active to get flat-ish, then listening and tweaking. With an overlay of active eq it’s fairly easy to a/b comp.
Finding that long-held beliefs need to be challenged- even my own - ha.
If you guys can rediscover/reintroduce the bass, mid & treble controls on those amps you wont be chasing XO parts so much - every producers ears/mix is different and needs tweaking in your room - you know this . . .
Keep in mind that individual drivers, such as the full range AudioNivana's that you are using on your current build, can "self destruct," so to speak, in terms of directivity. So, it is not just a matter of matching directivity of the tweeter and midrange. You also need to look at the stand-alone directivity of the individual drivers. The directivity could be bouncing up and down (i.e., self destructing) throughout the 1 to 5kHz region. You just don't realize this because you have not measured it.
With VituixCAD, it is very easy to look at the stand-alone directivity index of an individual driver (early reflections or power type) by simply mounting the driver on your baffle and then running up a 180 degree set of spin measurements at 1 meter. Then load the measurement set into VituixCAD and connect a wire from the amplifier to the driver on the schematic CAD screen. The Early Reflections Directivity Index (ERDI) or the Sound Power Directivity Index (DI) will then be shown on one of the screens. As an example, here is the Directivity Index screen of just the Tectonic midrange drivers on my current build. Hope this information is helpful.
Agreed. But this would relate only to the "circle of confusion" created by the recording engineer mastering process. The directivity mismatch problem referred to above would be yet another problem that must be added to the "circle of confusion." It generally cannot be solved with the use of tone controls. It is also very difficult to solve by changing xover frequencies and/or xover slopes. Well designed tweeter waveguides or small midrange drivers with very wide and broad horizontal polar response seem to be a better solution.
Excellent. Thanks for the info. That hits right at those vocal ranges.
I had initially focused on measuring @ the driver(s) to work on the active filter for bringing in the woofers to the AN, but moved to @ 5ft directionally as from the listening location (if that makes sense, and I'll measure from the listening location(s) but currently waiting for a longer mic cable from Amazon), as there can be a lot of room interaction (at the lower bounds), and fading (if thats the correct term for high frequency attenuating at distance?). I definitely saw that on my previous build when working on the passive filters for the mid / super tweeter when measuring near those drivers, on and off axis (went with emphasis on 15 degrees off).
So here is what I have temporarily @ 5 feet. I'll do some more work following your suggestions. Thx again.
(the darker green is messing with bringing up the AN from my initial settings)