I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[dominikz]

I know you don't what is an anechoic chamber.

You don't. Ignored.

 

[sarumbear]

Exactly what the objects contain, whether they mimic beds, or are just placed in 3D space arbitrarily is totally up to the director/audio engineers and has no standard requirement.

So much for “spatial audio standard” which can be anywhere from mono to 100+ channels but you have no knowledge what is it when listening. Is it what the artist/producer intended or is it what the AVR/AVP is recreating? Nobody knows.

Give me stereo anytime so that I know what to expect.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I have already reported my positive experiences.

Please do not discount the need to acclimate yourself to any new environment first. Anechoic chambers are so different from the usual auditory experiences that it takes some time to get used to it. Like one Stereophile author said (paraphrasing): "I let the new equipment in my listening space be there for at least several days until it breaks in, and only then does it sound good." My interpretation is that the new equipment sounds just the same, but the listener got adjusted to the new sound. Same should be done when making any subjective judgments.

I am not quite sure how is what you just said a reply to my comment about 1st reflections and a wall of infinite mirrors being a poor analogy?
I have never been in a room where the sound even remotely paralleled the distinct impression of seeing multiple reflections like those mirrors.

Yes, you acclimate to a new room, you acclimate to new speakers, various different production qualities all sorts of acclimation. That is in a way part my original point. You can acclimate to the point you might enjoy sound in an anechoic chamber or from a bluetooth speaker in the bathroom. Who knows what the limits are.

But in any case reflections that are following the 1st arriving sounds closely in time will be perceived as a simultaneous event, not multiple images or even close. I feel this is well documented and frankly makes logical sense to me.

Many thanks for engagning in this dialog, these are interesting concepts and I am still struggling to find a ballance between what I think is "right" and "sounds good". For better or for worse, I tend to choose "right", as I cannot see myself adding distortions to make sound more pleasant

Interesting.
I think that this is the ultimate sticking point for folks and one of the main crux's of audiophilia that Toole touches on in his book when he laments the the lack of basic tone controls on so much hifi gear.
He is alluding to the fact that in his worldview the content as it is, does not have to be idolized or stomached at the expense of pure enjoyment.
In any case I only care about enjoyment with regard to listening to music. It turns out it is very helpful and fun to deep dive into the subject of audio reproduction in order for me to enjoy myself fully. That said the goal for myself is enjoyment not ultimate "correctness or rightness" which can almost certainly never be achieved to everyone's satisfaction and are very debatable as to what they actually constitute in the 1st place. I am quite certain nearly everyone can enjoy themselves though, so I guess "rightness" for me is essentially directly measured by the level of enjoyment. So in other words I hope that you enjoy your search for sonic rightness as much or more than a parallel search for sonic pleasantness.
I do understand that HiFi more typically means accurate and not necessarily pleasant, that said if enjoyment consistently suffers I don't know if that is worth it.

Actually adding some level of spatialization (and externalization) to headphone listening has been a very active area of research, especially in the past 10 years. We'll see if and to what extent it reaches consumers, though!
Personally I find lack of externalization and envelopment to be main issues with headphone listening, and why I much prefer listening to loudspeakers if given a choice (although I still very often use headphones - it is convenient and I can still very much enjoy the art in the recording ).

We have a similar taste.
I vastly prefer listening to loudspeakers even though I can listen to headphones and enjoy it.

The whole ancient idea of open-back headphones and semi open back headphones is to help add a sense of spaciousness. there is no other reason to make them. (well I take that back, sometimes it is advantageous to be able to hear sounds from the environment) Pretty much every closed back headphone is lauded if it is still able to provide a sense of spaciousness with a good open design often the litmus.
I don't really enjoy the closed design except on an airplane for obvious reasons.

 

[Duke]

I have tried the whole range from a fully reverberant to anechoic listening, and as I gradually moved from one to the latter, it sounded better and better (more realistic and pleasant) to me.

Very interesting! Did you use the same speakers throughout this process? If so, what were they, if you don't mind?

With continual adjustments in the frequency response as I went along. Illusion or not, that is my preference.

I assume those adjustments to frequency response were based on in-room (un-gated) measurements... ?

 

[sarumbear]

I think that this is the ultimate sticking point for folks and one of the main crux's of audiophilia that Toole touches on in his book when he laments the the lack of basic tone controls on so much hifi gear.
He is alluding to the fact that in his worldview the content as it is, does not have to be idolized or stomached at the expense of pure enjoyment.

This is why I disagree with him passionately (on this subject). Music is art, it should be respected. There used to be a different word for melodic sounds that allowed you to time pass by: Muzak. EQ that as you feel like it.

I respect the artist. If they wanted less bass or more treble they would put it on the record. By using tone control or EQ track by track I feel like I’m disrespecting the artist.

Naturally this what I think. It’s my opinion.

 

[ROOSKIE]

You quote Linkwitz in your signature. Have you read his stuff?

Taken from:

Linkwitz_IJAET



The Magic in 2-Channel Sound Reproduction - Why is it so Rarely Heard?
Siegfried Linkwitz*

Linkwitz Lab, Corte Madera, California, USA

Abstract: Hearing, finding the direction, distance and significance of a source of sound in various acoustic environments, is a survival mechanism in the evolution of living organisms. Hearing two strongly correlated sources of sound, either from earphones or two loudspeakers, is an unnatural phenomenon, from which the ear-brain apparatus is asked to draw an illusion of reality. Misleading cues must be eliminated from the sound presentation for the illusion to happen convincingly. In the case of earphone presentation, which typically suffers from a high degree of distance distortion, i.e. distance foreshortening, the ear signals must change with head movement to externalize the illusion. In the case of loudspeaker presentation there is already the distance between listener and speakers, which typically is perceived as the minimum distance to the illusionary aural scene or phantom scene. But that scene is usually hard bounded by the speakers, which are recognized as such by the ear-brain perceptual apparatus. One or the other speaker is preferred as the source, when the listener moves a short distance away laterally from the "sweet spot".
In a reverberant room, where the listener not only hears the direct sound but also the reflected sound, i.e. the off-axis radiated sound, the ear-brain perceptual apparatus must be allowed to withdraw attention from room and speakers and focus attention upon the direct sound to create a convincing illusion of the reproduced acoustic event. For this to happen misleading perceptual cues must be eliminated. The speakers must be placed so that reflections are delayed relative to the direct sound. The speakers must be free from spurious resonant radiation and their off-axis radiation must follow their on-axis frequency response for the reverberant sound to be neutral. The polar radiation pattern must be essentially either omni-directional, cardioid or dipolar, aiming for constant directivity. The speakers must be acoustically small, yet capable of realistic volume levels at low non-linear distortion.
Two prototype speakers and the evolution of their radiation pattern design will be discussed: a full-range, acoustically small dipole and a hybrid, omni-cardioid-dipole design. Either speaker is capable of disappearing from perception and rendering an aural scene in a reverberant room that is like a magic act.

https://linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm

Yes, and because of that I do not think you are understanding what he is saying.

Here is a quote from him on the page you linked.
"Psychoacoustic research has shown that a first reflection, which occurs shortly after the direct signal (within <25ms), must be stronger than the direct signal before it shifts the direction of the first arriving signal. A second reflection from a different direction has to be even stronger than the first reflection to shift direction. But later reflections (>30 ms) draw increasingly more attention unless their amplitude decreases with longer delays. This makes sense because late reflections could actually be coming from a second source."

Pretty much sums up my original point. I unfortunately don't have time right now to pull up any of the numerous quotes from Floyd Toole about the same things regarding how reflection is perceived in relation to the "sonic event", they are out there.

The highlight you made, "In a reverberant room, where the listener not only hears the direct sound but also the reflected sound, i.e. the off-axis radiated sound, the ear-brain perceptual apparatus must be allowed to withdraw attention from room and speakers and focus attention upon the direct sound to create a convincing illusion of the reproduced acoustic event. For this to happen misleading perceptual cues must be eliminated. The speakers must be placed so that reflections are delayed relative to the direct sound."
relates to ensuring the reflected sound is reduced in amplitude and does not compete with the direct signal for sense of initial direction.
In a typical room the few feet from the speaker to walls is enough. Then the reflections do not compete but rather add a sense of spaciousness and a sense of the experience happening in the room. They also effect the tonality and the overall SPL of the playback.

The question then I guess is do you enjoy the sound of a Steinway in your room? If not then by all means remove the room and enjoy the sound of the Steinway that way with no room. Personal preference in full effect here.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I understand what you are saying, and I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I still have questions. Using simple logic, it would seem that without room reflections (of whatever characteristics you choose to design it with) one cannot have tonally neutral speakers. Would it not follow that one can never have tonally neutral headphones, as they lack the fundamental requirement of "desirable" room reflections?

My feeling is that on the continuum of no acoustic treatment to anechoic, that the optimum can be reached for the common crop of production speakers (somewhere in the middle and tonally neutral), but that if one explores going all the way to anechoic with suitably designed speakers that the fidelity will be higher, although it will obviously suit some recordings better than others, as almost none are created with that scenario in mind. So being "right" might actually be the wrong choice.

Many thanks for engagning in this dialog, these are interesting concepts and I am still struggling to find a ballance between what I think is "right" and "sounds good". For better or for worse, I tend to choose "right", as I cannot see myself adding distortions to make sound more pleasant

A speaker does not need reflected energy to be tonally neutral, it is when the reflected energy has uneven frequency balance that the tonality will be colored from the room. This can happen when off-axis is not smooth, if the room has different decay profile across the frequency range, or some combination of that.

The goal for acoustic treatment is not to create an anechoic room, it is to provide a spectrally neutral decay with sufficiently fast attenuation, and preserve at least some later reflected energy. Too much absorption can create a very strange environment, and some reflected energy can actually help to build and improve rendering of images. Once the decay profile reaches attenuation that is good enough, it is not necessary to make the room more dead.

So in that sense, it is correct to say that optimal is somewhere between no-treatment to anechoic, though I would not use the term anechoic as the end-point on that scale, because it can be misleading to think that anechoic is the ultimate, perfect goal.

It is also not possible practically to achieve anechoic properties, because it is not possible practically to achieve good enough absorption, and some surfaces will be impractical to to treat, think floor.

 

[Duke]

The goal for acoustic treatment is not to create an anechoic room, it is to provide a spectrally neutral decay with sufficiently fast attenuation, and preserve at least some later reflected energy. Too much absorption can create a very strange environment, and some reflected energy can actually help to build and improve rendering of images. Once the decay profile reaches attenuation that is good enough, it is not necessary to make the room more dead.

Agreed!

Imo one critical piece of information which is not conveyed by the decay time is, what's happening "early" as opposed to what's happening "late" in the decay process.

David Griesinger finds that the earliest reflections are the most detrimental:

"The earlier a reflection arrives the more it contributes to masking the direct sound."

"When presence is lacking the earliest reflections are the most responsible."

"Transients are not corrupted by reflections if the room [i.e. early-reflection-free time interval] is large enough - and 10ms of reflections free time is enough."

But what about later reflections - shouldn't they also be minimized? Not according to Griesinger (assuming these later reflections are spectrally correct):

"Envelopment is the Holy Grail... When reproducing sound in small spaces [home listening rooms], envelopment is often absent.... Envelopment is perceived when the ear and brain can detect TWO separate streams: A foreground stream of direct sound. And a background stream of reverberation. Both streams must be present if sound is perceived as enveloping."

"Where the background stream is easily separated from the foreground stream, envelopment is about 6 dB stronger for a given direct-to-reverberant ratio."

So imo it makes sense to pursue loudspeaker radiation patterns, loudspeaker and listener positioning in the room, and acoustic treatment strategies which minimize the early reflections but WITHOUT overly attenuating (or spectrally degrading) the energy which will arrive as beneficial later reflections.

 

[tuga]

The question then I guess is do you enjoy the sound of a Steinway in your room? If not then by all means remove the room and enjoy the sound of the Steinway that way with no room. Personal preference in full effect here.

The recordings I prefer are of a piano in a room (by way of adequately distanced mic'ing). Overlaying my listening room's sonic footprint over that recorded ambinece only serves to mess things up.
A close-mic'ed piano would still have some degree of reverd added to the mic feed but not sound like a piano in a room, which is probably why in Classical music the feed from ambience mics is added to the mix when instruments are close-mic'ed.

 

[tuga]

So imo it makes sense to pursue loudspeaker radiation patterns, loudspeaker and listener positioning in the room, and acoustic treatment which minimize the early reflections but WITHOUT overly attenuating (or spectrally degrading) the energy which will arrive as beneficial later reflections.

This would be Reflection-Free Zone room layout:

 

[Duke]

This would be Reflection-Free Zone room layout:

YES!

But you can still do a "poor man's Reflection-Free Zone" in a rectangular room with speakers which are sufficiently directional AND which are toed-in at about 45 degrees, rather than the 30 degrees or so depicted in the first drawing.

 

[Holmz]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/stirling-broadcast-bbc-ls36-loudspeaker-measurements

So the Harbeth 30 review would be similar maybe? Or not?
Those scored a 5 (as is) and 7.5 with the sub.

Think of the effect of early-reflections as watching a film in a room full of mirrors and you will understand what I mean.
I find that part confusing in Toole's book, it seems to conflate reflections in live sound (used for source location and characterisation of spatial qualities) with reflections (which overlay onto the recorded acoustics or spatial qualities and create confusion).

Thanks! You’ve made the point for us.
If those reflections are eary enough they colour our perception of the sound.
Imagine that the reflection was changed tonally so that Charlie’s reflection it was that of Marilyn Monroe.
That would be confusing.

When the reflection is the same colour as the direct path it makes more sense.
So as long as the reflections are the same film is makes sense.
If the reflections are from a different film, then that is distortion.

It is all about what you desire. For those of us who are all into accuracy and hearing the recording venue, reflections mask it and thus they are noise.
For those (and you appear to be one of them) who like to hear the sound of their listening room (think of its shifting the performers into theit listening space) reflections are a source of information.
In extreme cases you could think of the theoretical situations:
-- Record in a perfect acoustic space - listen in an anechoic chamber (listeners perceive themselves in the recording venue)
-- Record in an anechoic chamber - listen in a perfect acoustic space ((listeners perceive performers in the listening space)

Given that so many recordings are close miked and mixed, with no/little recording venue captured, who am I to say that your approach is not preferred more often than not. It's all about personal preference, and it appears ours are different.

Having had the opportunity to listen to music within a large anechoic chamber (Bell Labs, Murray Hill, see the archival photo of the insides) I definitely prefer it to any typical living room by a huge margin.

I suppose if you are going too answer for me, then I should bow out?
But maybe you can try to cool it with the “ For those (and you appear to be one of them)” and also telling me which recording styles and listening rooms that I like.


My main point was that the off axis sound should be tonally the same as the on-axis.


The rest of your write up was a straw man.
If you show competency in critical thinking and writing, then I’ll reach out for you speak on my behalf. Until then, I’ll speak for myself thanks.

 

[Holmz]

YES!

But you can still do a "poor man's Reflection-Free Zone" in a rectangular room with speakers which are sufficiently directional AND which are toed-in at about 45 degrees, rather than the 30 degrees or so depicted in the first drawing.

Not really.
If you toe them in to the point where there is not outside wall energy, then the “behind the speaker” gets more intense.

The poor man’s approach maybe more like a more directional speaker so there is less energy off axis,
Or
Near field listening.

 

[tuga]

Thanks! You’ve made the point for us.
If those reflections are eary enough they colour our perception of the sound.
Imagine that the reflection was changed tonally so that Charlie’s reflection it was that of Marilyn Monroe.
That would be confusing.

When the reflection is the same colour as the direct path it makes more sense.
So as long as the reflections are the same film is makes sense.
If the reflections are from a different film, then that is distortion.

I disagree. For me same "colour" reflections are a bit more like ghosting:

 

[Duke]

Not really.
If you toe them in to the point where there is not outside wall energy, then the “behind the speaker” gets more intense.

You have very nearly the same amount of reflections from the back of the room either way, which you still have to do something about. The advantage of the configuration I described is an imo worthwhile minimizing of the first ipsilateral reflections.

The poor man’s approach maybe more like a more directional speaker so there is less energy off axis,
Or
Near field listening.

Nearfield listening DOES reduce the intensity of the early reflections and increase the time interval before their arrival. It can be done with aggressively toed-in directional speakers too.

Narrow-pattern speakers enable the speakers to be aimed, which is what I'm advocating.

 

[Holmz]

I disagree. For me same "colour" reflections are a bit more like ghosting:

BS… you do not appear to disagree… as your earlier post waxed poetic about the “Reflection Free Zone”.

and the angle on the walls in the RFZ room were obtuse.

 

[tuga]

BS… you do not appear to disagree… as your earlier post waxed poetic about the “Reflection Free Zone”.

and the angle on the walls in the RFZ room were obtuse.

You'll have to rephrase that, the nasty early reflection has reduced clarity...

 

[Kvalsvoll]

But what about later reflections - shouldn't they also be minimized? Not according to Griesinger (assuming these later reflections are spectrally correct):

Late energy from the room affects tonality, and since this sound is mostly diffuse, it can not be changed using room correction without changing the direct sound. Which means smooth radiation off-axis as well as neutral acoustic properties of the room is important.

Very early sound is most important because this is where the problem is in most systems. Then the decay must also be below a certain threshold later in time, but this is usually more or less automatically achieved when sufficient early attenuation is reached.

 

[Andrej]

Very interesting! Did you use the same speakers throughout this process? If so, what were they, if you don't mind?



I assume those adjustments to frequency response were based on in-room (un-gated) measurements... ?

It was several speakers, most of which I built. At the time my preferred setup was using Quad ESL-63 speakers from about 300Hz up, two boxes with 10" Ultimax speaker pairs firing in opposition, and two 12" Dayton subs (also firing in opposition, for below about 40Hz, but that varied a lot over time - all 4 as subs, using one pair for 15-40, and the other for 40 - 300 or so, or the other way around, or just one set, etc. Then I added vents to closed boxes, etc. etc.).
Also partial line source speakers 4' tall, 6 Seas 6 1/5" mid-bass units and Newform Research 4' drivers. Behringer digital crossover and REW measurements for x-over and equalization duties, often followed with Audyssey XT32, with the bottom bass units tried as subs or lowest part of the main speaker response. Also using the large Dayton AMT in a spherical wavefront waveguide with an 8" Seas Excel drive unit, my current favorites in a much more reverberant room. Currently building a horn for the 8" driver to make it more directional and to minimize the room effects. I hope it works Others too.
I did close miked measurements and listening position measurements, and my preferred target curve was flat at high volume, and matched the boosts of Audyssey dynamic equalization at lower volumes (sort of a Fletcher-Munson compensation). I do like the dynamic equalization as the volume varies a lot for me at different times.

The room started with bare 6" studs and sheet rock (on the far side of the studs). It was horrible!!! Then I started applying a few 5 1/5" thick panels of rock wool at a time and listen. Every week or so I'd measure, and listen some more. After a month or so all the walls were covered, and most of the ceiling with the front third having 11" (double thickness) of rock wool. And I never looked back - except I sold that house and I am now permanently fixated on what I am missing:-( My next house will have something similar, if I have my way

What surprised me the most was that when watching movies I used to run an 11.2 system with all multichannel sources. With aggressive room treatment I found that I much prefered to listen in the original format: 5.2 or 7.2. 9.2 Was OK, and I never noticed any benefit from the height speakers(11.2).

 

[Holmz]

You'll have to rephrase that, the nasty early reflection has reduced clarity...

Ok - here is an attempt as rephrasing it:

1) If ones does the RFZ then they do not care about early reflections.

2) If one does not do the RFZ scheme, then the off axis sound should be controlled in a way that the tonality is maintained in the reflections.

The preference score assumes that #2 will be more common than rooms that are designed as RFZ rooms.
Hence the preference accounts for how well a speaker does in an average room.