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

[wisechoice]

I come from the world of video, where there are clear and well-established standards for reproducing recorded images. When I went about trying to find them, it wasn’t difficult. As Amir rightly pointed out, that’s sadly lacking in the world of audio, even though important progress is being made on speakers and headphones. But as I come from the world of video, the situation that has prevailed is most certainly not because I personally haven’t read enough books about audio.

On the other hand, if you’ve been in the audio world fighting the good fight for years or decades, reading and keeping up with all the latest theory, please don’t blame people like me for the problem. You and your milieu have failed to get us out of the circle of confusion so far despite the best efforts of experts like Toole. So the judgmental, supercilious attitude towards someone like me really isn’t warranted. If you want to throw your hands up, just say so, or don’t add to an already very long thread.

 

[Newman]

Thanks, but this addresses nothing about Amir’s post, which underlined the need for standards, and the need to start with speaker+room response for those standards. But that response varies wildly even with a flat anechoic speaker response. So we’re back to the question of what to do with the room. But you’re saying do nothing as long as it’s not a nightmare, whatever that means. Furthermore, you think there can be no target. Do you really not see how question-begging this is? While you may have read plenty of books on this subject, you’ve clearly never read or defined a standard. The theory is what lies behind it. I’m interested in that too, but if you require everyone who wants to set up a room to a certain standard to read a whole book, there will be no standard.

I don’t mean to be rude, but my original questions were for Amir. If you can’t answer them, just say so. My intention was to get past the very circular arguments that have plagued this thread so far, and establish a helpful direction towards standardization on objective and measurable criteria for a listening room.

Thanks for throwing my effort to help you in the bin, I was right to doubt you.

 

[wisechoice]

There are two solutions here: static and dynamic. Static would be everyone sticking to one specification. I think we can get there most of the way with a defined frequency response. The dynamic one would capture the frequency response and embed that as metadata in music. Every studio is liable to have that data as having a mic and measurements of the room response is trivial. Getting here is such a massive step forward that I don't know that we need to force more standardization.

If we wanted to, then we could use multiple microphones to capture the spatial qualities of the mix/mastering room. Using that, we may be able to get close to that using signal processing at playback.

The ultimate solution doesn't exist because we can't force the same room size, configuration, speakers, etc. I don't know how to answer that any more than I can answer how to arrive at world peace.

That sounds like you don’t have an answer to the problem that you yourself posed, which was to fix the enormous variance in speaker+room response even when the speaker was a constant. Even worse, it almost sounds to me like you don’t think it can or should be answered.

Being able to live with that contradiction must be how you survive in a world like the world of audio. It’s some trick

My teasing and sarcasm belies my real appreciation for everything you do here, Amir. It also obviously reveals my own irritation. It’s certainly not all your fault, though.

 

[wisechoice]

Thanks for throwing my effort to help you in the bin, I was right to doubt you.

Lol

It was obvious from the jump that you doubted me, saying things like “if you’re serious about these questions” that assumed bad faith on my part for no good reason. That’s why we didn’t get anywhere in the discussion.

Let’s get back to the topic and away from the personal, please.

 

[wisechoice]

And thank you sincerely for the suggested reading material.

 

[amirm]

That sounds like you don’t have an answer to the problem that you yourself posed, which was to fix the enormous variance in speaker+room response even when the speaker was a constant. Even worse, it almost sounds to me like you don’t think it can or should be answered.

What? I answered precisely that. The discussion started around accuracy and fidelity to what was heard when the music was created. I pointed out that there is not even a frequency response standard let alone us magically getting the same experience as someone sitting there.

You don't seem to appreciate the profound impact of frequency response relative to these other spatial qualities. The former dwarfs them and that is why preference around speakers strongly depended on frequency response.

 

[wisechoice]

What? I answered precisely that. The discussion started around accuracy and fidelity to what was heard when the music was created. I pointed out that there is not even a frequency response standard let alone us magically getting the same experience as someone sitting there.

You don't seem to appreciate the profound impact of frequency response relative to these other spatial qualities. The former dwarfs them and that is why preference around speakers strongly depended on frequency response.

But the same speaker in a different room leads to enormous differences that seem to make most adjustments rather arbitrary in comparison to any standard, and that flat speaker response rather distorted. I thought your point was that those variations needed to be addressed somehow to better conform to some possible standard.

Alright, I’ve misunderstood you, then. I’ll go over the points you’ve made again and see what I can come away with. At a minimum, I’ve understood that this is a very complex subject without easy answers.

When I listen to a piano (with Pianoteq software) on neutral open back headphones (SRH1840), it ironically sounds like it’s there in the room with me. The best I’ve come away with from this discussion is that will never be possible with speakers, and that’s too bad.

And even more ironic.

 

[wisechoice]

But the same speaker in a different room leads to enormous differences that seem to make most adjustments rather arbitrary in comparison to any standard, and that flat speaker response rather distorted. I thought your point was that those variations needed to be addressed somehow to better conform to some possible standard.

Alright, I’ve misunderstood you, then. I’ll go over the points you’ve made again and see what I can come away with. At a minimum, I’ve understood that this is a very complex subject without easy answers.

When I listen to a piano (with Pianoteq software) on neutral open back headphones (SRH1840), it ironically sounds like it’s there in the room with me. The best I’ve come away with from this discussion is that will never be possible with speakers, and that’s too bad.

And even more ironic.

And I’m using Neumann KH120s, with perfectly flat anechoic response and great off axis response (I think), listening in both in stereo and quad — and also using K&H 310s that unfortunately have distortion in exactly the wrong place for solo piano. So I’ve moved them to the living room.

It doesn’t matter whether I treat the room a little, a lot, or not at all, the headphones always sound real and disappear for me. As good as they sound, the speakers rarely do.

 

[Axo1989]

Why not start with something like ITU-R BS 1116-1 or EBU 3276 (which I’ve referred to upthread) and update or fill in any gaps?

There’s a not-too-old summary at s.2.4 of this paper fyi.

 

[wisechoice]

Why not start with something like ITU-R BS 1116-1 or EBU 3276 (which I’ve referred to upthread) and update or fill in any gaps?

There’s a not-too-old summary at s.2.4 of this paper fyi.

Thank you! Very interested to hear others’ opinions of this. I’ll go upthread and fill in those gaps before I ask them or you any more about it

(I’ve been here from the start, but it’s a very long thread. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.)

 

[Newman]

That sounds like you don’t have an answer to the problem that you yourself posed, which was to fix the enormous variance in speaker+room response even when the speaker was a constant. Even worse, it almost sounds to me like you don’t think it can or should be answered.

Excuse me, I already answered this, and you said "go away, I'm talking to Amir".

Copy/paste: speakers with flat anechoic response and good directivity control, EQ the bass to a known standard curve, preferably with at least 2 subs, in positions that have several standard options. There are also clear guidelines for satisfactory room treatment, although a standard will never be the right solution for home listening, given the range of room sizes, shapes, layouts, and treatments. Advice that will help all of them is actually more useful than a 'standard room' specification that 1 in 500 audiophiles can act on.

Being able to live with that contradiction must be how you survive in a world like the world of audio. It’s some trick

My teasing and sarcasm belies my real appreciation for everything you do here, Amir. It also obviously reveals my own irritation. It’s certainly not all your fault, though.

Seriously??

Why not start with something like ITU-R BS 1116-1 or EBU 3276 (which I’ve referred to upthread) and update or fill in any gaps?

There’s a not-too-old summary at s.2.4 of this paper fyi.

Sure, although that one focuses on a room for listening panels to adjudge professional audio applications and equipment. I also provided a link that referenced a room standard for speaker designers in designing speakers, in an earlier reply I gave @wisechoice, which was apparently too off-topic for him to entertain.

cheers

 

[wisechoice]

You don't seem to appreciate the profound impact of frequency response relative to these other spatial qualities. The former dwarfs them and that is why preference around speakers strongly depended on frequency response.

I most certainly do appreciate it, that’s why I can’t even abide the gentle hump in the bass on your preferred headphones, and would rather listen to the extremely smooth SRH1840s than listen to any headphone I’ve ever tried short of the HE1, which simply sounded like there was nothing wrong or exceptional about it.

It’s also why I have prioritized frequency response in my speaker purchases, and why I appreciate that my multichannel system with those speakers at least averages to something close to flat because of it, whatever that is worth.

The spatial aspects matter a lot to me too, though. I appreciate the way my AirPod Pro 2nd generation make the sound in a film realistically appear to come from where it would with a great surround system, at times when I don’t want to disturb anyone with the real thing.

But amazingly, trying to reproduce the experience of headphones in a listening room is met here only with derision. Another irony, I guess.

 

[Eckerslad]

You didn't pay attention to the question that was put to him. I repeat it for you: "3. Early refections at sufficient level are bad." In that context, he said that the best performance was had with speakers in a room with side-wall reflections. The question wasn't which speaker is better. But again, about reflections being bad, the very thing we are talking about. This is why he went on to explain where the idea that reflections are bad came from.

But what is a “sufficient level” defined as, in a small room/large room near-field/far
-field etc?

 

[Dirac28]

You didn't pay attention to the question that was put to him. I repeat it for you: "3. Early refections at sufficient level are bad." In that context, he said that the best performance was had with speakers in a room with side-wall reflections. The question wasn't which speaker is better. But again, about reflections being bad, the very thing we are talking about. This is why he went on to explain where the idea that reflections are bad came from.

Unfortunately you didn't understand what i wanted to say. Maybe there are some language barriers because english is not my native language.
He mentioned section 7.4.2 of his book and that's what i was talking about. So where is the study that supports that assertion? I wanted to explain that the mentioned study is not sufficient for the assertion that the best performance was had with speakers in a room with sidewall reflections.

And indeed he talks about the rating of loudspeakers, not about which room sounds best: "loudspeakers with well behaved (smooth and fundamentally similar) off axis early reflected sounds (around 60 +/- degrees off axis) are awarded the highest sound quality ratings in double-blind listening tests - done in rooms with NO side-wall absorption"

 

[Axo1989]

Excuse me, I already answered this, and you said "go away, I'm talking to Amir".

Copy/paste: speakers with flat anechoic response and good directivity control, EQ the bass to a known standard curve, preferably with at least 2 subs, in positions that have several standard options. There are also clear guidelines for satisfactory room treatment, although a standard will never be the right solution for home listening, given the range of room sizes, shapes, layouts, and treatments. Advice that will help all of them is actually more useful than a 'standard room' specification that 1 in 500 audiophiles can act on.

Seriously??

Sure, although that one focuses on a room for listening panels to adjudge professional audio applications and equipment. I also provided a link that referenced a room standard for speaker designers in designing speakers, in an earlier reply I gave @wisechoice, which was apparently too off-topic for him to entertain.

The linked paper is about rooms for listening panels, but the standards cited have broader application. ITS is for 'subjective assessment of small impairments' and EBU is for 'critical assessment and selection of programme material'. I’d also expect something derived from EBU/ITS could have ‘critical listening’ and ‘relaxed’ specification, and thus cover the required range of listening purposes (for us).

If I followed your links correctly, you've cited IEC 60268-13 which is discussed in the paper I linked at s.2.3.1 and I'd expect it would also be useful.

Edit: on the teasing/sarcasm thing, I don't know where @wisechoice is from, but for Australians like me those things are a sign of camaraderie. We tend to be more formal/obsequious when we think someone's a d*ckhead. It doesn't always translate, obviously. US-ians sometimes seem to like lickspittle, f*ck knows why.

 

[Galliardist]

But amazingly, trying to reproduce the experience of headphones in a listening room is met here only with derision. Another irony, I guess.

Brief response: we are not discussing Spatial Audio or reference of that to a listening room here, only traditional stereo. As I've not yet heard Spatial Audio from an iSomething (it's on my list of things to do) I won't comment further.

 

[wisechoice]

Brief response: we are not discussing Spatial Audio or reference of that to a listening room here, only traditional stereo. As I've not yet heard Spatial Audio from an iSomething (it's on my list of things to do) I won't comment further.

My SRH1840s are stereo!

 

[Axo1989]

Brief response: we are not discussing Spatial Audio or reference of that to a listening room here, only traditional stereo. As I've not yet heard Spatial Audio from an iSomething (it's on my list of things to do) I won't comment further.

Worth doing. You mentioned mixing to multichannel with down-mix to stereo (hope I have the right person) as a standard thing which seems to be the workflow Apple is proposing now.

 

[Galliardist]

My SRH1840s are stereo!

Whoops.

I'll just ask then, whether you believe that tight in the head imaging is really transferable to a virtual stage in front of you: and, while I'm not one to chase soundstaging, whether you've heard any depth imaging from playing stereo through the SRH1840s or through stereo speakers? I ask these questions as food for thought.

FR is a different thing, of course. But I'll go there anyway: does your preference for less bass from the headphones than Amir's preference (Harman curve, judging by reviews) transfer to a preference for less bass in stereo listening through speakers? No criticism intended, I've just been meaning to ask someone with the "less bass" preference that question for a while.

Less bass from headphones was a preference I had for many years, but after acquiring speakers with deeper bass several years ago that preference has lessened for me, so maybe my thinking is the other way in that department: headphones closer to speakers.

 

[dweeeeb2]

Ive found this thread very useful and am very greatfull for everyones “passion”. I can see this topic being very draining for some and I really appreciate their/your continued input. thank you

One aspect which has been mentioned several times here and other places is about not eq’ing room response above the transition frequency. Im trying to understand the main points behind this. Is it because you want to preserve the direct sound characteristics of the speaker (assuming good FR), or something else? My listening room is a mess and Im playing with the idea of eq’ing them outside so I can get better direct sound- so Id like to understand this logic a bit better. thankyou