Guy cuts around 200ms of RT from a small room making it from quite unbearable to actually quite good and you are dismissing it and suggesting _planters_ instead. I’m not sure if this is serious or not.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
How NOT to set up speakers and room treatment ( Goldensound)
- Thread starter Nkam
- Start date
- Status
Guy cuts around 200ms of RT from a small room making it from quite unbearable to actually quite good and you are dismissing it and suggesting _planters_ instead. I’m not sure if this is serious or not.
Hello everyone and greetings from Germany!
This is my first post in this forum and first of all i would like to thank you for the interesting conversation!
I think the big problem with research of sound quality in rooms is that research results from studies on unamplified signals, or signals where the volume was not adjusted (concert hall acoustics, speech intelligibility), are transferred to music reproduction. It is something completely different when the volume can be adjusted.
Reflections increase the volume, which affects speech intelligibility and the feeling of envelopment.
The study from Toole's book that has been mentioned several times is also rather questionable. I also have the book at home and i really like it, but i am quite surprised that one can read out of the study a preference for lateral reflections. In fact, the result of the studie was that "no significant main effect was found for acoustical treatment."
Considering that diffusion also reduces the strength of the first reflections, 15 out of 26, i.e. the majority, found a reduction to be positive. And one must not forget here that the volume was not adjusted, and that diffusion and absorption with panels of low depth only has a very narrow-band effect. With low depth absorption the sound becomes dull, which is the main reason why absorption sometimes has a bad reputation.
It would be very interesting to read good blinded studies that use sufficiently broadband absorption and consider the level loss due to the treatment. Most likely, defending listening in normal living rooms would then be significantly more difficult.
This is my first post in this forum and first of all i would like to thank you for the interesting conversation!
I think the big problem with research of sound quality in rooms is that research results from studies on unamplified signals, or signals where the volume was not adjusted (concert hall acoustics, speech intelligibility), are transferred to music reproduction. It is something completely different when the volume can be adjusted.
Reflections increase the volume, which affects speech intelligibility and the feeling of envelopment.
The study from Toole's book that has been mentioned several times is also rather questionable. I also have the book at home and i really like it, but i am quite surprised that one can read out of the study a preference for lateral reflections. In fact, the result of the studie was that "no significant main effect was found for acoustical treatment."
Considering that diffusion also reduces the strength of the first reflections, 15 out of 26, i.e. the majority, found a reduction to be positive. And one must not forget here that the volume was not adjusted, and that diffusion and absorption with panels of low depth only has a very narrow-band effect. With low depth absorption the sound becomes dull, which is the main reason why absorption sometimes has a bad reputation.
It would be very interesting to read good blinded studies that use sufficiently broadband absorption and consider the level loss due to the treatment. Most likely, defending listening in normal living rooms would then be significantly more difficult.
Clarity and intelligibility is generally higher with a dipole because it avoids side wall reflections to a large degree. One has to take care of its front wall contribution though.
Intelligbility in an environment like a class room has a different meaning and is much related to needed amplication of voice.
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 6,277
- Likes
- 6,405
As far as I understand everything in this thread is about preference,right?
Preference means percentages,so no wonder that the debate is strong,specially when the percentages are close.
The one thing that's not mentioned though is not what we hear in a room but what we don't hear coming from outside.
Noise floor is important,isn't it?I was listening to a beautiful Sheherazade and at the opening this lone violin would be nowhere in a noisy environment I suppose.
Preference means percentages,so no wonder that the debate is strong,specially when the percentages are close.
The one thing that's not mentioned though is not what we hear in a room but what we don't hear coming from outside.
Noise floor is important,isn't it?I was listening to a beautiful Sheherazade and at the opening this lone violin would be nowhere in a noisy environment I suppose.
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
As far as I'm concerned I much like the sound of my Airpods Pro with ANC and been trying to get as close to that sound as possible on my hifi.
That must mean I like the sound as dead / non reflective as possible as there are no reflections from in ears.
In my mind logic says that if the mixing is done in a studio or even with headphones, it is not done with reflection galore in mind. The reverberations we are supposed to hear should be the reverberations the mixer decided and not those arbitrary ones from a million different rooms with a million different materials and a million different sizes.
That must mean I like the sound as dead / non reflective as possible as there are no reflections from in ears.
In my mind logic says that if the mixing is done in a studio or even with headphones, it is not done with reflection galore in mind. The reverberations we are supposed to hear should be the reverberations the mixer decided and not those arbitrary ones from a million different rooms with a million different materials and a million different sizes.
tuga
Major Contributor
I've been an architect for 3 decades. I've mostly done residential but also a number of undergraduate classroom buildings and a lecture hall. I have worked with acoustics consultants. I am also an avid classical music listener, from Monday lunchtime concerts to College choir and/or organ recitals to dedicated music rooms and symphony halls. I have also read a lot about concert hall design as well Everest, Kinsler, Kleiner & Tichy, even Toole.
I have no doubt that rooms for producing live unamplified music have very distinct requirements to rooms for reproducing recorded music.
It's not intuition but experience as a room designer and as a listener.
tuga
Major Contributor
Definitely my experience too, I've worked in projects for several University buildings and had long meetings with acoustics consultants and teachers how to best achieve speech intelligibility.
How on earth would he do that? What would he mix for? Your room or mine? What if I put you in a blind test and you like said recorded music better with side reflections? Still going to stick to that story?
The problem here is that no matter how much research I show you that disputes your point of view, you are just going to disagree. Same as audiophiles do when I show them measurements of power tweaks, cables, etc. I thought we had made more progress in this forum but I see that when it comes to acoustics, we are at square one with some of you.....
They do. One is a large acoustic room and the other small. The mention of performance halls is that they are full of reflected sound energy not that you need to treat them the same. This statement should dispense with any notion that reflections by definition are bad. Yet, I can't get you to divorce yourself from that.
What do you think is in it for Dr. Toole or myself for having the belief we have? That you being a building architect has amassed more knowledge and wisdom than us?
Not at all. Controlled tests of reflections for example are done in anechoic chambers with side reflections emulated using other speakers. This way we can precisely research thresholds of hearing for such reflections and preferences. Every researcher out there fully understands that concert halls are large acoustic spaces that have their own metrics and design on what makes them good and bad. Indeed, Dr. Toole's book has a full chapter on large spaces.
I'm not talking about general research, more about false conclusions that people draw when they arguing in favour of reflections. Like the mentioned example of speech intelligibility.
This points to an aspect about reflections that is not considered sufficiently from my point of view:
The human auditory system is able to estimate the size of a room and the distance to room boundaries from reflections, subconsciously at least. Blind persons can do this quite accurately.
In a sound reproduction scenario, significant early reflections from the listening room boundaries may conflict with early reflections from the venue where the recording took place. In other words, we subconsciously hear that we are in a living room but want to hear that we are in a concert hall, for example.
Naturally, this problem doesn’t exist in case the room where the recording took place (or the room that is simulated by artificial reverberation) is of similar size and shape like the listening room, but often this is not the case.
I suspect this to be one of the clues that tell us that it is a sound reproduction and not a real performance.
TheZebraKilledDarwin
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
- Messages
- 114
- Likes
- 115
Wasn't the, in this thread mentioned Griesinger, one of the heads behind the famous Lexicon reverbs?
That's how its done. The amount of space, how it sounds, how it develops over time, how it spreads, is all done with the effects in the studio.
Amir,
if you ask a woman about a car, chances are high, that she will tell you the color and the look she likes more as decisive "opinion". But is that a valid opinion to judge what the best suited car for her was?
Of course not. Opinions are like a..holes. Everyone got one.
Obviously, when we talk about this topic, we should not talk about colors as decisive factors, but about specific characteristics of the reproduced mixes.
Not: "Oh, I like that better."
Instead: "How is the ambience of the main vocal sounding to you? How do you perceive it is spreading into the room? How does instrument X relate to the main vocal? Where is it in the mix? Describe the backing vocal."
Then one would very quickly recognize, who listens (and opinions may differ because of different perceptions and personal taste), or who is just choosing a car by color...
And the interesting thing is, that the car mechanic, knowing the car and suggesting a car to the women and respecting her color wishes, can help her make a great decision, while the salesman just creates problems for her later on, she has no clue about, while she feels well informed.
Last edited:
tuga
Major Contributor
Not only have I not written that reflections are bad, but more importantly live music rooms and reproduced music rooms have different needs.
In a live music room reflections are used to create envelopment, to support/amplify the instruments, to get a reasonably even sound across the whole audience but reverberation needs to be controled, particularly in large halls
Stereo recreates a soundstage and early reflections need to be treated (not necessarily absorbed) in order for it not to be masked. Toole rates envelopment higher than anything else, which is why he is willing to sacrifice accurate transduction by using an upmixer.
Your belief, and Toole's, is just that.
Which people? Dr. Toole? Me? If so, that assertion is wrong. I just explained how the research is done. I trust you didn't?
The positiv effects of reflections in live unamplified music are mentioned all the time when people talk about music reproduction, but it is a completely different subject. People like Toole understand that, no doubt about it.
Last edited:
tuga
Major Contributor
Some 20 years ago the Gulbenkian concert hall in Lisbon was refurbished. The governing body wanted to diversify the programme (likely a profit-driven decision), with some ethnic/traditional and jazz, also live MET broadcasts and this required amplification. They had used amplification in the past with the now dissolved Ballet company but the sound was 'muddy'.
Unfortunately, as is common in refurbs of this type, the changes to the acoustics of the hall resulted in a considerable deterioration of the halls main function which was to support the sound of the orchestra. Musicians couldn't hear themselves and each other properly and the sound on the rear half of the audience had lost clarity and was significantly 'darker' than it should.
There was criticism from all fronts and some changes were made to the canopy which did improve things somewhat, but the perfect(ly adequate) sound of the original project was forever lost.
Edit: I've just remembered that Mastering Engineer João Ganho wrote about the issue here:
www.linkedin.com
Unfortunately, as is common in refurbs of this type, the changes to the acoustics of the hall resulted in a considerable deterioration of the halls main function which was to support the sound of the orchestra. Musicians couldn't hear themselves and each other properly and the sound on the rear half of the audience had lost clarity and was significantly 'darker' than it should.
There was criticism from all fronts and some changes were made to the canopy which did improve things somewhat, but the perfect(ly adequate) sound of the original project was forever lost.
Edit: I've just remembered that Mastering Engineer João Ganho wrote about the issue here:
THE GULBENKIAN GREAT HALL ACOUSTIC DOWNGRADE
This is the republish of an article I wrote in my blog in 2014. The blog is currently off-line by my own option, but over the last years some readers have been asking me about this article in particular.
www.linkedin.com
Last edited:
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,211
- Likes
- 2,086
If I like that better then I like it better. I’m not the defender of a certain ”line of thought”, I can only debate based on what I’ve learned and experienced myself. I have not yet heard a reflective room that allowed for a better sound stage than a treated one. I have heard rooms going backward in this regard through either too much or the wrong kind of treatment. More is definitely not always more.
No, the problem is that the research you’re showing is either irrelevant or weak.
I resent that equivalence. I might as well call you a fanatic for clinging to your holy book and quoting verses from it during any discussion like a country preacher.
This is exactly how it is. Modern music since 50’s is produced with reverb, delay and all the spatial information allready on the recording. This is something that seems to be extremely hard for some people on this thread to grasp.
Rooms can have higher RT and still sound nice but it needs to be balanced throughout the spectrum (AES). Early reflections are usually minimized as much as possible or directed behind the listener for absorbion/diffusion.
Rooms can have higher RT and still sound nice but it needs to be balanced throughout the spectrum (AES). Early reflections are usually minimized as much as possible or directed behind the listener for absorbion/diffusion.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
