expensive and cheap(er) speakers after correction

[dasdoing]

There is only one speaker costing less than 500 bucks in the top 25. It's the $160 Pioneer and it would require a pair of subs, as would most of the speakers tested.

The preference rating scale goes from 1 to 10. Only 16 speakers are rated 5 or above, the cheapest ones costs $600 and guess what, they all both subs.

judging by the list jbl studio 530 looks like a steal though

 

[richard12511]

judging by the list jbl studio 530 looks like a steal though

And they go on sale quite often. I picked up a pair recently during one such sale.

 

[dasdoing]

I think whether it makes sense or not would depend on the person thinking about it. The belief that absorbing first reflections is always better is one of those myths that I'm not exactly sure how it started. It's a very pervasive belief that is opposite of what the blind tests that Toole and Olive conducted show. Most people under blind conditions actually prefer those early reflections left intact. By absorbing those first reflections, you're actually making the sound worse(most of the time). Of course, this is not what acoustic treatment companies will tell you, but you must consider that they're trying to sell you acoustic treatments

Here's a section of Dr. Toole's AES paper.

“It was in this room [Dr. Toole’s Reference IEC room at National Research Council] that experience was gained in understanding the role of first reflections from the side walls. The drapes were on tracks, permitting them to easily be brought forward toward the listening area so listeners could compare impressions with natural and attenuated lateral reflections (see Figures 4.10a and 8.8). In stereo listening, the effect would be considered by most as being subtle, but to the extent that there was a preference in terms of sound and imaging quality, the votes favored having the side walls left in a reflective state. In mono listening, the voting definitely favored having the side walls reflective."\

"See the discussions in Chapter 8, and Figures 8.1 and 8.2, which show that attenuating first reflections seriously compromises the diffusivity of the sound field and the sense of ASW/image broadening."

not sure the blind testing counts in this case. if you are not used to it, treated reflection zones will sound strange to you.
I am used to it, and if I hear a setup without it I "only hear walls".
but it sure can be a preference thing also. I like a clean stereo image. I want to hear the instrument where the producer put it. I want to hear things as if I were in the place they were recorded (although this is an ilusion). things can sound good in many ways. many people love how headphones sound, even though they sound very unanatural and in the head.

 

[QMuse]

not sure the blind testing counts in this case. if you are not used to it, treated reflection zones will sound strange to you.
I am used to it, and if I hear a setup without it I "only hear walls".
but it sure can be a preference thing also. I like a clean stereo image. I want to hear the instrument where the producer put it. I want to hear things as if I were in the place they were recorded (although this is an ilusion). things can sound good in many ways. many people love how headphones sound, even though they sound very unanatural and in the head.

Have you also applied room EQ?

 

[tuga]

I think whether it makes sense or not would depend on the person thinking about it. The belief that absorbing first reflections is always better is one of those myths that I'm not exactly sure how it started. It's a very pervasive belief that is opposite of what the blind tests that Toole and Olive conducted show. Most people under blind conditions actually prefer those early reflections left intact. By absorbing those first reflections, you're actually making the sound worse(most of the time). Of course, this is not what acoustic treatment companies(like the one in the link you provided) will tell you, but you must consider that they're trying to sell you acoustic treatments

Here's a section of Dr. Toole's AES paper.

“It was in this room [Dr. Toole’s Reference IEC room at National Research Council] that experience was gained in understanding the role of first reflections from the side walls. The drapes were on tracks, permitting them to easily be brought forward toward the listening area so listeners could compare impressions with natural and attenuated lateral reflections (see Figures 4.10a and 8.8). In stereo listening, the effect would be considered by most as being subtle, but to the extent that there was a preference in terms of sound and imaging quality, the votes favored having the side walls left in a reflective state. In mono listening, the voting definitely favored having the side walls reflective."\

"See the discussions in Chapter 8, and Figures 8.1 and 8.2, which show that attenuating first reflections seriously compromises the diffusivity of the sound field and the sense of ASW/image broadening."

Treating the first reflection zones is the same as listening mid-field in a large or wide room or using narrow directivity speakers.
And you don't have to use absorption or diffusion, you can just deflect first reflections away from the listening spot. If that's what you like.
At this point there is no doubt that it is a matter of preference since non-treating and/or wide-directivity produce euphonic effects such as widening of the soundstage (extending real-stereo outside of the space between speakers) and making the experience more enveloping, but it is not without downsides (wider and fuzzier images, overlaying recorded acoustic cues with listening room interference).

 

[richard12511]

not sure the blind testing counts in this case. if you are not used to it, treated reflection zones will sound strange to you.
I am used to it, and if I hear a setup without it I "only hear walls".
but it sure can be a preference thing also. I like a clean stereo image. I want to hear the instrument where the producer put it. I want to hear things as if I were in the place they were recorded (although this is an ilusion). things can sound good in many ways. many people love how headphones sound, even though they sound very unanatural and in the head.

The testing has to be blind, or it's meaningless, imo. The mere fact that you spent money on those treatments(or made them) will all but guarantee that using them will sound better under sighted conditions, but that may be your brain playing tricks on you.

That said, I do think there's a personal preference aspect. Most people prefer to leave them reflective, but that doesn't mean all do, and that doesn't mean in all rooms. You're trading sharper imaging for a wider soundstage. I've tried both extensively in multiple rooms, and I prefer leaving the side reflections intact. I do, however, prefer the front and back walls treated.

 

[tomtoo]

Peference rating refers first and foremost to tonal balance.

Performance is not just tonal balance.

I sign this, but makes no sense when we talk about that table.

 

[edechamps]

that makes no sense. there is ambience in the recordings. and it's bigger, and more important, cleaner than the ambience in you room. you hear a mix of two ambiences with the worse one beeing dominant. also you add phase issues and distorsion: https://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

There has already been some discussion around that article. It is quite controversial and many people here do not accept its conclusions, preferring Toole's well-argued position that early reflections are often beneficial.

 

[dasdoing]

Have you also applied room EQ?

yes

The testing has to be blind, or it's meaningless, imo. The mere fact that you spent money on those treatments(or made them) will all but guarantee that using them will sound better under sighted conditions, but that may be your brain playing tricks on you.

That said, I do think there's a personal preference aspect. Most people prefer to leave them reflective, but that doesn't mean all do, and that doesn't mean in all rooms. You're trading sharper imaging for a wider soundstage. I've tried both extensively in multiple rooms, and I prefer leaving the side reflections intact. I do, however, prefer the front and back walls treated.

what I am saying is that blind tests wont always show what sounds better. most people never heard music with treated walls. it will sound strange to them. If I ever learned something about making sound better, it is that you have to hear a lot. a lot. sometimes something sounds better and after a few days you discover it sounds wrong. it's hard to avaliate sound in a few minutes. let's take those Beats headphones for example. For many people they sound impressive. take 100 Beats owners and let them decide between them and HD 800s in a blind test. they will choose the Beats. they are used to the bad balance. lock them in a room with both for 48h and let them chose one to take with them. they will choose HD 800.

btw: when you are treating a room, the last thing you want is to waste material. you can never have enough in the corners. Nobody would waste material on FRP. If it has no effect you put it in the corner

about wider soundstage: you can always make the triangle wider. I made this for a time but went back to equilateral triangle once I got used to hearing the ambience in the recording instead of my room.

There has already been some discussion around that article. It is quite controversial and many people here do not accept its conclusions, preferring Toole's well-argued position that early reflections are often beneficial.

I must say that I wont study the discussion atm. Because I trust in my ears and it makes no sense to argue.
I just hope that this position is not influenced by the fact that many audiophiles are submissive to their wives lol

 

[dasdoing]

btw: if the dubbled/delayed sound realy sounds better it would make more sense to treat the walls and use a delay effect since it will be a lot cleaner

 

[GelbeMusik]

most people never heard music with treated walls. ... not influenced by the fact that many audiophiles are submissive to their wives lol

I think an audiophile in happy marriage is close to an oxymoron. But, statistically relevant test panel personnel in the first place most likely never visited a recording, better to say mixing studio. 'Could argue that about "audiophiles" too. The term in charge here again is the "circle of confusion".

It only says: "You never know." I'm not so much with Dr. Toole on several topics, in this central argument I am. So, one shouldn't be accused by audio-philistines to "listen wrong", if or not a room treatment is in place. It depends on the program one likes to listen too. How that in the coarse average was actually made, depending on studio, the engineers preferences and so on.

There is simply no such ideal in existence as the "original", all stereo is a make-up by taste of the mixer, all derivations made from idealistic imaginations are fail. Think of a stereo phantom source right in the middle, the singer for instance. Reflections with a real source would originate from that central position, but with stereo they come from two distinct positions. Still it basically works! Stereo even works in case I rotate my head, which, if it worked along its "theory" never should be the case.

Think about it: why is it so robust even against its own foundation? Point is, don't be strict with adjusting a room to stereo. Just train people to actively listen "stereo".

 

[edechamps]

btw: if the dubbled/delayed sound realy sounds better it would make more sense to treat the walls and use a delay effect since it will be a lot cleaner

No, it's not that simple. Side reflections are often preferred precisely because they come from the side. Such an effect cannot be produced solely by signal processing, unless you use additional loudspeakers.

You might want to get familiar with the literature before making statements like these.

 

[richard12511]

what I am saying is that blind tests wont always show what sounds better. most people never heard music with treated walls. it will sound strange to them. If I ever learned something about making sound better, it is that you have to hear a lot. a lot. sometimes something sounds better and after a few days you discover it sounds wrong. it's hard to avaliate sound in a few minutes.
btw: when you are treating a room, the last thing you want is to waste material. you can never have enough in the corners. Nobody would waste material on FRP. If it has no effect you put it in the corner

I must say that I wont study the discussion atm. Because I trust in my ears and it makes no sense to argue.
I just hope that this position is not influenced by the fact that many audiophiles are submissive to their wives lol

I've spent hundreds of hours listening both blind and sighted to both setups, so for me, it's not a matter of getting used to one or the other. Treating the first reflection points just sounds (noticeably)worse in my room, and this is in line with what the research found to be generally true, as well.

I also disagree with "the last thing you want is to waste material. You can never have enough in the corner". I do have bass traps in my corners, but it's possible to add too many bass traps, as they don't just absorb bass. I also know far too well about wasting money on room treatments. I fell into the trap of thinking room treatments are always a positive, mainly by reading Ethan Winer and GIK blogs, watching their youtube videos, and listening to others on forums. I trusted those sources before actually reading what the true science says. I spent over $6k on various room treatments, and about half of it is going to waste(wasting away in my garage atm). Believe me, if it sounded better, or even as good, I would be using those extra $3k worth of treatments. It was really hard to admit to myself that those treatments just make it sound worse, as it meant I wasted considerable money.

I also live alone and don't care about looks much at all, as you can see from my living room treatments(attached).

btw: if the dubbled/delayed sound realy sounds better it would make more sense to treat the walls and use a delay effect since it will be a lot cleaner

Intuitively, it would seem so, but unfortunately this wouldn't work. The side wall reflections need to be slightly delayed relative to the direct sound, and this is just not possible to do with DSP.

 

[HooStat]

To go back a bit to the OP's question, but asked a slightly different way. If one plans to use DSP and 2-4 subs, where do you need to focus on the main speakers? Can you get speakers for $500, $1000, $2000 that will be as satisfying as much more expensive speakers? It seems that a lot of the engineering in an expensive speaker is for more extended bass and for addressing relatively minor issues with frequency response that are typically much smaller than than those caused room/reflection issues.

The preference score with sub is informative about this, of course.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Whether treating the first sidewall reflections is beneficial or not depends on how you have configured the room. Toole research only shows that it is not be beneficial in some scenarios. Even in his own listening room, he absorbs the first reflection.

IMO, if your system has poor ambience and symmetry then don't absorb. If you're going to use foam or 2" panels don't absorb. If first sidewall reflections are not symmetrical, then absorb. Other than that, it gets very person and system specific.

 

[watchnerd]

To go back a bit to the OP's question, but asked a slightly different way. If one plans to use DSP and 2-4 subs, where do you need to focus on the main speakers? Can you get speakers for $500, $1000, $2000 that will be as satisfying as much more expensive speakers? It seems that a lot of the engineering in an expensive speaker is for more extended bass and for addressing relatively minor issues with frequency response that are typically much smaller than than those caused room/reflection issues.

The preference score with sub is informative about this, of course.

Well, I use:

2 x Martin Logan Dynamo 1100X subs (12")

+

Dynaudio Contour 20 mains

High-passed at 80 Hz.

I compares nicely to full range towers I've auditioned in my room that cost 2x as much as the mains, and the dual subs allow for placement optionality that big towers don't.

The mains are >2x as expensive as the subs.

 

[No. 5]

I have absorbtion on early reflection points. I highly doubt the remaining reflection from those will have an influence on overall sound.

As an experiment, compare what you measure at your listening position with an anechoic measurement of your speakers. If they are not the same, then the off axis sound your speakers are producing must be contributing something to what you hear.

that makes no sense. there is ambience in the recordings. and it's bigger, and more important, cleaner than the ambience in you room. you hear a mix of two ambiences with the worse one beeing dominant. also you add phase issues and distorsion: https://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

Toole has been brought up, here's a quote from his book:

"A few people took the position that "Toole" is in favor of side wall reflections... treatment of those contentious side-wall areas is optional: absorb, diffuse, reflect - the choice is left to the designer, with, one would hope, input from the customer."

But in contrast, Ethan's stand is that the listening room reflections are bad, full stop. Based on that link, the argument appears to be centered on comb filtering. I have trouble buying into that because 1) any reflective room will have comb filtering, even the best sounding performing spaces have comb filtering, and it's the same delayed energy that causes the comb filtering that also makes those spaces sound good. Furthermore, even stereo speakers produce comb filtering effects, and stereo sounds quite lovely. And 2) there's a fair amount of research based on listening test that suggests that delayed sound/comb filtering isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, David Clark, Helmut Haas, Sean Olive, and Floyd Toole have all produce research based on listening tests that suggest that room reflections can be non-harmful and even be beneficial.

In Clark's experiment, he compared adding delay to the signal to adding an actual reflection, and even though both scenarios measured about the same, the delay was jugged to sound very bad, and the reflection to have a minimal to moderately pleasing effect. In Haas' experiment, simulated reflections were seen to cause shifting of the perceived sound source and even 'a pleasant fullness' to the sound.

To add some to all of that, based on neuroscience, Earl Geddes and David Griesinger have suggested that there is an amplitude/delay envelope that affects what we perceive as "good sound" when it comes to acoustics. In some cases, the reflections have a negative effect, but a positive effect in others. Geddes has even commented that the style of music you listen to also has an effect on how loud room reflections should be.

You have to ask how is the recording affected by the room's ambiance? Reflections will come in from the room earlier, but they will also die out much quicker. Doing a quick informal comparison of an ETC my old living room with Boston Symphony Hall's, after 25ms, the concert hall's reverberant sound has decayed by around 6dB, but my room had decayed by around 20dB. And after about 350ms, my room had reached it's ambient noise level, but Boston Symphony's doesn't reach that point until 1,500ms.

Lest my point be unclear, I'm not saying that you are wrong for adding absorption to your room, it clearly makes your listening experience better, I'm saying that room reflections don't have to be thought of as automatically bad.

 

[richard12511]

Whether treating the first sidewall reflections is beneficial or not depends on how you have configured the room. Toole research only shows that it is not be beneficial in some scenarios. Even in his own listening room, he absorbs the first reflection.

IMO, if your system has poor ambience and symmetry then don't absorb. If you're going to use foam or 2" panels don't absorb. If first sidewall reflections are not symmetrical, then absorb. Other than that, it gets very person and system specific.

As the person who kinda derailed this thread with this tangent, I mostly agree with this. While the only real evidence I'm aware of seems to suggest that "most people" prefer leaving the early reflections intact, I don't think that evidence is strong enough - nor does it claim - to say that "all people in all rooms" will prefer those early reflections.

From reading his responses, it seems OP does have some experience and has tested both ways, so I have no problem believing that his stated preference is true.

I only really chimed in to try and counter the claim that

early reflection will always make the sound bad.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[dasdoing]

No, it's not that simple. Side reflections are often preferred precisely because they come from the side. Such an effect cannot be produced solely by signal processing, unless you use additional loudspeakers.

You might want to get familiar with the literature before making statements like these.

like I said. I don't realy want to win this argument. I have no reason to read for hours because I know I wont change my opinion. you can call me lazy or stuburn if you like.
but: I just had a s_it in my bathroom with youtube video on my cellphone. it was hard to understand what the guy was saying. once I left my bathroom with the phone in the hand and went to my media-room the sound got so much cleaner. it also get "quieter without getting quieter"; the extra loudness is just disturbing to my ears.
But I believe you guys. some heard both and decided against treatment. there is literature in favour of your position. So I believe you guys. I just know that my personal preference is in favour of the clean sound and hearing ambience in the recording the way the producer intended it

EDIT: I remember now that I had a panel setup that sounded realy realy bad. even my girlfriend who can't say when the sound comes from my TV or my speakers said it sounded very bad. the strangest thing is that it wasn't realy a 1st reflection point. it is in the backwall. I had to leave a little of it untreated on the upper part, below the cieling corner, to fix it (my backwall is a little strange, since there is a "wardrobe" made of bricks). So, to make things sound right with absorbtion it is a lot of experimenting. and yes, you can't treat by measuring only

EDIT2:

I think the key to answering your personal question will come down to understanding what is lacking in what you have and how the upgrade will improve upon those shortcomings (assuming it doesn't introduce others).

at the end what I take from this topic is that we have to "trust" our ears. If you are not disturbed by eraly reflections, don't treat them. If you can't hear problems in you drivers, why buy a more expensive speaker (my personal conclusion)? The problem I have with my sound atm is that I hear bass building up in the front corners, even though I have quite some material there. it's only on some notes. So my next step is to add a subwoofer just because I want to move (the source of) those frequencies to the middle of the room.

perhaps one day when I don't hear problems in my room anymore I will hear problems in my drivers.

 

[watchnerd]

like I said. I don't realy want to win this argument. I have no reason to read for hours because I know I wont change my opinion. you can call me lazy or stuburn if you like.
but: I just had a s_it in my bathroom with youtube video on my cellphone. it was hard to understand what the guy was saying.

Classy.