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

[Somafunk]

Thanks for trying but you have a near-field situation with no side-wall treatments for first reflection points which is the topic of discussion here.

Gotta love a trier, albeit totally unscientific in methods .

When sat at the desk in my secretlab chair I’m near field as I’m no more than 2ft to 3ft from the speakers so first reflections are not a factor but when I’m sat in the recliner my head is 6.5ft from the speakers and 8.5ft from the front wall with 4ft behind me to the back wall (small room issue) so I guess that is mid field and first reflections do come into play as the removal of treatment is audible.

 

[Cubic Spline]

You didn't say that directly, but only to make sure: one (!) frequency cannot logically decay ;-)

It's a lot of blah blah around, never mind

I still don't understand what you're implying ? Decay is amplitude (reducing) over time.

Play a sine wave in a room, stop the source and you get one single frequency decaying.

 

[Thomas_A]

I still don't understand what you're implying ? Decay is amplitude over time.

Play a sine wave in a room, stop the source and you get one single frequency decaying.

I think he's pointing out amplitude decay as opposed to frequency decay.

 

[Cubic Spline]

I think he's pointing out amplitude decay as opposed to frequency decay.

Ok, thanks.
Simple language barrier then

 

[SIY]

Thanks. I could swear when the original edition came out it was that cheap. But I see it at $56 for electronic version which is what I recommend (much easier to search).

The electronic edition is not as good for absorption and diffusion.

 

[Axo1989]

That's just wrong. There is nothing natural about sound coming out of a point source of a speaker. Side reflections pull the image of the sound out of the point source of the speaker, giving a more proper presentation.

Are you talking about a single speaker here? I think you aren't but the statement doesn't appear correct for conventional stereo, which creates a (somewhat holographic) stereo image by definition (and see my post upthread for pix). Lateral reflections may be a putative/optional enhancement, but are not a functional requirement.

People who prefer this are not stupid. They like what they hear for this reason. Your impression of why this is wrong continues from the lay confusion there must be a lot of reverb, echoes, etc.

I don't see anything stupid (or wrong) with preference for more/less side wall reflections as a listener (often depending on program material and other factors).

As Dr. Toole shows, side walls cannot produce sufficient envelopment anyway. For that, you need multichannel and hence his affinity there.

This is a bit circular—logically speaking, not the surround sound —as @tuga noted Toole's preference for envelopment. Using a preference for envelopment as evidence of a need (as opposed to a somewhat genre-dependent preference) for more envelopment begs the question. I'm not sure Toole really does this.

Efficacy of what we now call multichannel—while proto-stereo was introduced by Ader in the 1880s, and offered via the théâtrophone the following decade, it was conceptualised by Blumlein and others fifty years later as a method of spatial recording reproduced via two or more speakers, Bell notably offered three-speaker stereo in the 1930s—is a somewhat separate and much longer (and naturally very interesting) discussion.

 

[Eckerslad]

No, that is not the case. Research is independent for each topic. But each does play on the other. FYI there was another research done with speakers with bad directivity and even there, side reflections were thought to be good. I don't recall the paper title so can't find it now

Thanks for the reply. Another point that I couldn’t find referenced in Toole’s book is the difference between early and late reflections. Toole’s research has the speaker quite a distance from sidewalls, so reflections would feed the reverberant field, possibly increasing clarity(?). English listening rooms are too small to have such distances - speakers usually have to be within two or three feet of sidewalls. The precedence effect would cause summing of reflected frequencies, with a phase error - leading to less clarity.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks for the reply. Another point that I couldn’t find referenced in Toole’s book is the difference between early and late reflections. Toole’s research has the speaker quite a distance from sidewalls, so reflections would feed the reverberant field, possibly increasing clarity(?). English listening rooms are too small to have such distances - speakers usually have to be within two or three feet of sidewalls. The precedence effect would cause summing of reflected frequencies, with a phase error - leading to less clarity.

Toole doesn't advocate very early side wall reflections. Also, Toole isn't as black and white in the matter of later side wall reflections as some if his followers are either. Here's something he wrote:

For stereo listening I have found that it very much depends on the program. Music with lots of decorrelated sounds, classical for example, is sometimes enhanced by reflections, although coincident-mic recordings may benefit from a lack of reflections - letting the direct sounds be more dominant.

 

[Cote Dazur]

But if you listen to a single speaker then the problem goes away.

Thank you for this comment, it made me smile. So much confusion in this thread,

And there are people who use the DSP reverb programs of their AVRs, to recreate reverberated mess a more enveloping feeling.

Multi channel reverberated mess, exactly what it is, don't be shy. Manipulating a perfectly valid stereo recording, to make it fit a myriad of speakers is an aberration.

The ones that treat their rooms are the ones that buy power cables?
IME the ones in untreated rooms are the ones that are tricked into all the audiophile BS - simply because they cannot hear any details

Perfect example of non sense from this thread, totally agree, trying to listen to stereo on any system with any speakers in non treated environment is a total waste of time, the room will always swamp the recording. No measurement and EQ will save that.
Seeing some rooms in this thread speaks volume on what some of those "experts" are after and how different other expectations might be.

This thread is a nugget in exposing that even though some here have a vast, should we say encyclopedic, knowledge, their goal might be so different when listening to music at home, that at the end the day, we are on our own to find that sonic nirvana.
Reading the bible may or may not be that helpful if not understanding what the original writers were trying to achieve, of course if one believe that: The Bible is an irreplaceable gift from God, then everything is much easier.

 

[NTK]

This is a bit circular—logically speaking, not the surround sound —as @tuga noted Toole's preference for envelopment. Using a preference for envelopment as evidence of a need (as opposed to a somewhat genre-dependent preference) for more envelopment begs the question. I'm not sure Toole really does this.

It is not just Dr. Toole who prefers a bit more spaciousness in the sound from some room reverberations for recreational listening. The discussion below was originally on loudspeaker directivity. However, without a room that has reflective walls, loudspeaker directivity doesn't matter. (Reference)

 

[juliangst]

I don't think upmixing or 'manipulating' a stereo recording is a bad thing. It can make the sound way more immersive in my experience and data also shows that it reproduces the original sound field a lot better than stereo:

 

[Axo1989]

It is not just Dr. Toole who prefers a bit more spaciousness in the sound from some room reverberations for recreational listening. The discussion below was originally on loudspeaker directivity. However, without a room that has reflective walls, loudspeaker directivity doesn't matter. (Reference)

View attachment 289671

Using Bose to support more reflection makes me smile. But I agree with the gist, and this is the same discussion of preference often depending on purpose and program material that I've mentioned early and often (like a bad reflection).

 

[youngho]

No, that is not the case. Research is independent for each topic. But each does play on the other. FYI there was another research done with speakers with bad directivity and even there, side reflections were thought to be good. I don't recall the paper title so can't find it now.

@amirm Were you perhaps thinking of this one? It's what initially came to my mind when I read your post, but it's different from what you describe.

Spatial aspects of sound quality - and by multichannel systems subjective assessment of sound reproduced by stereo

vbn.aau.dk

 

[NTK]

Using Bose to support more reflection makes me smile. But I agree with the gist, and this is the same discussion of preference often depending on purpose and program material that I've mentioned early and often (like a bad reflection).

Dr. Bose might have overdone it with his loudspeakers. But I'd not assume he is wrong in everything.

 

[Axo1989]

I don't think upmixing or 'manipulating' a stereo recording is a bad thing. It can make the sound way more immersive in my experience and data also shows that it reproduces the original sound field a lot better than stereo:

View attachment 289676

Great graphs! Accurate reproduction of large hall sound, also consistent with program-dependant preferences.

After reading this thread I'm really wanting some of those B&O 90 speakers. Not sure I can afford two, let alone five. Maybe just one will do.

 

[hemiutut]

PSI Audio AVAA is effective below 100Hz and especially below 50Hz, but yes, velocity based ones don't work, pressure do

I totally disagree with you and those who say that wideband porous absorber panels do not work well at 100 Hz or less.
What happens is that the panels have to have a greater thickness and located in the places that are more effective (maximum velocity).
People with a dedicated room will have no problem to put thick and concealed panels.
And for thicknesses of 60-80 cm for use as bass traps type soffit for example, there is nothing like the wadding (so it is called in Spain) and you know it by wadding polyester.

And if the excuse is to put resonators or those active traps, I have to tell you that with a multisub configuration there is no need to put any resonator.
If he wants to put them, fine, but he should know that there are more possibilities to achieve the same thing. to achieve the same thing


Main monitors - ATC 20s
Subs- (4) HSU ULS-15 MK2

Written with translator

Greetings

 

[SIY]

Dr. Bose might have overdone it with his loudspeakers. But I'd not assume he is wrong in everything.

And yet they were HIGHLY popular for a long time (in production for nearly 50 years!). So maybe he wasn't so wrong...

 

[Bjorn]

Spaciousness can be achieved in other ways than by adding lateral reflections.
The way Harman's room is treated, side wall contribution becomes needed there to add it.

BTW: When we do a comparison in our own rooms with and without side wall treatment, we are also comparing different levels. After all, absorption removes energy and the SPL is generally lower at many frequencies. This could be one reason why side wall contribution often gives a better first impression in a quick AB comparison, while listening over some time for many gives a different result.

Either way, the difference, though it may take more treatment, is sort of like having the artist in your room vs being taken to the recording. While the latter is the most accurate one, people need to experiment to find out they prefer.

 

[tuga]

There you go: you don't even know the standard terminology about the topic we are talking about. It is also described at length in the Acoustics of Small Rooms which you just claim to own. Spend more time reading the research and less complaining and we will make progress.

I've just searched my PDF version of the book and there is no hit for the word "pull". I think that you've just made it up.
You have read far more research than I have but you seem not to understand what you are reading.

 

[Wesayso]

Once more, research comes from many sources. I have quoted some. It took me nearly 2 years to read through all of them and be convinced just as Dr. Toole is. Dismiss them at your own peril.

I'm perfectly happy where I am and know why I arrived at that choice and with Dr. Toole's answer on this question regarding the benefits (Toole) or downsides (Geddes) of early reflections. I have tried both and Dr. Geddes point of view suited me better for my taste, and as I said earlier, the works of Dr. David Griesinger were a further eye opener on human perception.