Early horizontal reflections - isn't there a price to be paid?

[andreasmaaan]

Hmm, I didn't really get that impression. My impression of what he normally means 'narrow' are large horns, and he has the historical impression of a time when they were more common, probably.

"In those days the powerful main monitor loudspeakers were moderately directional mid- and high-frequency horns, and side walls were usually angled to direct the residual first lateral reflections into the broadband back wall absorber. Recording engineers preferred to be in a strong direct sound field, and that is what they got."
(Talking about recording control rooms)"On the more distant loudspeakers some directional control is desirable to deliver sound to the listening area, not the room boundaries. Horns are common. "
"In Figure 18.3a a classic large horn loudspeaker exhibits evidence of acoustical interference and high directivity, both typical of the genre, but the underlying spectral balance was well maintained on and off axis."

He also implies a few times that the spin is mostly meant to deal with conventional forward-firing speakers, so it doesn't make much sense that he'd be talking about dipoles otherwise.

"Examples in this book have emphasized loudspeakers of the most common configuration: forward firing cone/ dome or cone/ horn. It needs to be asked: What about other designs, like dipoles, bipoles, and omnidirectional? Do the rules change?"

Toole, Floyd E.. Sound Reproduction (Audio Engineering Society Presents) (p. 346). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Toole, Floyd E.. Sound Reproduction (Audio Engineering Society Presents) (p. 346). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

That said, I don't totally disagree with you. Most of what's tested here would probably be on the 'wider' side. The question then becomes what's optimal for most people.

Fair reading The section of Sound Reproduction I had in mind when making my comments was 7.4.2 (pp 174-184), where he most frequently (I think) contrasts "wide" with "narrow" directivity in his discussion.

There, he characterises the Rega Model 3 and the KEF 105.2 as "wider" and the Quad ESL63 as "narrow". For example:

In these tests a loudspeaker with narrower dispersion, but with more uniform output off-axis, was given lower ratings than two loudspeakers with wider dispersion, but uneven output off-axis, suggesting that some amount of laterally reflected energy is desirable, even if it is spectrally distorted.

The radiation patterns of these speakers are given:

I'd call the Rega and the KEF, which Toole refers to here as "wider", about "average" by ASR standards. I'd call the Quad narrow by any standard (ofc, given that it's a panel speaker).

I totally agree with you that he seems to characterise larger horns as "narrow", too.

Just not so sure some of the speakers we tend to call "narrow" around here are "narrow" in the sense that Toole means when he uses the word.

 

[tmtomh]

directivity and sidewall reflections are two sides of the same coin. So it's somewhat the opposite of what you are saying. The more sidewall reflections are absorbed, the less significant the dispersion characteristics of the speakers become.

After all, the dispersion characteristics of the speaker are meaningless for a stationary listener without sidewall reflections.

Imagine listening in an anechoic chamber -- you only hear the direct sound and directivity becomes meaningless. It is similar to listening to open-back headphones. There is no soundstage width beyond what is already in the recording. This is one of the reasons recording engineers may prefer being in a stronger direct sound field. Regardless of whether having louder or quieter reflections is more pleasant than the other, one certainly lets you hear more of the music and less of the room around it.

Ultimately you just need to find the balance between dispersion and reflections that works for you.

I forget whom I stole this from, but I generally describe it as such: narrow directivity/high room treatment transports you to the recording venue, while wide directivity/reflective sidewalls brings the musicians into your home.

It depends on the music and how much spatial information it has built into the recording itself, but I think it helps get the idea across.

This is very helpful and makes a lot of sense, thanks!

One follow-up question: isn't it possible that a wider-dispersion speaker could still provide a more pleasing experience even with side-wall absorption because it would reduce beaming compared to a narrow-dispersion speaker? In other words, might a narrow-dispersion speaker tend to make sounds coming from the L and R edges of the soundstage appear to be directly coming from the speaker more, whereas a wider-dispersion speaker might "disappear" more, even with side-wall absorbers in place?

 

[ctrl]

Although many people seem to disagree with his opinion, (as far as I know) nobody could prove him wrong by presenting contradicting repeatable measurements.

Well, let's not get too philosophical. This shall not become another thread of dis-/belief... It is a science, at last:

Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial

The first thing that stands out is that Ethan Winer does not base the statements in his text on any scientific literature (At least he does not specify a single source).
Rather he says, for example:

The value of absorbers at reflection points is common knowledge for professional listeners, and should likewise be the goal for an audiophile or home theater enthusiast who wants a listening environment as excellent as a million dollar control room.

I can understand a lot of what he says about studio control rooms. For example, I can understand that there should be a "reflection free zone" at the studio work position if possible. Since it is recommended that recordings should not contain early reflections below 15ms (these are added by the listening room of the end user) and in order to be able to recognize them in recordings, the studio workplace should not contain them itself.


There are statements that not only contradict the papers cited by Toole in his book, but also relatively recent research:

Some audiophiles believe that reflections in a listening room enhance spaciousness. On the surface this seems plausible, though it's incorrect for home-size rooms .... the strong early reflections from nearby surfaces drown out the larger sounding reverb in the recording. This makes the music sound smaller and narrower, not larger and wider.

This statement of Toole that "early reflections increase clarity" I did not know:

Floyd claims that early reflections increase clarity, and cites research that proves "people" prefer the sound of music with early reflections present. But of those tested, how many were experienced listeners and how many were regular folk with no particular interest in audio and music? If the tests included "civilians" who don't listen for a living or even as a hobby, it's difficult to accept the results.

I also disagree with Dr. Toole's claim that side-wall reflections sound best when they're "neutral," coming from loudspeakers that have a flat off-axis response. If the reflections coming off a wall have the same frequency content as the direct sound, the comb filtering will be most severe.

The study:
Let's take a look at what a study from the year 2013 has to say about this.
Influence of First Reflections in Listening Room on Subjective Listener Impression of Reproduced Sound

I have listed the room used for the experiments and the experimental setup below. The distance to the side wall is a bit large for a typical listening room, but otherwise this corresponds to a realistic listening situation. The first reflections are all in the range 3-7ms. In many forums reflections below 10ms for listening rooms are called "devil's stuff" and it is requested to absorb them completely by room treating.
Therefore, the use of absorbers should result in a significant improvement in sound quality.

Room treatment:

The listening room using nine patterns of acoustic treatments (R original , R none , R S , R F , R B , R SF , R SB , R FB , and R SFB ) were applied on the room described above.
The placement of the absorption panels for those surfaces will be referred as ‘Front wall and the ceiling‘, ‘Side wall’, and ‘Back wall’, and the abbreviations are used in referring to a room treatment as in R SB (“First Reflection Area” from side and back walls are absorbed). The “First Reflection Area” placement for the nine variations of the room is shown in Figure 3.

Implementation:

The ages of the subjects were between 19 and 24. The subjects also had experiences in timbral ear training and psychoacoustic tests.
...
For each of the nine variations, an impulse response was
measured using Genelec 8260A loudspeakers, Bruel &
Kjaer Head and Torso Simulator Type 4128-C dummy
head placed at the listening position, Bruel ＆ Kjaer
NEXUS Conditioning Amplifier, and RME Fireface
UFX audio interface. Recording was done using Avid
Pro Tools 10 (48kHz/16bit) on Apple MacBook Pro
(Mid 2009). Diagram of the setup is shown in Figure 3.
Swept-sine signal from 20Hz to 20kHz was used for
measuring the impulse responses.

Three music programs used in this experiment: Norah
Jones “Don’t Know Why” from Come Away With Me
(NJ), Ray Charles “Here We Go Again” from Genius
Loves Company (RC), and an anechoic recording of
xylophone used in the Archimedes Project [11] (XY).
Three programs were convolved with the impulse
responses to create 27 stimuli for the listening test.

What are the results?

Among the seven attributes “Timbre brightness”, “Timbre naturalness”, “Reverb suitability” and “Listening preference” did not show significant differences between almost all pairs of the variations of the listening room.

Because three other attributes “Width of sound image”, “Envelopment”, and “Clarity” showed significant differences among the nine variations of listening room treatments, the following discussions are done for the three attributes.

• Absorption of the First Reflections Area on the side walls: “Width of sound image” will be narrower and “Envelopment” will be lower.

• Absorption of the First Reflections Area on the front wall and the ceiling: “Width of sound image” will be narrower and “Clarity” will increase.

• Absorption of the First Reflections Area on the back wall: “Width of sound image” will be narrower, “Envelopment” will be lower, and “Clarity” increases.

• Regardless of the absorption of the First Reflection Area, listening impression will change according to absorption of the other areas.

The results are clearly more differentiated than the general statements of Ethan Winer and are partly diametrically opposed to them.
The results correspond quite well with the experiences reported here in the thread.

How can such a different perception come about?
Perhaps one should consider that the listening position in the listening room shown by Ethan Winer is far away from loudspeakers and therefore the ratio of direct to diffuse sound is different than in the optimal stereo triangle of the AES paper.

 

[tmtomh]

The first thing that stands out is that Ethan Winer does not base the statements in his text on any scientific literature (At least he does not specify a single source).
Rather he says, for example:


I can understand a lot of what he says about studio control rooms. For example, I can understand that there should be a "reflection free zone" at the studio work position if possible. Since it is recommended that recordings should not contain early reflections below 15ms (these are added by the listening room of the end user) and in order to be able to recognize them in recordings, the studio workplace should not contain them itself.


There are statements that not only contradict the papers cited by Toole in his book, but also relatively recent research:


This statement of Toole that "early reflections increase clarity" I did not know:




The study:
Let's take a look at what a study from the year 2013 has to say about this.
Influence of First Reflections in Listening Room on Subjective Listener Impression of Reproduced Sound

I have listed the room used for the experiments and the experimental setup below. The distance to the side wall is a bit large for a typical listening room, but otherwise this corresponds to a realistic listening situation. The first reflections are all in the range 3-7ms. In many forums reflections below 10ms for listening rooms are called "devil's stuff" and it is requested to absorb them completely by room treating.
Therefore, the use of absorbers should result in a significant improvement in sound quality.
View attachment 87823

Room treatment:

View attachment 87825

Implementation:



What are the results?


View attachment 87830View attachment 87831View attachment 87832



The results are clearly more differentiated than the general statements of Ethan Winer and are partly diametrically opposed to them.
The results correspond quite well with the experiences reported here in the thread.

How can such a different perception come about?
Perhaps one should consider that the listening position in the listening room shown by Ethan Winer is far away from loudspeakers and therefore the ratio of direct to diffuse sound is different than in the optimal stereo triangle of the AES paper.
View attachment 87833

I don't know. By my reading, only the "width of sound image" aspect seems to contradict what Winer claims. As far as "Envelopment," Winer doesn't make any claims about that, but he seems to imply that "envelopment" is, as a matter of "taste," not really a high-fidelity thing - he strongly implies that mixing engineers and other professionals, whom he claims know best what good sound is, don't prioritize that kind of thing.

As for clarity, he claims absorption will increase it, which fits with the experimental results above.

 

[tuga]

I posted this in another topic this morning but it makes sense to paste it here too:

An interesting definition of acoustic "clarity" on the Encyclopædia Britannica website:

Acoustic criteria

The amplitude of the reverberant sound relative to the direct sound is referred to as "fullness".
"Clarity", the opposite of "fullness", is achieved by reducing the amplitude of the reverberant sound.
"Fullness" generally implies a long reverberation time, while "clarity" implies a shorter reverberation time.
A "fuller sound" is generally required of Romantic music or performances by larger groups, while more "clarity" would be desirable in the performance of rapid passages from Bach or Mozart or in speech.

https://www.britannica.com/science/acoustics/Acoustic-criteria#ref527626

It perhaps explains why the effects of euphonic harmonic distortion are often described as responsiible for producing a "fuller" sound, and also some people's preference for a more "lively" or reflective and reverberant room.


I am with Ethan Winer on this one and suggest the reading of his Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial piece.

 

[Hipper]

I don't think requirements in control rooms, cinemas or with multi channel systems are relevant to the question of the OP which I interpret as:

'What do you prefer with home stereo listening, side wall reflections or no side wall reflections?' He points out that removing side wall reflections tightens up the phantom image pleasingly but removes the pleasure that could be got from the possible greater envelopment with side wall reflections - 'the price to be paid' as he puts in the thread title.

In the second post March Audio sums up my experience and that is the OP's observation is correct and he should just enjoy the one he prefers.

My experience is that I used to enjoy side wall reflections because I thought I did and I read that I should! I had tried diffusors on the side walls but they didn't have enough space to perform properly and I could actually hear them. When I revamped my listening room I added lots more bass traps and prevented side wall reflections, both the first and second ones, by placing panels on feet right beside the outside of each speaker, not on the walls. Straight away it was obvious that the sound was sharper, clearer. Over three years now having got comfortable with the sound I love it! My listening though is mostly studio bound pop of varying quality of recording but they are all enjoyable. When I occasionally play classical, quartets and other small combos sound good and full orchestras or large choirs sound OK but perhaps may be better with reflections - I should try that.

What has always puzzled me with reflections and the psychoacoustic aspect of them is the question I asked here in my post 40:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-the-sound-enthusiast.8883/page-2#post-234038

 

[ctrl]

I don't know. By my reading, only the "width of sound image" aspect seems to contradict what Winer claims. As far as "Envelopment," Winer doesn't make any claims about that, but he seems to imply that "envelopment" is, as a matter of "taste," not really a high-fidelity thing - he strongly implies that mixing engineers and other professionals, whom he claims know best what good sound is, don't prioritize that kind of thing.

As for clarity, he claims absorption will increase it, which fits with the experimental results above.

I can agree with that, I nowhere claim that Ethan Winer is completely wrong with his statements - quiet the opposite.

Only statements like:

Some audiophiles believe that reflections in a listening room enhance spaciousness. On the surface this seems plausible, though it's incorrect for home-size rooms .... the strong early reflections from nearby surfaces drown out the larger sounding reverb in the recording. This makes the music sound smaller and narrower, not larger and wider.

I also disagree with Dr. Toole's claim that side-wall reflections sound best when they're "neutral," coming from loudspeakers that have a flat off-axis response. If the reflections coming off a wall have the same frequency content as the direct sound, the comb filtering will be most severe. ...
This is basic math, and a rolled-off response at high frequencies is the same as having high frequency absorption on the walls. So while a flat off-axis response is an important goal of all loudspeakers, that actually harms audio quality when early reflections are allowed. Therefore, if you have good loudspeakers, it's even more important to absorb reflections, not less important as some people claim.

are directly or indirectly refuted by the paper.

The paper also suggests that if you want the best of everything, you should be more cautious when installing absorbers.
For me the Room-F treatment seems to offer the best of everything.

As for clarity, I find nothing contradictory in Toole's book (when quickly browsing the pages) - is this really a point of controversy? Therefore, references are important, does anyone have the source to Toole's alleged statement?

 

[andreasmaaan]

As for clarity, I find nothing contradictory in Toole's book (when quickly browsing the pages) - is this really a point of controversy? Therefore, references are important, does anyone have the source to Toole's alleged statement?

I suspect this a reference to Toole's discussion of speech intelligibility. I can see how you could read Toole this way. He states that:

"Clarity is a quality that corresponds to intelligibility, although it is not a direct quantitative measure of that parameter." (p. 352)

And then:

"In summary, the phantom center image is spatially and timbrally flawed, even to the point of affecting speech intelligibility, especially if the direct sound is dominant. In the context of the phantom stereo center image, early-reflected sounds appear to be beneficial." (p. 165)...

"In the field of architectural acoustics it has long been recognized that early reflections improve speech intelligibility." (p. 200)

Etc...

 

[tuga]

I suspect this a reference to Toole's discussion of speech intelligibility. I can see how you could read Toole this way. He states that:

"Clarity is a quality that corresponds to intelligibility, although it is not a direct quantitative measure of that parameter." (p. 352)

And then:

"In summary, the phantom center image is spatially and timbrally flawed, even to the point of affecting speech intelligibility, especially if the direct sound is dominant. In the context of the phantom stereo center image, early-reflected sounds appear to be beneficial." (p. 165)...

"In the field of architectural acoustics it has long been recognized that early reflections improve speech intelligibility." (p. 200)

Etc...

I don't know if that is the case with Toole but we can't conflate the characteristics required for a room for live music and speech which requires that the room boundaries complement the direct sound with rooms for reproduction of recordings. They have different purposes.

When a minimally mic'ed real stereo recording such as Kavakos playing Sibelius Violin Concerto by BIS is reproduced in a typical untreated sitting room the latter's acoustics will overlap the ambience cues of the recording and thus reducing the sense of looking into the original venue's (captured) soundscape.
Room reflections may help make the speakers disappear as sources and produce a sense of immersivenes and file a few rough edges (we've all experienced the improvement that is singing in the shower) and the perception of a wider soundstage but it affects phantom image sharpness and reduces realism by destroying the cues that are present in many classical music recordings. Early reflectlions are inherently lower fidelity.
But like harmonic distortion they may and do sound pleasing to many people.
Harman seems to like them and that is they put so much stress in a smooth off-axis response which is obviously more important when you don't treat early reflections and/or with wide-directivity speakers.

 

[napilopez]

I appreciate a lot of Weiner's contributions, and his piece on early reflections was one of the first things I read when I started getting into speakers. But now it's hard to take it seriously when he makes no mention of the fact that horizontal reflections are not interpreted by the brain as a simple comb filter. Not to be too repetitive, but there's a full segment on this in Toole's book too....

My very rudimentary experiments of room treatment, reading of the science, and visiting studios personally makes me believe that dealing with ceiling, front, and rear refections can be very beneficial for clarity of whathaveyou. Sidewall, it's subjective, depends on the music and speakers, etc.

This is very helpful and makes a lot of sense, thanks!

One follow-up question: isn't it possible that a wider-dispersion speaker could still provide a more pleasing experience even with side-wall absorption because it would reduce beaming compared to a narrow-dispersion speaker? In other words, might a narrow-dispersion speaker tend to make sounds coming from the L and R edges of the soundstage appear to be directly coming from the speaker more, whereas a wider-dispersion speaker might "disappear" more, even with side-wall absorbers in place?

My understanding is that no, not really. Simplifying a bit, and assuming a stationary listener, all that really matters is the direct sound and what reflects back at us. There are two ways to control that: the directivity and the reflectivity of your room.

More to the point: as you imply, in the same space, hard-panned sounds to the L or R speakers are more likely to sound like the soundstage is coming from the speaker itself on narrow speakers, and more likely to come from 'outside' the speakers on wide speakers. The only reason this happens is because of reflections. The louder sidewall reflections in the wider speaker cause the image source to appear to broaden and shift slightly in the direction of the reflection, as part of the precedence effect.

Take those super-wide speakers into an empty field, perform the same comparison, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. There are no reflections and the directivity of the speaker becomes irrelevant, as far as I know.

I guess you could say there's a greater difference between your left and right ears on a narrow speaker, but I'm not aware of this having any major effect at typical listening distances.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I don't know if that is the case with Toole but we can't conflate the characteristics required for a room for live music and speech which requires that the room boundaries complement the direct sound with rooms for reproduction of recordings. They have different purposes.

Toole's discussion is interested in the intelligibility of speech reproduced by loudspeakers, not of live speech.

Room reflections may help make the speakers disappear as sources and produce a sense of immersivenes and file a few rough edges (we've all experienced the improvement that is singing in the shower) and the perception of a wider soundstage but it affects phantom image sharpness and reduces realism by destroying the cues that are present in many classical music recordings.

I agree with you to a point. Yes, reflections tend to reduce image sharpness, but the claim that this "reduces realism" seems nebulous to me.

 

[tmtomh]

My understanding is that no, not really. Simplifying a bit, and assuming a stationary listener, all that really matters is the direct sound and what reflects back at us. There are two ways to control that: the directivity and the reflectivity of your room.

More to the point: as you imply, in the same space, hard-panned sounds to the L or R speakers are more likely to sound like the soundstage is coming from the speaker itself on narrow speakers, and more likely to come from 'outside' the speakers on wide speakers. The only reason this happens is because of reflections. The louder sidewall reflections in the wider speaker cause the image source to appear to broaden and shift slightly in the direction of the reflection, as part of the precedence effect.

Take those super-wide speakers into an empty field, perform the same comparison, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. There are no reflections and the directivity of the speaker becomes irrelevant, as far as I know.

I guess you could say there's a greater difference between your left and right ears on a narrow speaker, but I'm not aware of this having any major effect at typical listening distances.

Thanks very much! This is making me think that Erin's Audio Corner is onto something with his setup of his everyday speakers hidden behind an acoustically transparent fake wall/curtain - in other words, if hard-panned sounds look like they're coming from the speaker, that's not - as some audiophiles claim - a problem with the speaker design ("narrow soundstage," "too boxy sounding"), but rather the impact of a lack of side-wall reflections, either because of absorption or because of the speaker's dispersion pattern or dispersion frequency response.

 

[amadeuswus]

When a minimally mic'ed real stereo recording such as Kavakos playing Sibelius Violin Concerto by BIS is reproduced in a typical untreated sitting room the latter's acoustics will overlap the ambience cues of the recording and thus reducing the sense of looking into the original venue's (captured) soundscape.

Thanks for mentioning this recording. I am streaming it now and find it so refreshing to hear the violin soloist in a natural relationship to the orchestra (instead of drowning out the orchestra, as on so many other recordings). Back to the regularly scheduled programming of this thread....

 

[tuga]

Toole's discussion is interested in the intelligibility of speech reproduced by loudspeakers, not of live speech.

But I remember correctly he uses examples of rooms for speech, not rooms for speech reproduction.

I agree with you to a point. Yes, reflections tend to reduce image sharpness, but the claim that this "reduces realism" seems nebulous to me.

I say that it reduces realism when reproducing recordings of classical music which in their documental approach have capture the ambience or acoustic cues of the original event. If you add your room's acoustic footprint on top you get confusion. You will get more immersiveness and spaciousness which can be benefical with close-mic'ed studio produced music.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But I remember correctly he uses examples of rooms for speech, not rooms for speech reproduction.

I guess he may refer to a lot of different examples throughout the book. To the best of my memory, the studies that investigate the effects of reflections on speech intelligibility involve loudspeakers reproducing recorded speech. I can't guarantee there aren't other studies mentioned in the book that investigate speech intelligibility using live speech as the stimulus, but I don't recall these if they are there.

I say that it reduces realism when reproducing recordings of classical music which in their documental approach have capture the ambience or acoustic cues of the original event. If you add your room's acoustic footprint on top you get confusion.

Is an anechoic chamber is the only way to completely avoid this confusion and get the most realistic experience possible?

 

[tuga]

Is an anechoic chamber is the only way to completely avoid this confusion and get the most realistic experience possible?

Since you've added "only" and "completely" my answer is yes. The room creates interference. It's a bit like watching TV in a room covered in mirrors.

You can try listening outdoors.
We are all very used to listening to room interference/distotion when reproducing music and expect it. If you show the effects of room EQ in a really bad room many will say that the low bass has gone missing.

No one contests the nead to treat or EQ below 300Hz but because, like other types of euphonic distortion, early reflections sound good to many people including Toole its treatment doesn't seem as necessary or even beneficial.
I think that listening to classical music in a control or mixing room is a good experience. Or a very large room at nearfield or midfield distances.

 

[napilopez]

I say that it reduces realism when reproducing recordings of classical music which in their documental approach have capture the ambience or acoustic cues of the original event. If you add your room's acoustic footprint on top you get confusion. You will get more immersiveness and spaciousness which can be benefical with close-mic'ed studio produced music.

I don't totally disagree with this -- the more ambient cues in the music itself, the better narrower speakers sound to me. Which is why binaural is the ultimate form of audio for me Shame it's so darn inconvenient...

That said, it seems we both to a lot of classical music and have come to opposite preferences on speakers and treatment I miss going to live music...

Thanks very much! This is making think that Erin's Audio Corner is onto something with his setup of his everyday speakers hidden behind an acoustically transparent fake wall/curtain - in other words, if hard-panned sounds look like they're coming from the speaker, that's not - as some audiophiles claim - a problem with the speaker design ("narrow soundstage," "too boxy sounding"), but rather the impact of a lack of side-wall reflections, either because of absorption or because of the speaker's dispersion pattern or dispersion frequency response.

This is a good point. Yeah, narrow is not necessarily a problem, and again, most speakers are not that narrow. I personally like seeing my speakers, but I do very much hate the impression of sound coming right from the speaker. It's why I can't do center channels. I know the sounds is coming right from the speaker, and since I can only fit it slightly below the screen, it drives me nuts.

Just this week I tried setting up a center speaker again and hated it, but I'd likely feel differently in a setup like erins. I certainly don't mind a center when I go(went) to the actual cinema.

 

[tuga]

I miss going to live music...

Me too.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Since you've added "only" and "completely" my answer is yes. The room creates interference. It's a bit like watching TV in a room covered in mirrors.

Fair enough Agree to disagree I guess...

No one contests the nead to treat or EQ below 300Hz but because, like other types of euphonic distortion, early reflections sound good to many people including Toole its treatment doesn't seem as necessary or even beneficial.

It's essentially the characterisation as "distortion" that I struggle with. There is no information in the recording about the reproduction space (nor the directivity of the speakers for that matter). As I see it, therefore, there can be preferences as to these characteristics, but there is no "correct" basis from which all divergence constitutes "distortion".

 

[tuga]

It's essentially the characterisation as "distortion" that I struggle with. There is no information in the recording about the reproduction space (nor the directivity of the speakers for that matter). As I see it, therefore, there can be preferences as to these characteristics, but there is no "correct" basis from which all divergence constitutes "distortion".

Would you agree, in theory at least, that once the electric signal has been transduced into sound waves the highest accuracy or fidelity is achieved by getting those waves to reach the listener's ears without modification?

Anyway, things like soundstage, spaciousness and envelopment are mostly an audiophile thing, and a matter of preference at that.
In my view they're a complement or a surrogate for the lack of visual cues, and also an enhancer of the listening experience.


Reading this forum I often find that matters of preference, or a particular kind of "approved" preference, has somehow been elevated to a status of "science" with very fragile or dubious evidence to support it.