Home room measurements

[Keith_W]

Why do silver wire sound bright and copper warm then ?

They don't. The melting point of silver is 962C, whereas the melting point of copper is 1084C. Because copper was subjected to more heat during manufacture, it sounds warmer. But once copper is cryo treated, it sounds the same as silver. If silver was heated to the same melting point as copper, it too would sound warmer. There are other variables as well, including the dielectric of the cable sleeve, whether cable elevators are used, whether the cable is in the wrong direction, and the orientation of the cable to the Earth's magnetic field.

 

[Holmz]

They don't. The melting point of silver is 962C, whereas the melting point of copper is 1084C. Because copper was subjected to more heat during manufacture, it sounds warmer. But once copper is cryo treated, it sounds the same as silver. If silver was heated to the same melting point as copper, it too would sound warmer. There are other variables as well, including the dielectric of the cable sleeve, whether cable elevators are used, whether the cable is in the wrong direction, and the orientation of the cable to the Earth's magnetic field.

Bruss… you forgot the smiley face.

 

[DanielT]

They don't. It's audiophile lore, and has been thoroughly debunked in multiple ASR threads. Whether a metal tweeter sounds "metallic" or not (usually described as sibilant, bright, etc.) is a matter of implementation and not an inherent property of the material.

Speaking of metal. Bass drivers that have metal/aluminum cones. Due to the construction and material, they can have really unpleasant audible break ups.
But we know that can be the case so break ups are removed, suppressed so that they are not heard with a combination of a suitable crossover point, a suitable steep enough filter and or with a notch filter. You know that it works like that, I'm just mentioning it as an example.

Edit:
Example: A 24 dB/octave filter set at 2 kHz, if the break up is at 4 kHz, this has resulted in, since it is an octave higher up, the unpleasant break ups being suppressed by 24 dB.On the other hand. Crossover point 3 kHz, first order 6 dB/octave crossover, without any notch filter, would not be enough if the break ups were large at 4 kHz.

...and so on.

 

[tengiz]

They don't. The melting point of silver is 962C, whereas the melting point of copper is 1084C. Because copper was subjected to more heat during manufacture, it sounds warmer. But once copper is cryo treated, it sounds the same as silver. If silver was heated to the same melting point as copper, it too would sound warmer. There are other variables as well, including the dielectric of the cable sleeve, whether cable elevators are used, whether the cable is in the wrong direction, and the orientation of the cable to the Earth's magnetic field.

I would assume copper still sounds warmer even after cryo treatment - after all, silver has lower resistivity, so it doesn’t get as warm conducting the same current. That warmth, naturally, gets carried by the electrons further down the chain. Not right away, of course, because - as everyone knows - electrons don’t travel very far. Instead, they share the warmth via osmosis. The warmer the electrons get, the more willing they are to do it. It takes time - a process commonly referred to as break-in, or in this case, obviously - burn-in.

 

[krabapple]

Electrons are so fussy!

 

[tengiz]

I keep experimenting. Summary so far:

Floorstanders in this space show a kind of "dual personality" when they set up to do their best - far enough from the walls, proper stereo triangle positioning, etc: the imaging is precise, yet the added reverb/reflections create an audio haze that makes the sound unpleasantly disconnected. The KEF R5 Meta is a clear example of this effect.

The bookshelf KEF Q3 Meta produces a more balanced sound when placed close to walls or even in corners (aside from bass issues, which are manageable with EQ). Unfortunately, their depth makes them visually intrusive in this setup.

The KEF Q4 Meta ends up being the only model so far that fully meets the constraints here:

• Shallow enough to avoid dominating the room visually.
• Designed for flush-to-wall or corner placement without performance loss.
• Fits both the aesthetic and the practical limitations.

That said, nothing in this room sounds better to me than the old in-ceiling speakers. The KEF Q3 and Q4 Meta sound very similar, but it makes little sense to bother with in-room speakers when I can continue using the in-ceiling setup without any compromise in sound quality.

I suppose it’s just the curse of the room.

 

[krabapple]

I keep experimenting. Summary so far:

Floorstanders in this space show a kind of "dual personality" when they set up to do their best - far enough from the walls, proper stereo triangle positioning, etc: the imaging is precise, yet the added reverb/reflections create an audio haze that makes the sound unpleasantly disconnected. The KEF R5 Meta is a clear example of this effect.

Then try: reflection treatment on walls?

The bookshelf KEF Q3 Meta produces a more balanced sound when placed close to walls or even in corners (aside from bass issues, which are manageable with EQ). Unfortunately, their depth makes them visually intrusive in this setup.

The KEF Q4 Meta ends up being the only model so far that fully meets the constraints here:

• Shallow enough to avoid dominating the room visually.
• Designed for flush-to-wall or corner placement without performance loss.
• Fits both the aesthetic and the practical limitations.

That said, nothing in this room sounds better to me than the old in-ceiling speakers.

Yikes.

 

[DanielT]

I keep experimenting. Summary so far:

Floorstanders in this space show a kind of "dual personality" when they set up to do their best - far enough from the walls, proper stereo triangle positioning, etc: the imaging is precise, yet the added reverb/reflections create an audio haze that makes the sound unpleasantly disconnected. The KEF R5 Meta is a clear example of this effect.

The bookshelf KEF Q3 Meta produces a more balanced sound when placed close to walls or even in corners (aside from bass issues, which are manageable with EQ). Unfortunately, their depth makes them visually intrusive in this setup.

The KEF Q4 Meta ends up being the only model so far that fully meets the constraints here:

• Shallow enough to avoid dominating the room visually.
• Designed for flush-to-wall or corner placement without performance loss.
• Fits both the aesthetic and the practical limitations.

That said, nothing in this room sounds better to me than the old in-ceiling speakers. The KEF Q3 and Q4 Meta sound very similar, but it makes little sense to bother with in-room speakers when I can continue using the in-ceiling setup without any compromise in sound quality.

I suppose it’s just the curse of the room.

I don't remember if this has already been brought up in the thread but have you checked the FR and compared it with your old in-ceiling speakers vs your KEF speakers? I mean so you can rule out that it is X FR that you like better than Y FR and that is what determines what you like sonically more than the placement of the speakers in your room?

That is to say that it is the speakers themselves and not in-ceiling vs non-in-ceiling that determines what you like best.

 

[tengiz]

Then try: reflection treatment on walls?

This is a casual/occasional listening space, not a dedicated room - see the pictures I posted earlier in this discussion - so altering the wooden panel walls to add treatment isn’t really an option.

 

[tengiz]

I don't remember if this has already been brought up in the thread but have you checked the FR and compared it with your old in-ceiling speakers vs your KEF speakers? I mean so you can rule out that it is X FR that you like better than Y FR and that is what determines what you like sonically more than the placement of the speakers in your room?

That is to say that it is the speakers themselves and not in-ceiling vs non-in-ceiling that determines what you like best.

That I will do. Although I’d say that, given my listening habits and preferences, I’m not especially picky about overall tonal balance outside of the bass/lower midbass range - I just don’t seem to have an ear for it. If I play with EQ above 500 Hz in real time, I stop noticing moderate peaks or dips after a few seconds - within reason, of course. What I can’t tolerate, and never seem to get used to, is when the room itself has a "strong bold character". This one does. But there’s not much I can do about it.

I also assume that KEF speakers with modern Uni-Q drivers should work reasonably ok in almost any room per Spinorama data, as long as they’re set up more or less properly. So for me, the fact that they didn’t outperform the ceiling speakers is pretty much the end of the story - in this room I mean.

 

[DanielT]

That I will do. Although I’d say that, given my listening habits and preferences, I’m not especially picky about overall tonal balance outside of the bass/lower midbass range - I just don’t seem to have an ear for it. If I play with EQ above 500 Hz in real time, I stop noticing moderate peaks or dips after a few seconds - within reason, of course. What I can’t tolerate, and never seem to get used to, is when the room itself has a "strong bold character". This one does. But there’s not much I can do about it.

I also assume that KEF speakers with modern Uni-Q drivers should work reasonably ok in almost any room per Spinorama data, as long as they’re set up more or less properly. So for me, the fact that they didn’t outperform the ceiling speakers is pretty much the end of the story - in this room I mean.

It is individual how much you feel that a FR affects the sound experience vs. or together with the speakers' dispersion and how the room is designed, the acoustics, reflexes and so on. Add to that what you mentioned in previous posts about speaker placement. There are various factors to work with, factor into the good sound equation.

Bass and FR there I completely agree with you. Can be a real challenge get the integration of sub speakers to be really good. Plus these damned room modes. EQ can really help there. Plus with the EQ operation have good with amp power headroom, sub with high power handling ability. Easy to suddenly, with EQ, discover with more than double power is needed. Actually for subwoofer you can never have too little power. That's enough waffle from my side regarding subwoofer and EQ.

You can easily use any free 10 band EQ app :

...move the controls up and down to see where your own limit is, when you think that X FR is getting so strange, sounds so bad that nothing in terms of dispersion, placement, room acoustics can help it.

By the way, what do they usually say, that you can detect a 1 dB deviation in FR? It must be individual, plus depending on where in the frequency and the listening room. My Wharfedale Diamond 220 in the summer cottage. I have tested with and without Amir's recommendations for EQ: High Shelf, 5000 Hz, -3dB, Q 1.0.


I can probably hear a difference but then I think that the placement and aim of the speakers determines so much more so. Plus the design of the room and the acoustics that go with it. What various furniture, carpets and so on lead to, as we have already discussed in the thread.

 

[teashea]

By room measurements, I mean the characteristics of the room that are independent - or mostly independent - of the speakers.

Picture this: the room is already set up, furniture and all. I know where the speakers and listening spot will go. The goal is to preserve the layout and design first - then pick gear that fits.

So how do I measure the room in a way that helps me choose speakers that’ll actually work well in this specific setup?

We already have solid, measurement-based speaker rankings - directivity, off-axis response, and so on. But in-room response predictions still seem based on simplified models - maybe not a spherical room in a vacuum, but close enough.

They’re grounded in real data, sure, but how well do they handle real-world spaces? Most rooms are far from ideal - full of furniture, odd shapes, slanted ceilings, asymmetrical openings, random nooks. That’s what people are actually dealing with.

So is there anything that can take a real room, run some measurements, and suggest speakers likely to work well in that space?

It’s physically doable. The real question is whether a reasonably skilled DIY-er can pull it off without too much cost or hassle. I know one way to approach it - I’ve done something similar before, just not for room acoustics. But honestly, it’s probably overkill for this kind of use. You’d need specialized hardware and a pretty niche skill set to build it from scratch at home.

Just wondering if anything new has emerged on this front.

It is virtually impossible. There are too many variables. However, one can measure and get a fairly good sense of the general sonic issues.

 

[teashea]

One large issue is listening distance from the monitors. If one set of monitors are three meters from the LP and another set is one meter ...... For the very nearfield monitors, the room acoustics become less than ten percent as important. This issue is widely ignored. Yet, it is the single most important issue. I am not saying that room acoustics is not important, but the issue of room acoustics can be more narrowly addressed (mostly concerning low bass frequencies). That is why in my studio, all three workstations have monitors at very nearfield - 1 to 1.2 meters.

 

[tengiz]

One large issue is listening distance from the monitors. If one set of monitors are three meters from the LP and another set is one meter ...... For the very nearfield monitors, the room acoustics become less than ten percent as important. This issue is widely ignored. Yet, it is the single most important issue. I am not saying that room acoustics is not important, but the issue of room acoustics can be more narrowly addressed (mostly concerning low bass frequencies). That is why in my studio, all three workstations have monitors at very nearfield - 1 to 1.2 meters.

I’ve never really clicked with near-field listening - maybe I’ve just never set it up the right way. To me, it falls somewhere between headphones and good speakers in a well-treated room - more space around the sound than headphones, but never quite giving me what good speakers can do in a treated space. I get that monitoring setups chase accuracy while home setups lean more toward enjoyment, and I understand the physics - sit close enough and the direct sound swamps the reflections, so you’re hearing more of the speakers and less of the room - but it still doesn’t make it any more appealing to me.

Not that it matters much - this room couldn’t be set up for proper near-field listening anyway.

 

[DanielT]

I’ve never really clicked with near-field listening - maybe I’ve just never set it up the right way. To me, it falls somewhere between headphones and good speakers in a well-treated room - more space around the sound than headphones, but never quite giving me what good speakers can do in a treated space. I get that monitoring setups chase accuracy while home setups lean more toward enjoyment, and I understand the physics - sit close enough and the direct sound swamps the reflections, so you’re hearing more of the speakers and less of the room - but it still doesn’t make it any more appealing to me.

Not that it matters much - this room couldn’t be set up for proper near-field listening anyway.

Reminds me of my experiences when I tested having speakers placed really close. The closer I placed the speakers, the more I thought it reminded me of headphones and then....well....then I might as well use headphones instead.

That said, if you sit at a desktop and listen to music, dedicated desktop speakers can be a sensible solution. Maybe. A matter of taste.

 

[Flaesh]

RT60 - doesn’t it also depend on the speakers as well?

In the exact sense and correctly measured - does not depend.
Here is a real example of measurements at a low signal level. Greens are 5" cone in box, top-firing. Oranges are XT1464 in normal corner position.

 

[tengiz]

In the exact sense and correctly measured - does not depend.

Right, it was poorly formulated with sloppy definition in mind, something like 'RT60' as whatever REW shows from one sweep using whatever source without assuming the proper procedure, etc.

Let me reformulate with 'more proper' definition that include space-averaged metric of the room as a whole: if I measure RT60 'by the book', can those band-by-band numbers alone predict what a listener will hear from a speaker that, say, beams tightly at a specific seat?

I see that your graphs show very little difference - but is it always the case?