70's Ideology?

[1niltothe]

Hi all.

I came across a comment made by Amirm on the REW for Dummies thread, roughly, "beware of [X] audio forum, because threads get cornered by 1970's acoustic ideology rather than contemporary science."

Is it possible to find out more about what this means? I'm asking because I don't want to get sucked into it.

Is it to do with minimal room treatment, trying to keep the sound of the room, not using too much in the way of panels and absorbers?

What are people's rule of thumb for seeking advice without falling prey to charlatans / ideology / trends / misinformation etc?

I've never done any acoustic treatment before, and we are preparing to spend a lot of money. I want to make sure we follow the right path. It seems like there are some fads around, and also some outdated ideas.

I'm willing to learn a lot about acoustics, but also want to be able to trust experts and get opinions.

Had our first acousticians over last week, they took a quick look at the room, 10' x 11', and said, 'it'll be hard to get sounds in here below 70Hz.' I've had a lot of dissenting second opinions since then. But you see the risks - could have given them £10,000 and not had any low end.

 

[raindance]

The philosophy of minimal room treatment applies if you are using speakers with properly designed directivity and listening at the appropriate distance and using digital correction in the bass region. What are you trying to achieve?

 

[1niltothe]

If it's possible in such a tight space, 10 x 11, I'd like to be able to physically feel the music while also getting an accurate frequency response.

I'm a music producer, using Ableton, with a particular focus on polyrhythms and swing. Bass, kick drums, and intricate rhythms with higher frequencies. I work a lot with dancers. The 'feeling it in your body' element is essential for them, being able to feel the rhythms, not just in their head.

I have a pair of Focal Be6 Solos. It's hard to tell at this stage what kind of subwoofer solutions are appropriate. Considering a Focal Sub6, but it might take more than one sub, or smaller subs, or no subs.

The goal is to be able to sit in a room, making this music, having it impact my body. The work can then make it to the club / venue with minimal error correction being done by a mixing engineer.

 

[mhardy6647]

1970s sonic ideals are easy enough to identify:

• The "British Monitor" sound: Besides the archetypal BBC LS3/5-A design, consider the KEF, IMF, Spendor, etc. "sound". Very natural midrange and pleasant to listen to. I'd lump the ads/Braun loudspeakers in here, too, FWIW -- and Matt Polk & friends actively imitated this sound at a far lower price point -- and quite successfully, I'd opine.
• The "West Coast" sound, 1970s style: Two words, Benjamin: Bart Locanthi. JBL L100, Pioneer HPM-100. Rough and tumble, but exciting with rock and roll of the era (I suppose).
• The "East Coast" sound: Villchur/Kloss/Allison/Burhoe and their descendents. Tight (arguably overdamped) and (in the case of Acoustic Research, at least) somewhat distant and polite MR and HF. Hard (ish) to drive but easy to listen to.
• The planar loudspeakers also came on strong in those days - Quad's ESLs (from the 1950s on) and, of course Magnepan/Magneplanar.

Obviously, I am painting with a broad brush No worries, though, since: All generalizations are false, including this one.

The best of the Seventies' loudspeakers still sound good, tone-wise, to me -- but, of course, quantitative analysis notwithstanding, de gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[egellings]

"In matters of taste, there can be no dispute". That's what the Latin means. I was forced to take it for 4 years in a Roman Catholic high school, so I was able to get the meaning. Since few people know Latin (my knowledge is cursory at best) , it's best to just say it in English and get it over with.

 

[mocenigo]

"In matters of taste, there can be no dispute". That's what the Latin means. I was forced to take it for 4 years in a Roman Catholic high school, so I was able to get the meaning. Since few people know Latin (my knowledge is cursory at best) , it's best to just say it in English and get it over with.

Oh come on, this is a quite well known phrase, and we all know how to use google in the rare case we never er heard it. Well, Maybe not, but I would have have to make a significant effort to communicate with people of such ignorance of my culture (I do not claim my culture is superior, but my lack of knowledge of other cultures can become a problem, and also I not saying other should learn mine - I want to do the specular effort first, and the communication barrier is not a judgement of others, but a self-assessment of myself).

 

[egellings]

It certainly is good to know Latin, no question there. It's how I found out that Gaul was divided into three parts. Latin was required course work in my high school, way back when. The language is highly structured, what with all the orderly declensions & conjugations, but, sorry, Latin is not common knowledge, and when used unnecessarily, can make the writer seem snobbish. Latin was originally taught in high schools because its structured nature was believed to be good training for subjects with math or science content. Turns out that wasn't true, and my high school, a Roman Catholic one of very high educational standards, (Jesuit priests are superb teachers) made Latin an optional course. As for the phrase you used, I had to look up 'gustibus' in my Latin dictionary. I suspect that most ASR readers are not Latin literate, nor should they need to be. I personally am not against the usage of Latin at all, as I am able to translate some of it. It's just not all that appropriate in a technical setting. In a literary setting, then more so.

 

[gene_stl]

1970s sonic ideals are easy enough to identify:

• The "British Monitor" sound: Besides the archetypal BBC LS3/5-A design, consider the KEF, IMF, Spendor, etc. "sound". Very natural midrange and pleasant to listen to. I'd lump the ads/Braun loudspeakers in here, too, FWIW -- and Matt Polk & friends actively imitated this sound at a far lower price point -- and quite successfully, I'd opine.
• The "West Coast" sound, 1970s style: Two words, Benjamin: Bart Locanthi. JBL L100, Pioneer HPM-100. Rough and tumble, but exciting with rock and roll of the era (I suppose).
• The "East Coast" sound: Villchur/Kloss/Allison/Burhoe and their descendents. Tight (arguably overdamped) and (in the case of Acoustic Research, at least) somewhat distant and polite MR and HF. Hard (ish) to drive but easy to listen to.
• The planar loudspeakers also came on strong in those days - Quad's ESLs (from the 1950s on) and, of course Magnepan/Magneplanar.

Obviously, I am painting with a broad brush No worries, though, since: All generalizations are false, including this one.

The best of the Seventies' loudspeakers still sound good, tone-wise, to me -- but, of course, quantitative analysis notwithstanding, de gustibus non est disputandum.

very nice summary!

 

[mocenigo]

It certainly is good to know Latin, no question there. It's how I found out that Gaul was divided into three parts..

Rotfl I meant that that particular phrase is quite common. I would never claim that people should know Latin to be called people of culture (or even to have enough common ground with me to be able to establish a communication channel with me)

 

[anmpr1]

Peter Aczel of Audio Critic fame, along with illustrator Rick Meyerowitz, produced the well known Rectilinear ads of that era. In one of his more humorous moments Aczel explained the West Coast (JBL) v East Coast (or New England--AR, KLH, Advent etc.) 'sound'. This was around 1973-4. If you read closely you'll find Aczel's quip about the possible future of electric cars, about who is going to buy them?

 

[FeddyLost]

it's possible in such a tight space, 10 x 11, I'd like to be able to physically feel the music while also getting an accurate frequency response

If that's possible, it will be not cheap at all and you will have to dedicate this room to studio duties due to big quantity of absorbers.
Or you can go with electronic room correction with multiple subs and this will be not cheap either.
If this room is rented, i'd think about second way.
More information will be required to make some other assumptions. For example, if your room is completely made from plasterboard and have no heavy concrete/brick walls, there will be not so much troubles with bass...

 

[q3cpma]

Hi all.

I came across a comment made by Amirm on the REW for Dummies thread, roughly, "beware of [X] audio forum, because threads get cornered by 1970's acoustic ideology rather than contemporary science."

My immediate and superficial understanding of this is "not caring about off-axis linear distortion (and possibly on-axis for the worst offenders)".

 

[Wes]

1970's acoustic ideology must involve the Weather Underground somehow (which would fit with the comment directly above)

 

[Jim Matthews]

Constant directivity is a recent concern in home transducers.

This reduces the need for extensive treatments for first reflections.
Attention to frequency balance and dynamics are also taken seriously at ever decreasing cost.

In the 1970's, the marketing was at the forefront at the expense of engineering.

 

[KSTR]

I've never done any acoustic treatment before, and we are preparing to spend a lot of money. I want to make sure we follow the right path. It seems like there are some fads around, and also some outdated ideas.

I'm willing to learn a lot about acoustics, but also want to be able to trust experts and get opinions.

Had our first acousticians over last week, they took a quick look at the room, 10' x 11', and said, 'it'll be hard to get sounds in here below 70Hz.' I've had a lot of dissenting second opinions since then. But you see the risks - could have given them £10,000 and not had any low end.

I once had a somewhat similar situation, wanted high-impact bass / low-mids in a "too small" room, all brick walls, and not much options to add reasonable low-end damping. I've ended up with large 15" PA coaxial user near-field (5'), naked driver (without baffle) dipoles, and a dipole 18" sub right behind the listening chair. With full DRC (and DSP XO), otherwise little chances to get a nice low end even with dipoles. Attempts with a limited amout of box-type speakers failed in my subjective assessment, even with full DRC. Lot's of punch but "unnaturally" bloated/overloaded IMHO. The dipoles traded some perceived punch with speed, resolution and an overall impression of ease that the room. "Full body headphone" type of sound, one could say.

Then again, ...

The goal is to be able to sit in a room, making this music, having it impact my body. The work can then make it to the club / venue with minimal error correction being done by a mixing engineer.

... maybe with right kind of large box speakers, say corner-placed Danley Sound Labs SH50 Synergy Horns, some sub(s), good room treatment and a final touchup with DRC one should arrive at a rig that translates very well to club sound and sounds as large as any possible in a small room. I hope you have tolerant neighbors in this case ;-) ... the mentioned dipole setup is quite neighbor-friendly, OTOH.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Huh.....I never was aware of any particular 1970's acoustic ideology, but maybe I was just too busy frequenting the disco and 'trying to make a new friend tonight'.

 

[sergeauckland]

Huh.....I never was aware of any particular 1970's acoustic ideology, but maybe I was just too busy frequenting the disco and 'trying to make a new friend tonight'.

Nor me. If there was any 'ideology', it was about achieving the lowest coloration. This meant a flat frequency response, low distortion and noise. The idea of choosing equipment by sound, expect possibly for loudspeakers, wasn't thing as I recall. All turntables just had to go round at the right speed, and amplifiers deliver a larger version of the input. Subjectivism, as in listening to anything from amplifiers to loudspeaker stands and cables and buying what sounded best (without applying any controls, even volume matching), didn't come in until later when the magazines gave up technical reviewing for subjective scribblings.

S

 

[gene_stl]

1970's acoustic ideology must involve the Weather Underground somehow (which would fit with the comment directly above)

So this makes me laugh.
There was a guy at my high school who wanted to organize a Students for a Democratic Society chapter. We had a very intellectual high school where almost all the stoonts went to college and many went to Hahvahd and other Ivy League schools.
In the interest of starting this chapter (circa 1966 or 67) SDS sent in one Jay Guy Nassberg as an organizer who worked with the local guy mentioned above. A very well attended meeting was held at someone's house on a Saturday. I would say 40 or 50 left leaning , anti Viet Nam war high school stoonts turned up. Absolutely nothing else happened and it went absolutely no further.

But there was tittering about Guy Nassberg because somehow it was rumored that he was gay. I don't think we used that word but we may have.
The local organizer amusingly was one Maimon Schwarzschild. He is now a professor of law (if not retired by now) at University of San Diego and a mouthpiece for Right Wing causes. He would have liked to have been a Weatherman if he had had the balls but was an armchair socialist. (I know this to be a fact because I accused him of it at the time)
Interestingly there was one guy in my high school class (1968) who was found by the FBI to have accumulated a bunch of explosives in his parents garage and he went to jail for it and ruined his life. I only heard about that in the late 70s and I don't believe he had attended the SDS organizing meeting. I think he was radicalized somewhat after high school. He had not been the sharpest tool in the shed.

When I found THAT out I looked up Jay Guy Nassberg and found out he has been an audiophile salesman and equipment reviewer and music reviewer. He now calls himself Jason Serinus.

https://www.jasonserinus.com/
https://www.jasonserinus.com/pages/writing.html
https://www.crmvet.org/vet/nassberg.htm

https://www.sandiego.edu/directory/biography.php?profile_id=3178
https://www.sandiego.edu/law/faculty/biography.php?profile_id=3178
https://timpanogos.blog/2007/09/10/pete-seeger-standing-taller-than-his-critics/

 

[Blumlein 88]

People seem to forget or weren't alive then. This whole subjectivist audio thing took off just after the introduction of CD. I've a few ideas about that, not that they are unique or particularly clever.

The two early publications that allowed subjectivist audio to become the more dominant idea among higher quality gear was Stereophile and TAS. Stereophile was published in 1962, but the founder was a poor business man, and I don't think the ideas of subjectivist listening as the defining method of evaluating gear found much fallow ground. I don't think he ever had more than 2500 subscribers (the only way to get it) while JGH owned it. HiFi....High Fidelity was the reigning idealogy. HiFi mag and Audio and Stereo Review were big magazines.

Larry Archibald purchased the Stereophile in 1982, just as CD was getting off the ground. He ran a direct marketing mail program where he sent offers to everyone who was a subscriber of the big mags. Most had never heard of it and that is when it took off. That is when I subscribed to it. One of the big deals is this new digital sound with its perfect specs was being claimed by some to be un-enjoyable and somehow very flawed. Never mind perfect specs, they don't tell the truth, only by listening can you determine true quality of gear. Now at the time many systems were far from being real high fidelity rigs. Often you had put together things relying on LP as a source that was a group of complimentary flaws to end up with something nice. Drop a truly transparent CD in such a system and no shit it sounded awful quite often. So this subjectively oriented mag was saying CD was somehow flawed, and new subscribers heard the same thing and hey maybe these guys are onto something. Interestingly the founder JGH who continued writing for Stereophile after selling it gave good reviews to digital and CD. Praising the vanishing levels of noise, no wow and flutter, and deep solid bass response never before available. But his rig was Soundlab ESL's and Audio Research gear which were pretty transparent for the time. And so digital sound was saddled with blame for being flawed that it didn't deserve.

Interestingly, JGH the founder of Stereophile came to regret what he created. He never thought specs were unimportant or that audio was mystical. Just that the normal simple specs of FR, THD, and noise didn't tell enough to pick good gear from bad. He always thought with enough understanding specs would suffice. Until then you did need to listen and decide for yourself the final result.

TAS was started by Harry Pearson in 1973, and had even fewer subscribers. He saw what LA had done and somewhat copied it after a few years by marketing to the list of subscribers at other big mags. TAS more so than Stereophile early on was responsible for the idea more expensive is always better, and a total ignorance of specs was just fine being totally subjective about gear. They also had a whole slew of reviewers with PhD's at one time. Seeming to add credibility to what might have been seen as a whacky idea. Of course the PhD's were not in technical fields. Or mostly weren't.

All of this is quite interesting as a cultural phenomenon which has mislead millions for 40 years now. How something so wrong, and so demonstrably mistaken just can't be killed. The hydra of subjectivist audio. Interesting personally to me as I was taken by it for about 20 years and had enough technical understanding I should have known better. Yet with the right story, the right experiences, it was something that can be quite satisfying among groups of like-minded audiophiles in a way that the truth can't match. The truth just isn't able to scratch so many itches as a well worn myth.

 

[mocenigo]

Subjectivism picked momentum also with the advent of Japanese single ended direct heated triode amps and high efficiency speakers. At the time there was an abuse of negative feedback in amplification - not too much but used in the wrong way - and around the same time Otala showed TIM (a particular instance of slew rate indices distortion) - so a lot of people realised that measurements were not all, or they were at least incomplete. The DHT triodes paired with high efficiency speakers offered a coloured sound that was however also very detailed, had better transients (to a point, for the time), more correct bass, or at least easier to follow during a listening session, and so on. So, instead of going for a more scientific approach a lot of people went for the ears-only one, and even started to believe that the ears were more precise than any measurement device.

Today we know better how to have good measurements and how they relate to psychoacoustic perception. Even though I would not be sure 100%, I would say that today we know how to build “perfect” amplification stages. What we still need to do, is to be able to simulate the effects of “imperfect” amplifiers to sufficient precision to reproduce any type of sound - at least without needing a liquid nitrogen cooled computer…