How NOT to set up speakers and room treatment ( Goldensound)

[fineMen]

... but seriously fellas, *domestically* things don't need to be quite so ...

Righty right. That's the term I always had to avoid in doubt it would be legal. To confirm to have the highest quality stereo is one thing, to listen to music for recreational purposes is something completely different.

Referring to my (as stated fully ignorable) post #672, the confirming camp discards the basic rules of 'science' while waving papers and investigations by, what they think, highest 'authorities', while these guys deliberately misinterpret nearly everything. The common witches brew of stirred nonsense.

It is the very same as with disussing the electron's mood in a cable. Using 'scientific' terms, but without any clue. The same camp, entitled to have "it".

Of course, the "stereo" is around for long now. One wonders how little is known. Reason for that? Greed on both sides, suppliers and customers. Can you personally do anything about it? Yes:

Before speculating more and more, develop, you do it, 'psychoacoustic' investigations to clarify your point. La out a scheme, formulate hypothesises and for goddess' sake, verify them. Perform a test. Do some science. But please stop to misuse other's results.

 

[tuga]

Righty right. That's the term I always had to avoid in doubt it would be legal. To confirm to have the highest quality stereo is one thing, to listen to music for recreational purposes is something completely different.

Referring to my (as stated fully ignorable) post #672, the confirming camp discards the basic rules of 'science' while waving papers and investigations by, what they think, highest 'authorities', while these guys deliberately misinterpret nearly everything. The common witches brew of stirred nonsense.

It is the very same as with disussing the electron's mood in a cable. Using 'scientific' terms, but without any clue. The same camp, entitled to have "it".

Of course, the "stereo" is around for long now. One wonders how little is known. Reason for that? Greed on both sides, suppliers and customers. Can you personally do anything about it? Yes:

Before speculating more and more, develop, you do it, 'psychoacoustic' investigations to clarify your point. La out a scheme, formulate hypothesises and for goddess' sake, verify them. Perform a test. Do some science. But please stop to misuse other's results.

You might want to read the links before asking any futher questions.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Where is it that Toole promotes echo chambers?

I’d honestly be surprised if he did. It is more likely that his position only appears that way, through the selective quoting and point scoring battles going on here.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Where is it that Toole promotes echo chambers? You know he dedicated a whole chapter about acoustic treatment in his book? And did you miss the parts of the thread where we discussed control rooms might have different requirements than listening rooms, including references to research?

Too bad people "listening" in echo chambers have been referencing Toole for more than 30 pages. I even have read about comparisons to the diffuse field of concert halls, why untreated listening rooms were preferable and not one Toole follower advocated for acoustic treatment to bring RT60 down and now you have the chutzpah to criticize me, because there were some chapters about acoustic treatment in his book?
Why don't you enlighten those, who made the outrageous claims?

 

[Geert]

Too bad people "listening" in echo chambers have been referencing Toole for more than 30 pages.

Just like we have 30 pages of people questioning their interpretation of Tooles work.

not one Toole follower advocated for acoustic treatment to bring RT60 down

No true, also this topic has been discussed. But I wouldn't call the people involved 'Toole follower' (which suggest blind following).

now you have the chutzpah to criticize me

I only questioned your black and white representation of this thread.

Why don't you enlighten those, who made the outrageous claims?

That's what I've been doing from the start. Just one page back I provided some info on the use of absorbers.

 

[Hexspa]

I love my dead room. There. I said it.

Listen, I’m not going to say much because with ~700 replies it’s a drop in the bucket. That said, here’s my piece:

Read broadcast standards and white papers. Materials by AES and EBU that start with ‘BS’ and ‘REC’. Toole is not the only game in town but he is a valid voice. There are other books as well, like the Cox/D’Antonio one.

My targets are +-10dB SPL, -20dB decay within 150ms with a smooth taper above 63Hz, and -10 to -15dB spectrally-similar impulse response envelope reflections within 20-40ms with a regular pattern. I do not use RT60 for small rooms (under about 10,000ft3). These standards are referenced directly from the REW site, linked to from there, or from Ethan Winer or Nyal Mellor. I am an audio creator an not a home theaterist.

It’s important to recognize that Toole is not an audio creator and he’s been misinterpreted as an advocate for reflective rooms. His free materials on the harman/audio-innovations page have him acknowledging that audio production frequently uses deader rooms. If you’re a home theaterist, you may prefer Toole. If you’re a producer, you may prefer AES and EBU.

I’m not trying to be controversial and I can back up everything I say (I’d rather not link hunt but I guarantee I can find references). But that’s the point: relying on forums and youtube is no guarantee of truth. I recommend drinking directly from the fountainheads. Forums, imo, are best for opinions or maybe clarifying certain ideas. It really depends who’s available and reads your thread. That said, there are a number of valid ways to treat a room and valid target parameters. My way is not the only way and neither is yours. The best way is to study, experiment, and keep an open mind.

 

[Galliardist]

Too bad people "listening" in echo chambers have been referencing Toole for more than 30 pages. I even have read about comparisons to the diffuse field of concert halls, why untreated listening rooms were preferable and not one Toole follower advocated for acoustic treatment to bring RT60 down and now you have the chutzpah to criticize me, because there were some chapters about acoustic treatment in his book?
Why don't you enlighten those, who made the outrageous claims?

OK, one last post from a claimant of outrageous lies, as I dive out the door.

No, Toole is not advocating "echo chambers" and I'm not claiming that. If you read this thread in its entirety, you'll notice that in fact normal furnishings in a room: curtains, bookshelves, whatever a "fluffy sofa" is (no mention here of rugs on floors, another bugbear) themselves reduce reflections. Also, he is allowing for the domestic room (allowing for furnishings and layout) and suitable speakers to kind of work: if that was the end of it, his book and career in the field would have been a lot shorter.

And if stereo only worked in a dedicated room with low RT60, it would have died at birth in the 1950s. I can't seriously take a position that nobody without a dedicated listening room (and whatever other minimum standards should apply) can hear stereo. So I guess I don't belong here in a "serious forum".

I'll leave it for you to clear out all those using desktop audio systems, those like me without the resources for dedicated rooms, those using the excellent low cost IEMs that get good reviews here, those who prefer their rooms with a slightly higher RT60 than you, and all the other lowlifes and no-hopers.

That's all.

 

[HairyEars]

I dont see a problem with his room at all. I have probably a bit more square footage of foam in my room although it is foam and not the material hes using and it helped get rid of a lot of the echo. His room looks pretty empty, no furniture or sofa to absorb anything. OP sounds very jealous.

The more furniture, the more messed up the frequency response is.

 

[Bjorn]

Can we trust short listening sessions for preference?
We know that short listening sessions is the best method in ABX tests in order to distinguish something. However, I'm not to sure that is the better approach in relation to preference. The believe there are certain aspects that aren't discovered quickly and it will much also depend on the music material.

I very much agree that there's something intruguing with late arriving side wall reflections when the speakers have a good directivity, frequency response is still good, and especially with certain genres of music. There's a clear added widening of the image. But again again in ABs tests I've found that over a bit more time, I start to hear what I perceive as tonality aberrations for certain frequencies and listening fatigue kicks in earlier.

With treatment on the side walls, the stereo image isn't as wide, and which immadiately doesn't sound as impressive. But the tonality sounds more correct over time with different types of music, and there's a calm and smoothness to the sound. So in the long run, I've always gone back to side wall treatment. Even when reflections arrive as late as after 9-10 ms.
I continue to test and challenge myself in this though.

 

[Music1969]

I totally disagree with you and those who say that wideband porous absorber panels do not work well at 100 Hz or less.
What happens is that the panels have to have a greater thickness and located in the places that are more effective (maximum velocity).
People with a dedicated room will have no problem to put thick and concealed panels.
And for thicknesses of 60-80 cm for use as bass traps type soffit for example, there is nothing like the wadding (so it is called in Spain) and you know it by wadding polyester.

And if the excuse is to put resonators or those active traps, I have to tell you that with a multisub configuration there is no need to put any resonator.
If he wants to put them, fine, but he should know that there are more possibilities to achieve the same thing. to achieve the same thing


Main monitors - ATC 20s
Subs- (4) HSU ULS-15 MK2

Written with translator

Greetings

Hi, what is the first plot there?

The monitors without any subwoofers I guess?

 

[gnarly]

Because you can't snap your fingers and turn your room into an anechoic chamber. And even if you did, it would sound awful.

Fact is that spaciousness is captivating to audiences. It is what they want and up to a limit, the more the better. I was at a live session at an audio show a few weeks ago organized by a boutique label. The performance finished and I asked the singer if she liked the "dry" version we heard there, or the "sweetened" one that is on the recording of it released. She got all excited and said dry! And went on to say she couldn't believe audiophiles liked it with reverberations. I asked the producer what she thought and she said she added reverb because that is what people like to hear. A quick poll in the room showed everyone agreeing with her.

Why do we like it that way? Because we associate that with realism. From the book above:

"The most neutral sound reproduction is usually not the goal of sound reproduction except in the control rooms of sound recording studios. In homes, both for music appreciation and home movie theater, the goal for many listeners is rather suspension of disbelief a term used in presence research.

Kleiner, Mendel; Tichy, Jiri. Acoustics of Small Rooms (p. 275). CRC Press. Kindle Edition. "

You can't sit there and keep telling yourself that a dead room is better when you prefer otherwise.

You appear to have extrapolated and extended my preference for reducing direct early reflections, into a preference for a dead room.
I don't prefer an overly dead room. Overly absorbed rooms do sound dead....and awful. Seems to me, we can hear when sound is being sucked dry.
Outdoors, quasi-anechoic with nothing but ground bounce, does not sound sound dead to me. Neither in a wide open field nor on water.
So dead, anything approaching anechoic, has a sound of it's own I think.


My preference for reducing early reflections applies to any that are thought to integrate and be masked/mixed with direct signal...like Haas etc.
Imo, they may be perceived as a single sound, but they don't add to clarity or speech intelligibility...other than maybe increased loudness, but that's a bogus way of giving attribute.

I mean, when I think about it...what are the first set of early reflections most all of us can agree we want to eliminate......?? Diffraction.
Hey, maybe diffraction is ok, and can help with spaciousness lol. Of course i'm being facetious.

Anyway, my DIY goal are speakers that can produce a clean audio-bandwidth dirac pulse, with constant directivity and pattern control extending as low in freq as possible.
How I choose to integrate the speakers into the room remains largely a function of the type music I'm listening to.

Whatever level of reflected sound I choose/design for, I like the reflections arrive later than within the hearing integration/precedence window.
I put speakers on the long wall in a room to aid this.
Simply adds clarity ime, as so very strongly witnessed by outdoor listening.

 

[wisechoice]

killing or treating all early reflections is counterintuitive to how our brains and ears evolved.

Are you suggesting they evolved in closed rooms?

 

[tuga]

Can we trust short listening sessions for preference?
We know that short listening sessions is the best method in ABX tests in order to distinguish something. However, I'm not to sure that is the better approach in relation to preference. The believe there are certain aspects that aren't discovered quickly and it will much also depend on the music material.

I very much agree that there's something intruguing with late arriving side wall reflections when the speakers have a good directivity, frequency response is still good, and especially with certain genres of music. There's a clear added widening of the image. But again again in ABs tests I've found that over a bit more time, I start to hear what I perceive as tonality aberrations for certain frequencies and listening fatigue kicks in earlier.

With treatment on the side walls, the stereo image isn't as wide, and which immadiately doesn't sound as impressive. But the tonality sounds more correct over time with different types of music, and there's a calm and smoothness to the sound. So in the long run, I've always gone back to side wall treatment. Even when reflections arrive as late as after 9-10 ms.
I continue to test and challenge myself in this though.

In my view and experience we need both quick AB (short snippets) and long listening sessions with the variable inserted in one's system+room (our reference).
The value of long sessions is in providing a more varied programme which has a bigger chance of exposing shortcomings/issues.

This reminds me of @Thomas Lund 's "Time for Slow Listening" AES piece.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/aes20547-pdf.42956/

 

[tuga]

Are you suggesting they evolved in closed rooms?

The skull is mostly sealed.

 

[Cote Dazur]

And if stereo only worked in a dedicated room with low RT60, it would have died at birth in the 1950s.

Of course, stereo work in many (mysterious?) ways, has been for a long time and will probably continue for a long time. It can be enjoyed in many scenarios, IEM, headphones, near field desktop, living room speaker against one wall and the listener against the other, big room, average room, small room. My favorite is fairly large dedicated near field space. To me, I prefer direct sound away enough from any boundaries that they may as well not be there.
This forum is for every one and every situation, providing all with sensible advice deeply rooted in objective scientific evidence. It is to everyone to assess what is applicable to their specific objectives and limitations.

 

[Keith_W]

We have a lot of work to do if that is your conclusion.

20 pages later ... I guess my conclusion was correct and there is a lot of work to be done

 

[PowerSerge]

The more furniture, the more messed up the frequency response is.

Not unless its symmetrical, then it becomes situational

 

[wisechoice]

The skull is mostly sealed.

In more ways than one.

 

[theREALdotnet]

But that’s the point: relying on forums and youtube is no guarantee of truth.

Agreed, nor are books, IEEE Proceedings or AES Journal papers. Strictly speaking, the only criterion of truth is practice. Naturally, this can be impractical or out of reach for many, so a certain amount of faith in the work of others is often required.

The best way is to study, experiment, and keep an open mind.

Yep.

 

[Cote Dazur]

And if stereo only worked in a dedicated room with low RT60, it would have died at birth in the 1950s.

Of course, stereo work in many (mysterious?) ways, has been for a long time and will probably continue for a long time. It can be enjoyed in many scenarios, IEM, headphones, near field desktop, living room speaker against one wall and the listener against the other, big room, average room, small room. My favorite is fairly large dedicated space set up in near field. To me, I prefer direct sound away enough from any boundaries that they may as well not be there.
This forum is for every one and every situation, providing all with sensible advice deeply rooted in objective scientific evidence. It is to everyone to assess what is applicable to their specific objectives and limitations.