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

[gnarly]

I know the point of listening outdoors. We have been going to the Hollywood Bowl for years, many times per season. We even like the PA sound there. I've also once rented some big QSC speakers to play outside (for our wedding), and the sound was clearly different.

Interestingly, I have been recently to a King Crimson concert and got some of their live CDs. Robert Fripp is very particular about the sound quality live and recorded, and his CDs have extremely realistic sound, whether I listen in my office system or in the bigger one in the music/reading room. I find that it is recordings that seem to make the biggest difference more than the rooms reverberations. Modern electronic music seems to fare a little better in my office (which is "drier"), while more "old fashioned" music appears a little better in the bigger system. Though, I'm sure my mind plays tricks.

It seems to me that the mind "knows" that electronic music tends to be recorded in "bedrooms"....

Thanks. I like hearing when folks get out of the 'home audio in box mode".
For the purposes of testing outdoor clarity with less reflections, a single speaker summed to mono works best.
You'll need EQ to get tonality right, and hopefully the speaker has enough bass balls to keep the test from being unbalanced.
If you get tonality and SPL the same as indoors, it's slam dunk no contest ime.

 

[krabapple]

Ha, but were you wearing a blindfold when AB-testing?

He (admirably) made a point that his anecdote wasn't arrived at with any controls in place. But HA your joke is hilarious..by the standards of the handful that liked your post.

And I hope you listened to a single speaker placed in front of your iMac...

Another kneeslapper.

 

[krabapple]

It would be if music had standards for tonality. Then we could replicate it and be done. Right now, we have no idea how music is mixed, what the tonality of the room was where the music was created, etc. So this problem has no specific solution. Just listening to a different set of music will get you to potentially prefer something else. All we can do is get better than random guess.

Pshaw, Amir. Don't you know the only circle of confusion is in Floyd Toole's head? Tuga, Axo , et al. know better. Listen to them.

 

[amirm]

What I've said is...... outdoors with as few reflections as possible other than ground bounce...
greatly increases speech intelligibility/clarity compared to any in-room experience I've ever had.

That is puzzling. Go really outdoors and take a few steps away from listener. Then try to talk. It will take a lot of energy to communicate.

Along these lines, have you noticed how your loved one's voices don't change as you listen to them in different rooms in your home? Reflections are changing but adaptation makes sure that we mostly hear the direct sound.

 

[AdamG]

That is puzzling. Go really outdoors and take a few steps away from listener. Then try to talk. It will take a lot of energy to communicate.

Along these lines, have you noticed how your loved one's voices don't change as you listen to them in different rooms in your home? Reflections are changing but adaptation makes sure that we mostly hear the direct sound.

That’s a great example. Wow! Mind blown. I knew precious little about this stuff and you just made me realize that I know even less than I thought.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

We were discussing classical music because that was the topic. Research includes multiple genres. In your case, I agree that you want a much less reverberant room for dry recordings of rock/pop music.

Yes, and Hans Zimmer or Trance tunes with lots of HUUUGE and beautiful Lexicon reverbs? They need room reverberation...

Such is also stated in Dr. Toole's paper I quoted:

View attachment 290253

I want to listen to a symphony, I need a hall. I want to listen to a string quartett, I need a chamber. I want to hear rock, I need a room. But if it is a live concert, then I need a stadium!

A control room with a RT60 of 0.7 s...
And the 90 subjects were probably kids...

All the ambiences that are always recorded or added to every mix? Mixes are finished products. Classic, acoustic, electronic everything was finished with all echoes, spaces, rooms, halls and reverbs the creators deemed necessary.
But you can ONLY hear all that beauty in all its enveloping glory, if the listening room is dry enough...

 

[Kvalsvoll]

If slam and dry does it for you go to the start of the 4th track ,Mistreated (what a suitable title for the thread!) ,it has one of the cleanest (strangely for live) thumbs.
Enjoy it!

I listened to several tracks, a pleasure. I rarely listen to this music genre, but occasionally I can enjoy it especially if the recording manages to preserve some of the addictive tactile character in the bass range.

The presentation overall is not dry, the recording has all reverb necessary to reproduce a live event in the listening room. Dry room is necessary to be able to enjoy this music at live concert level, which is again required to enjoy the addictive tactile bass.

 

[krabapple]

Thank you for this comment, it made me smile. So much confusion in this thread,

You're in luck, then Tuga will be a reliable source of amusement to youi in this regard,. No matter how many times the rationale for evaluating *speakers* in mono is explained to him, he"ll keep on cracking the jokes, and youll be kept smiling like Alfred E Newman.

 

[krabapple]

Amar?

Lol. Now *that's* fonny.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Lol. Now *that's* fonny.

Imagine a 50s plate reverb: Amaaaar!

 

[amirm]

Well judging by the response in this thread, plenty of other people prefer imaging to envelopment as well.

The thread has attracted a few detractors and they have been quite vocal. That doesn't make this any kind of reasonable sampling. I have shown proper research that even among people mixing music, reflections were preferred by largest percentage. And that is among the group that people think universally prefer deader spaces. Further, as I commented earlier, it is difficult to simulate the right effect because you have to be careful to not change the overall amount of reverberation when you add or remove side panels. Study I just mentioned controlled for this. And studies done in anechoic chamber are immune to it.

Take this informal study by AUGSPURGER in his AES paper, LOUDSPEAKERS IN CONTROL ROOMS AND LIVING ROOMS

As I said, the evidence to support this point of view is far and wide.

 

[krabapple]

I definitely agree that the "permanent effects factory" scenario is to be avoided if one is looking for maximum fidelity to the recording.

However, I think it's also worth keeping in mind three points @amirm emphasizes repeatedly, but which seem to be getting a little bit lost in this discussion: (1) home listening spaces are, for the purposes of discussing reverb, small spaces; (2) human hearing filters out a lot of reflected sound as part of the brain's normal everyday process of ensuring we don't drive ourselves crazy with too much aural stimulus; and (3) reflective surfaces like walls are only partially reflective.

When you combine these three factors, it suggests that soundstage precision and soundstage width are not necessarily in a zero-sum relation. It suggests that it is possible that lateral reflections can produce the perception of a wider soundstage without necessarily degrading the focus or precision of the perceived soundstage.

I was skeptical of this idea for a long time, but I recently replaced my smallish stand-mount speakers with much larger floor-standers, and I was thrilled with the increased soundstage height but found that the soundstage width did not increase as much. So I removed my two side-wall panels (2" thick with 2" air gap behind them), and the result was not echoey or "soft focus." It was simply that the soundstage width increased to (in my perception) better match with the height.





The difference in soundstage width is not tremendous, but it's clearly noticeable. If I close my eyes and point to where I think the L or R panned sound is coming from, when I open my eyes I'm usually pointing at the outside edge of the speaker. Before, with the panels installed, I'd usually be pointing at the middle of the speaker, or just to the inside of the middle.

I definitely agree that the "permanent effects factory" scenario is to be avoided if one is looking for maximum fidelity to the recording.

However, I think it's also worth keeping in mind three points @amirm emphasizes repeatedly, but which seem to be getting a little bit lost in this discussion: (1) home listening spaces are, for the purposes of discussing reverb, small spaces; (2) human hearing filters out a lot of reflected sound as part of the brain's normal everyday process of ensuring we don't drive ourselves crazy with too much aural stimulus; and (3) reflective surfaces like walls are only partially reflective.

When you combine these three factors, it suggests that soundstage precision and soundstage width are not necessarily in a zero-sum relation. It suggests that it is possible that lateral reflections can produce the perception of a wider soundstage without necessarily degrading the focus or precision of the perceived soundstage.

Those of us not locked into the increasingly absurdly antiquated two channel playback world knew this already, Have known it for over a decade nkw,

Dr, Toole is one of us,

 

[Axo1989]

The thread has attracted a few detractors and they have been quite vocal. That doesn't make this any kind of reasonable sampling. I have shown proper research that even among people mixing music, reflections were preferred by largest percentage. And that is among the group that people think universally prefer deader spaces. Further, as I commented earlier, it is difficult to simulate the right effect because you have to be careful to not change the overall amount of reverberation when you add or remove side panels. Study I just mentioned controlled for this. And studies done in anechoic chamber are immune to it.

Take this informal study by AUGSPURGER in his AES paper, LOUDSPEAKERS IN CONTROL ROOMS AND LIVING ROOMS

View attachment 290282

As I said, the evidence to support this point of view is far and wide.

But we can clearly see the final sentence in the paragraph, which says " "Other listeners, including many recording engineers, would have preferred the flatter, more tightly focused sound picture", not the "more spacious stereo image". What were the percentages then?

I don't know why people expressing/describing a certain preference here would be characterised as "detractors" and/or "quite vocal" which is a deliberately negative spin. Have you not been "quite vocal"? The text you've quoted, and the discussion here has been about listener prefences, usually across different music tastes and listening purposes. The EBU standard (for example) specifically contemplates and accommodates this.

I don't think a hardcore polemic for one side of that range, complete with cherry-picked conclusions from the research (like the rather silly highlighting here) is necessary for the discussion. Perhaps it is insight into how the partisan brain works?

Anyway, I'm going to finish catching up and see what everyone else has said.

 

[Axo1989]

Then don't. The point being that don't go and create a video online, implying you are an expert and tell people to get rid of all reflections in the room because of course that is the universal truth.

When my middle son was young, he decided he didn't like tomatoes. So while 99.99% of the world likes tomatoes, he was absolutely fine in not liking them. Interestingly enough, now as an adult, he eats them. I find that many people who go the route of reflections are bad, convince themselves after putting tons of absorbers on the wall that they like said sound. Then one day they take them all down (or have an acoustician do that for them) and they realize the sound is better. But sure, if it that is your absolute preference, by all means, opt for it.

I should have known we would get to tomayto, tomahto.

Edit: but I think it's pretty common for kids not to like either for a while.

 

[amirm]

Here is some more research to counteract people's perception that reflections are enemy of stereo imaging and such. From the paper:
Subjective evaluations of preferred loudspeaker directivity
I.H. Flindell, A.R. McKenzie Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, UK
H. Negishi, M. Jewitt Canon Research Centre Europe Ltd, UK

Here is part of the intro:

The effect of early reflections, especially from the side walls of a listening room, tend to corrupt these signals and can lead to degradation of the stereo image quality (Wrightson & Berger Iii). On the other hand, early reflections and reverberation can enhance the overall listening experience (Howard [2]) and increase the listening area to extend beyond the hot-spot position (Moulton, Ferralli et al. [3]). The effects of lateral reflections is fairly well documented in the design of concert halls (e.g. Baron [4]) but the effects on rooms used for listening to stereophonically recorded material is not well documented. This investigation comprises a controlled study into the way early reflections affect the listening experience as heard from the hot-spot position.

They simulated side/front reflections with addition of other speakers representing those reflection points and using equalization/delay to simulate the frequency response of said reflections:

Note this comment post experiment:
Overall trends Looked at overall, the results do not show any striking trends, indicating either that the listeners could not reliably differentiate between the different experimental conditions, or that the differences, while detectable, were not terribly important, or that the rating and preference selection tasks were too difficult for the listeners, or that average listeners do not agree on their respective ratings and preferences.

It ends with this, pointing to innocence of these early reflections:

CONCLUSIONS
A study of the effects of loudspeaker directivity suggests that there is no clear consensus of preference across listeners and programme items overall although there is a tendency for naive listeners to prefer a more omni-directional response. Although it has been thought that this approach would lead to degraded stereo imaging, this was not confirmed by experienced listeners using rating scales and blind presentations of audio material. As a result of these findings, further tests will be carried out to investigate the effects of loudspeaker directivity for off-hot-spot listening.

As you see, all of this is counter to the impression folks have of this subject. And that the research does not just come from Dr. Toole having this view, or a sudden realization...

 

[Wesayso]

CONCLUSIONS
A study of the effects of loudspeaker directivity suggests that there is no clear consensus of preference across listeners and programme items overall although there is a tendency for naive listeners to prefer a more omni-directional response. Although it has been thought that this approach would lead to degraded stereo imaging, this was not confirmed by experienced listeners using rating scales and blind presentations of audio material. As a result of these findings, further tests will be carried out to investigate the effects of loudspeaker directivity for off-hot-spot listening.

Do you actually read before you post

 

[Axo1989]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but this thread can be summarized as: we are arguing between the upper limits and the lower limits of this graph:

... and whether we should employ room treatment to achieve it?

Perhaps we need to move forward and state some things we can all agree on. For example, foam panels only attenuate shorter wavelengths, so it would unbalance that curve (i.e. make upper frequencies more dry whilst leaving the bass reverberant). Or, a dry or a wet room is a matter of preference.

Pretty much, but we should also include the discussion of the "lateral reflections, delay-level, and their spectral content" as @Thomas_A responded.

With respect to soft absorbers (not so much foam as fluffy fibreglass with low resistivity) the issue isn't that they don't work, but that we need much thickness/depth for the lowest frequencies and other types (including membrane absorbers) may be a better tradeoff (size vs cost comes into that).

Interesting to me (but not necessarily anyone else) that my room measures almost exactly like their "Soundtrack Room 15".

 

[gnarly]

That is puzzling. Go really outdoors and take a few steps away from listener. Then try to talk. It will take a lot of energy to communicate.

I'm missing something. How can what you describe be puzzling?
It's just a very simple case of reduced SPL, due to greater distance ala inverse square law.

And what does reduced SPL due to distance have anything to do with clarity vs reflections?

Along these lines, have you noticed how your loved one's voices don't change as you listen to them in different rooms in your home? Reflections are changing but adaptation makes sure that we mostly hear the direct sound.

Yes sir! the ear/brain does wonders indoors, to adapt to room reflections.
I keep suggesting folks listen to their speaker(s) through closed back headphones that block out the room, fed by a measurement (flat) microphone.
Gives a clue to the extent of the ear/brain processing going on. Almost shocking ime.

 

[Axo1989]

You're in luck, then Tuga will be a reliable source of amusement to youi in this regard,. No matter how many times the rationale for evaluating *speakers* in mono is explained to him, he"ll keep on cracking the jokes, and youll be kept smiling like Alfred E Newman.

A good counterpoint to your crabbiness then?

Subject to indulgence by management, of course, he's been ko'd in this thread, I'd say.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes sir! the ear/brain does wonders indoors, to adapt to room reflections.
I keep suggesting folks listen to their speaker(s) through closed back headphones that block out the room, fed by a measurement (flat) microphone.
Gives a clue to the extent of the ear/brain processing going on. Almost shocking ime.

I so notice this when I visit my big sister's apartment and do some music/movie watching. For a short time the ringing is very weird, then I adjust. We can certainly do that. But I think it's better not to have to.

I must try your test, looks interesting.