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

[Pudik]

Multichannel sound, done approximately right, can quite nicely move you into another acoustic space in your living room. The problem with multichannel sound presently is that production for multichannel sound is still approaching the renaissance, and is still in the late dark ages.

Well, i m conscious of that. In fact, multichannel music in film is but tentative. However, tentative is still better than pure 2 channel old stereo. For example, the number of channels in multichannel DAWs' output is as large as your computer can process and the number of channels your soundcard has. Reaper goes as high as 512 and Lynx' sound card has 16, 24 and 33, if memory serves well. But what puzzles me most is that we haven't found a viable way to finally detach us from a 100+ years of piston cum cone (whatever material that may be made of) technology. I think that is the gist of the problem. That cone's mechanical radiation has so many problems that solving them is sort of like reinventing the wheel. So, unfortunately, we're back to our main business: the electromechanical speaker and its environment and everything that stems from that combination. Perfect electromechanical speaker would be like looking for perfect human character. Nah... New technology, please!

 

[Pudik]

Lynx 32, my mistake

 

[amirm]

Let's close this thread and open new ones on other topics.

 

[youngho]

By the way, there is research that shows even if off-axis response is poor, listeners prefer to have side wall reflections than not.

Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!

Personally, I have previously wondered whether that's an accurate summary of the results: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...atment-goldensound.45104/page-10#post-1608481.

From the abstract: "A correlation was observed between the presence of strong lateral energy and an initial reduction of speed for performing a task. However, adaptation soon occurs, thereby restoring the subjects to normal accuracy and response time"

From a thesis summarizing the results: "Conclusion was that due to the adaptation, no prominent difference in sound engineer performance occurred between three alternative side wall treatments."

I provided relevant links above previously. Also, "Can you explain figure 11 to me? It looks like those preferring absorption performed similarly to those preferring reflection, while those preferring diffusion performed differently--better or worse? Were the differences statistically significant? The abstract and above discussion make it seem to me like the main takeaway was that sidewall treatment or not didn't really matter in the long run in terms of performance on this task."

Thank you

 

[amirm]

From a thesis summarizing the results: "Conclusion was that due to the adaptation, no prominent difference in sound engineer performance occurred between three alternative side wall treatments."

Which completely pull the rug from under massive campaign that to create music, you must have a dead room!

So if you are agreeing with that, the case is solidly made. That Fig 11 shows some kind of subjective preference (as opposed to objective completion of a task) is icing on the cake.

 

[youngho]

Which completely pull the rug from under massive campaign that to create music, you must have a dead room!

So if you are agreeing with that, the case is solidly made. That Fig 11 shows some kind of subjective preference (as opposed to objective completion of a task) is icing on the cake.

Huh? Who is arguing that anechoic chambers are necessary to create music????? Yes, I totally agree that anechoic chambers are not necessary to create music!!! Or was this a straw man argument? How are you defining "a dead room"? Also, can you please answer my question about figure 11 and actual performance vis-a-vis preference? But yes, clearly a majority of study participants did NOT prefer simple reflection but rather absorption or diffusion. And, no, "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!" is not a nuanced summary of the results.

The Laukkanen paper I linked indicated that different audio professionals may have different preferences depending on the task that they're performing (what does "to create music" even mean? Recording, mixing, or mastering?). This is rather in line with Bruno Fazenda's thesis: https://salford-repository.worktrib...stics_of_Control_Rooms_for_Critical_Music.pdf.

Yes, I totally agree that listeners (professional or recreational) may fall into different subjective preference groups and that they shouldn't be collapsed into a single overarching "research shows this" or "there's a paper showing that" oversimplification.

 

[amirm]

Huh? Who is arguing that anechoic chambers are necessary to create music????? Yes, I totally agree that anechoic chambers are not necessary to create music!!! Or was this a straw man argument?

You are making it so. I am addressing the notion that room reflections are a bad thing in a studio. I didn't use the word anechoic chamber, nor is it possible to turn a studio into an anechoic chamber.

 

[youngho]

You are making it so. I am addressing the notion that room reflections are a bad thing in a studio. I didn't use the word anechoic chamber, nor is it possible to turn a studio into an anechoic chamber.

Again, huh??? I am making WHAT so? When did I argue in this thread in favor of "a dead room," whatever that means??? I already asked what "a dead room" means to you.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...60th-by-lars-risbo.71651/page-20#post-2610810

"Which completely pull the rug from under massive campaign that to create music, you must have a dead room!"

What does this mean? Who's conducting this massive campaign? What does "create music" (record, mix, master?) mean, exactly? What does "a dead room" mean in terms of Rt or clarity or your preferred perceptual characteristic? Also, I already asked questions about figure 11.

Also, can you please respond to "But yes, clearly a majority of study participants did NOT prefer simple reflection but rather absorption or diffusion. And, no, "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!" is not a nuanced summary of the results." or "The Laukkanen paper I linked indicated that different audio professionals may have different preferences depending on the task that they're performing (what does "to create music" even mean? Recording, mixing, or mastering?). This is rather in line with Bruno Fazenda's thesis: https://salford-repository.worktrib...stics_of_Control_Rooms_for_Critical_Music.pdf." or "Yes, I totally agree that listeners (professional or recreational) may fall into different subjective preference groups and that they shouldn't be collapsed into a single overarching "research shows this" or "there's a paper showing that" oversimplification"?

Thank you,

Young-Ho

p.s. I'm literally arguing in favor of individual preference in multiple domains as demonstrated in multiple ways for different tasks

 

[amirm]

Again, huh??? I am making WHAT so? When did I argue in this thread in favor of "a dead room," whatever that means???

You weren't the subject of the discussion. You jumped in claiming the study said this and that. I responded with the reason I cited the study. As to dead room, if you don't know what that is, I am not here to explain it to you.

 

[youngho]

You weren't the subject of the discussion. You jumped in claiming the study said this and that. I responded with the reason I cited the study. As to dead room, if you don't know what that is, I am not here to explain it to you.

Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!

OK, let me be clear. I am claiming that you are inaccurately summarizing the results. Period. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...atment-goldensound.45104/page-10#post-1608481. Here is a link to the AES which even notes that this is a pilot study: https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=16640

From the abstract: "A correlation was observed between the presence of strong lateral energy and an initial reduction of speed for performing a task. However, adaptation soon occurs, thereby restoring the subjects to normal accuracy and response time."

Figure 11 indicates a majority of study participants did NOT prefer simple reflection but rather absorption or diffusion, both of which reduce the strength of lateral energy. I could easily say "RESEARCH FROM MCGILL UNIVERSITY SHOWS THAT AUDIO PROFESSIONALS MIXING MUSIC DON'T PREFER REFLECTIONS BUT RATHER ABSORPTION OR DIFFUSION!!!" but that would be an inaccurate summary of the results, too.

From a thesis summarizing the results: "Conclusion was that due to the adaptation, no prominent difference in sound engineer performance occurred between three alternative side wall treatments." (https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=17241)

Here's another discussion about this (https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/small-room-acoustics): "While there were personal preferences, they were not unambiguously associated with better performance at the mixing task."

I invite all ASR readers to look at the links I've cited above and decide for themselves what I am "claiming." Also, this was not my first post in the thread, so I don't know where "You jumped in" comes from.

"Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!" vs "A correlation was observed between the presence of strong lateral energy and an initial reduction of speed for performing a task. However, adaptation soon occurs, thereby restoring the subjects to normal accuracy and response time" or "Conclusion was that due to the adaptation, no prominent difference in sound engineer performance occurred between three alternative side wall treatments" or ""While there were personal preferences, they were not unambiguously associated with better performance at the mixing task."

Anyway, please don't ever cite this study again saying, "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!"

Thank you.

 

[amirm]

Figure 11 indicates a majority of study participants did NOT prefer simple reflection but rather absorption or diffusion, both of which reduce the strength of lateral energy.

You must be twisting like a pretzel to conclude that. Diffusion is NOT promoted by the proponents of what we are talking about but rather, full absorption.

Once more, the stated position has been that "of course you want to absorb reflections" in both Pro and consumer use. Dr. Toole had actually conceded the former. This study challenged that and proved that the Pros do not universally prefer absorbing reflections. The punchline is this:

2.3 Subjects’ Preference
After the experiment each subject was asked which
acoustic treatment created the best listening condition for
mixing. Eight subjects decided it is Diffusion, seven decided
Absorption, and eleven decided Reflection. We decided to
test subjects’ level preference and variance performance
based on that information (Fig. 11)."

This is a decided win for side reflection when it comes to mixing music by professionals with more of them preferring simple drywall reflection to another other treatment . Similar to what is found for music enjoyment.

 

[youngho]

Your incredulity is understandable and would be justified if the study was a medicine study made on random people with totally different biology and lifestyle judging on 1 parameter at 1 moment, withouthere you need a lot of participants for it to be relevant because of all the unintended parameters which will generate high statistical noise.

Here it's a different kind of study, first because of the panel selection, then the number of factors tested, the nature of the factors themselves, the repetition of the tests that can become quickly very high, all of this happening in an environment that is higly controlled: all of that increases significantly the statistical relevance of such studies, even with a small panel.
To make an analogy it's a bit like you were able to test 200 medicines on 16 people with the exact same biology and lifestyle in a single day, it's a bit of a gross analogy but that's the best I got.
More broadly, whatever the subject, the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is made by the number of parameters you'll manage to be conscious of and you'll try to control (and you'll always be partly subjective because you can't be conscious of all the parameters).
Here in these studies the control is very high compared to medicine studies, which have little control for practical reasons.
(Sorry for my broken english, hope you got it).

What's even more remarkable, in my opinion, is that these were audio professionals, for whom sensitivity to lateral energy might have been assumed to be greater than the general population of listeners.

From Toole, second edition of Sound Reproduction: "Why do recording and mixing engineers prefer to listen with reduced lateral reflections (higher IACC)? Perhaps they need to hear things that recreational listeners don’t. This is a popular explanation, and it sounds reasonable, but experiments reported in Section 6.2 indicate that we humans have a remarkable ability to hear what is in a recording in spite of room reflections—lots of them. But there is an alternative explanation, based on the observation that some listeners can become sensitized to these sounds and hear them in an exaggerated form. Ando et al. (2000) found that musicians judge reflections to be about seven times greater than ordinary listeners, meaning that they derive a satisfying amount of spaciousness from reflections at a much lower sound level than ordinary folk: “Musicians prefer weaker amplitudes than listeners do.” It is logical to think that this might apply to recording professionals as well, perhaps even more so, because they create artificial reflections electronically and manipulate them at will while listening to the effects. There can be no better opportunity for training and/or adaptation. In fact, it is entirely reasonable to think that acousticians who spend much of their lives moving around in rooms while listening to revealing test signals can become sensitized to aspects of sound fi elds that ordinary listeners blithely ignore. This is a caution to all of us who work in the field of audio and acoustics. Our preferences may reflect accumulated biases and therefore may not be the same as those of our customers."

So, on the one hand, @Karmacoma seems to be suggesting that the background of this pilot (suggesting that it hasn't been followed up in terms of verification or falsifiability, which presumably are important to the scientific method, especially when consider the rate at which the results if published initial studies may not be verifiable in follow-up) study population should replace larger N, in a similar way that Harman uses a smaller pool of trained listeners instead of a much larger untrained group for many investigations. I actually have no objection to this. I previously brought up "absolute" or "perfect" pitch in terms of what seems to be a spectrum of ability to identify tone frequency without external reference as an example of how testing with smaller numbers could lead to fallacious conclusions.. It seems as though the prevalence is much higher in trained musicians compared with the general population, so while it would be trivial to run an investigation and "prove" that perfect pitch doesn't exist using a few handfuls of general population listeners, it would be a much different matter in musicians.

On the other hand, given the characteristics of recording professionals described by Toole above, it might actually be MORE surprising that an even greater proportion of this study population did not prefer attenuated lateral energy from diffusion or absorption over reflection. However, perhaps it might be noted that this preference may have been expressed with respect to a specific cognitive task, as opposed to, for example., preference for recreational listening. But yes, the error bars are huge. Wait until you really consider the error bars for the so-called Harman Harman curve for speakers in rooms!

However, I still find it surprising that Toole shows the JBL Array 1400 and Revel Salon 2 spinoramas in figure 18.17 in the second edition of Sound Reproduction and writes "When they are put against each other in double-blind tests, the audible differences are small, somewhat program dependent, and listener ratings tend to vary slightly and randomly around a high number. In the end there may be no absolute winner that is revealed with any statistical confidence; the differences in opinion are of the same size as those that could occur by chance." What does that suggest about the limitations imposed on this trained listening panel with respect to the cognitive task at hand, the listening setup and environment, and the listening material/program, also about the so-called Olive preference scores?

Wait, I guess this could be summarized: "Research from Harman shows that listeners can't actually determine a preference between the JBL 1400 and the Revel Salon 2," but that would be wrong.

Anyway, maybe it would still be reasonable to consider acknowledging ambiguity and nuance; avoid oversimplifying; "quoting" instead of inaccurately paraphrasing; and posting links and references whenever possible to contribute to a more meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas.

Also, going back to the original post, I was curious what hysteresis distortion sounds like. I found this link, which includes demonstrations at the bottom: https://jatinchowdhury18.medium.com/complex-nonlinearities-episode-3-hysteresis-fdeb2cd3e3f6. "Crunchy" is actually a reasonable description, in my opinion

 

[amirm]

From the abstract: "A correlation was observed between the presence of strong lateral energy and an initial reduction of speed for performing a task. However, adaptation soon occurs, thereby restoring the subjects to normal accuracy and response time."

Proving again that we "hear through the room" as Dr. Toole has stated over and over again and we discussed earlier. Adaptation is a powerful tool that the brain brings to the table.

 

[youngho]

You must be twisting like a pretzel to conclude that. Diffusion is NOT promoted by the proponents of what we are talking about but rather, full absorption.

Once more, the stated position has been that "of course you want to absorb reflections" in both Pro and consumer use. Dr. Toole had actually conceded the former. This study challenged that and proved that the Pros do not universally prefer absorbing reflections. The punchline is this:

2.3 Subjects’ Preference
After the experiment each subject was asked which
acoustic treatment created the best listening condition for
mixing. Eight subjects decided it is Diffusion, seven decided
Absorption, and eleven decided Reflection. We decided to
test subjects’ level preference and variance performance
based on that information (Fig. 11)."

This is a decided win for side reflection when it comes to mixing music by professionals with more of them preferring simple drywall reflection to another other treatment . Similar to what is found for music enjoyment.

I'm sorry, let me put this more simply. You are saying A>B>C. I am saying A<(B+C). You are saying because A>B>C in the short term, it proves "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with [A]" I am saying that figure 11 suggests that "people mixing music basically did the same with A and C in the short term," also that it didn't make a difference after a while. Also, this was a pilot study with limited generalizability.

Also, as I had previously written, "I'm literally arguing in favor of individual preference in multiple domains as demonstrated in multiple ways for different tasks."

I guess i just don't understand what is so unreasonable about drawing conclusions much more limited than "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!", but I guess you don't understand why any other person could possibly look at all the information I've posted above and draw any other conclusion that "Research also shows (by McGill University) that people mixing music are able to actually do a better job with side wall reflections!" Consequently, I think we will have to agree to disagree and leave at that. Does that sound reasonable without invoking conspiracies, pretzels, or proponents?

[final edit] I'm sorry it's too late, but I should have said, "You're right, I concede, you win" a while ago. Forget what I said about "maybe it would still be reasonable to consider acknowledging ambiguity and nuance; avoid oversimplifying; "quoting" instead of inaccurately paraphrasing; and posting links and references whenever possible to contribute to a more meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas." Good night!

 

[Vuki]

You must be twisting like a pretzel to conclude that. Diffusion is NOT promoted by the proponents of what we are talking about but rather, full absorption.

Once more, the stated position has been that "of course you want to absorb reflections" in both Pro and consumer use. Dr. Toole had actually conceded the former. This study challenged that and proved that the Pros do not universally prefer absorbing reflections. The punchline is this:

2.3 Subjects’ Preference
After the experiment each subject was asked which
acoustic treatment created the best listening condition for
mixing. Eight subjects decided it is Diffusion, seven decided
Absorption, and eleven decided Reflection. We decided to
test subjects’ level preference and variance performance
based on that information (Fig. 11)."

This is a decided win for side reflection when it comes to mixing music by professionals with more of them preferring simple drywall reflection to another other treatment . Similar to what is found for music enjoyment.

Sorry @amirm, but it really says that majority of listeners did not prefere side reflections. But it seems that what that study really shows is that it is up to personal preference. Like high/low directivity, far/nearfield lp, "target" curve slope etc.

 

[amirm]

Sorry @amirm, but it really says that majority of listeners did not prefere side reflections.

Not at all. Both diffusion and reflections at anti-absorption. Sum those two categories and the absorption advocates lose big. And by itself, reflection was preferred to the other types.

But it seems that what that study really shows is that it is up to personal preference.

Nope. That would show results that are not statistically significant.

 

[Vuki]

Not at all. Both diffusion and reflections at anti-absorption. Sum those two categories and the absorption advocates lose big. And by itself, reflection was preferred to the other types.


Nope. That would show results that are not statistically significant.

 

[antcollinet]

Sorry @amirm, but it really says that majority of listeners did not prefere side reflections. But it seems that what that study really shows is that it is up to personal preference. Like high/low directivity, far/nearfield lp, "target" curve slope etc.

Diffusion is still refection - it is just diffuse, rather than specular, reflection.

 

[Geert]

Diffusion is still refection - it is just diffuse, rather than specular, reflection.

That's technically correct, but diffusing side wall refelections comes with it’s own challenges: Post in thread 'Diffusing 1st reflections of speakers that measure great on and off-axis - instead of absorbing' https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-axis-instead-of-absorbing.14096/post-430794.

So what would people prefer if the diffusion option is half backed?

Personaly I believe this side wall reflection discussion is getting a bit out of hand, considering they are only a small part of what room acoustics entails. A lot of people have to live with a less than ideal reverb time, don’t have or use a solution for room modes (not to mention DRC only works at the listening position), and then there’s SBIR and so on. Maybe better to continue this part of the discussion in the thread referenced above.

 

[olieb]

Diffusion is still refection - it is just diffuse, rather than specular, reflection.

Yes, but if we are talking about the role of early lateral specular reflections, those are strongly attenuated by diffusion and the effect is quite similar to absorption.

EDIT:

But it seems that what that study really shows is that it is up to personal preference.

I don't think that one can conclude much from the presented results/quotations.
When the listeners were asked about their preference for mixing environments, was it done blindly (A, B, C) or sighted?
The distribution of answers is close enough to uniform that in the blind case the result might just be random.
In the sighted case all kinds of influences (performance, preference, bias, familiar work environment, music style,...) might play a role and the result has even less meaning.
All one can say, and there @Amir is right, the claim that “all professionals have a strong preference for absorption“ can be rejected. [But there are not that many who endorse this extreme view.]

BTW I do not understand the diagram.
In the legend it says “Box plots for performance by preference of treatment type“ but on the vertical axis it says “level(dB)“.
How does one measure performance in dB?
In the quote it says on the other hand it says “We decided to test subjects’ level preference and variance performance
based on that information (Fig. 11)“.
So, what does it actually show?