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

[youngho]

The file size of that presentation is larger than the CD Will need to check later.

“The recording has no late reflections, but way too many early reflections. Sound leakage between the many microphones adds early reflections with relatively short time delays.”

 

[theREALdotnet]

Please look at slide 40 here: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Learning to Listen 14.pptx

Thanks for that!

Slide 40 implies that the Denon CD is both well known and not truly anechoic. I don’t think it matters much for the design of listening rooms, but it may be useful for testing recording venues (if its anechoic property weren’t flawed).

I will take my time reading through all the slides, I’m sure there will be some interesting bits. If only one-and-a-half liners to throw back at Amir in the battle of the quotes

 

[MattHooper]

Re: certain reflections, enhancing speech, intelligibility.

I’m not contesting that research, but I’m curious about the implications regarding headphones. Is this to say that we would find loud speakers in a room with some reflection would increase speech intelligibility over an excellent pair of headphones?

This comes to mind especially because, working in film sound, I know that many dialogue editors use headphones, where dialogue intelligibility is their focus.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

I find this whole discussion and topic frustrating. I've been trying for many years to get as good a sound as possible in my small room (15 sqm). To do this, I have bought the best (neutral) speakers I could afford, bought and tried almost all hardware and software DSPs and EQ solutions available (Antimode, Dirac, REW+EQAPO, Neumann.control, Neumann MA1, RME ADI-2 DAC), bought and compared various room acoustics panels, bought 2 PSI AVAAs, bought 2 subwoofers, I have bought surround speakers and upmixing software and spent endless hours tinkering around. Toole's book is in my nightstand next to my bed, but honestly although it is interesting it hasn't helped me much on a practical level (it's not just there, I've read it too).
As a result I have a dead room and in the end I am still not satisfied with the result. It's alright and honestly (sadly) I've never heard better sound anywhere. But I'm never really thrilled, but still hear deficits practically all the time (unsatisfying bass, unstable stereo image und things like that).
But: Even if I tried it with less treatment, it was never better, but always (even) worse. Just now I also tried again to do without the side panels, but that is simply counterproductive - the stereo image becomes more imprecise than before.
Of course, it could be that this is all psychology or that stereo simply doesn't work any better. Maybe I should have hired a professional from the beginning.
But in the end, I've almost reached the point where I think 1) that it's just never going to be really good in a 15sqm room and 2) that as a user I'm left alone with the subject of room acoustics and there's no really useful help - depending on where you read and who you ask, you read and hear contradictions everywhere, there seems to be zero consensus. Probably the last thing i´m gonna try is the Sirrah by RTFS, but i am not sure if i really want to do that or if I should just give up before I do.

When I see rooms like Amir's or Mr. Toole's, I think: Yes, in such a large room everything probably sounds great.

 

[Geert]

Is this to say that we would find loud speakers in a room with some reflection would increase speech intelligibility over an excellent pair of headphones?

Again, probably not because of S/N ratio (N being acoustic background noise). These reflections can't do miracles, especially not when you can just turn up the volume when necessary. Notice all this speech research focuses on live not amplified sound, where you want to get maximum intelligibility out of a natural voice.

 

[krabapple]

Does Toole have a preference for reflected sound?
That room looks terrible, no symmetry and the listening chairs look far too close to the rear wall.
I can't see how that can be considered a good example...

Dr. Toole has written extensively about the design of the sound system for that room.

What you 'can't see' is actually rather relevant. The sophisticated and rather pricey multi-sub bass management/DSP system, for example

Your crusade against the strawman that there is a religious belief that 'Floyd Toole lays down the gospel' is tiresome and offensive.

What Toole does, consistently , is summarize, with proper qualifications, the results of research by many others as well as himself. Areas of uncertainty are noted. Variation is noted. You don't see him writing that everyone will prefer reflected sound. In fact, if you've read his book, which I persistently doubt you have, you'll see that his template for a multi-seat home listening room involves optional use of on-wall absorption or diffusion.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Re: certain reflections, enhancing speech, intelligibility.

I’m not contesting that research, but I’m curious about the implications regarding headphones. Is this to say that we would find loud speakers in a room with some reflection would increase speech intelligibility over an excellent pair of headphones?

This comes to mind especially because, working in film sound, I know that many dialogue editors use headphones, where dialogue intelligibility is their focus.

If you follow EDM artists and producers they seem to work with headphones as well. I strive to get the sound as close as possible to my pair of IEM as possible and find only salvation, as other genres also sound better to me this way.

Classical enthusiasts may find that a live room sound better and I also understand that.

Different tastes in music is probably the reason for 90 % of this discussion.

 

[tuga]

Thanks for that!

Slide 40 implies that the Denon CD is both well known and not truly anechoic. I don’t think it matters much for the design of listening rooms, but it may be useful for testing recording venues (if its anechoic property weren’t flawed).

I will take my time reading through all the slides, I’m sure there will be some interesting bits. If only one-and-a-half liners to throw back at Amir in the battle of the quotes

 

[Mart68]

If you follow EDM artists and producers they seem to work with headphones as well. I strive to get the sound as close as possible to my pair of IEM as possible and find only salvation, as other genres also sound better to me this way.

Classical enthusiasts may find that a live room sound better and I also understand that.

Different tastes in music is probably the reason for 90 % of this discussion.

Different room size, shape and construction
Different loudspeakers
Different programme
Different tastes and expectations

I don't listen to any Classical music at all or attend concerts of such so all the related talk about the best way of reproducing the concert hall in the home is irrelevant to me.

I do listen to acoustic jazz, I think I get a reasonable representation of the recorded acoustic. In fact the acoustic of my room and the acoustic of the recording room seem to transition at some point in space, so I sort of hear both. I don't know if that is accurate or what is intended but it works for me.

 

[hemiutut]

Putting aside that the recording mic moves from before and after music playback, look at his post correction frequency response:

View attachment 289879

You have massive peaks and valleys.

The right approach would have been to put a couple of large planters on each side of the back wall. Put a bookshelf behind the speakers. And a thick throw rug between speakers and sofa. If the room is still too live, put some absorbers behind the sofa. Then measure and apply EQ to correct below transition frequency (which could be quite high due to small room). This combination would sound superb with no needed to turn that already small room into an ugly padded cell. And would save you good chunk of money as well.

Mr Amir
Do you hear more clarity in the tuga video when the room is treated or when it is less treated ?

About your microphone comment.
Do you hear clearer and more intelligible in an untreated room if we record it with an omnidirectional microphone
if we record it with an omnidirectional microphone (which picks up energy from all directions) or with a cardioid microphone ?

I put a video of a person speaking in a reverberant chamber and in an anechoic chamber.
In which one do you understand better what he is saying ?

Do reflections provide clarity and intelligibility?
The answer is very easy, clearly no
This extreme example in the video is just to get across the idea that reflections affect clarity and intelligibility, not because I am recommending that the ideal for reproducing a recorded signal is an anechoic room and any other type of acoustics is worse.
There are many roads that lead to Rome

The problem arises when trying to treat a room intended to reproduce live concerts in the same way as a room intended to reproduce a pre-recorded signal.
intended to reproduce a previously recorded signal.

The former adds its coloration to the timbre that the instruments themselves have.
The second has to preserve those nuances and the spatial distribution that is already in the recording itself
the spatial distribution of the recording itself without excessive coloration.

Stereo recordings play with the intensity of recorded energy, phase shifts, etc. in each channel independently,
etc. in each channel independently, so that when we listen to it, we create a three-dimensional image without the need for our room to contribute to the sound.
without any need for our room to provide additional reflected energy from any angle.

Therefore, to perform the blind test with mono signal with a single speaker is an aberration,
because with a single box you cannot reproduce the recorded spatial cues that create that 3D space;
it will only give you a sensation of more or less space, but not a three-dimensional image.

Written with translator

Greetings

 

[Wesayso]

Re: certain reflections, enhancing speech, intelligibility.

I’m not contesting that research, but I’m curious about the implications regarding headphones. Is this to say that we would find loud speakers in a room with some reflection would increase speech intelligibility over an excellent pair of headphones?

This comes to mind especially because, working in film sound, I know that many dialogue editors use headphones, where dialogue intelligibility is their focus.

Within a Stereo set of speakers we suffer from cross talk, left ear hearing right speaker and vice versa, therefore some level of reflections can be beneficial, headphones don't suffer from that same crosstalk when listening to stereo material. The timing of those (beneficial) reflections can be a subject of discussion though. A dedicated center, like in movie/film sound would not suffer from that same crosstalk problem.

See Toole's book on a comparison of a real center and a phantom center:

And how a normally reflective room solves some of that imbalance.

 

[Bjorn]

I find this whole discussion and topic frustrating. I've been trying for many years to get as good a sound as possible in my small room (15 sqm). To do this, I have bought the best (neutral) speakers I could afford, bought and tried almost all hardware and software DSPs and EQ solutions available (Antimode, Dirac, REW+EQAPO, Neumann.control, Neumann MA1, RME ADI-2 DAC), bought and compared various room acoustics panels, bought 2 PSI AVAAs, bought 2 subwoofers, I have bought surround speakers and upmixing software and spent endless hours tinkering around. Toole's book is in my nightstand next to my bed, but honestly although it is interesting it hasn't helped me much on a practical level (it's not just there, I've read it too).
As a result I have a dead room and in the end I am still not satisfied with the result. It's alright and honestly (sadly) I've never heard better sound anywhere. But I'm never really thrilled, but still hear deficits practically all the time (unsatisfying bass, unstable stereo image und things like that).
But: Even if I tried it with less treatment, it was never better, but always (even) worse. Just now I also tried again to do without the side panels, but that is simply counterproductive - the stereo image becomes more imprecise than before.
Of course, it could be that this is all psychology or that stereo simply doesn't work any better. Maybe I should have hired a professional from the beginning.
But in the end, I've almost reached the point where I think 1) that it's just never going to be really good in a 15sqm room and 2) that as a user I'm left alone with the subject of room acoustics and there's no really useful help - depending on where you read and who you ask, you read and hear contradictions everywhere, there seems to be zero consensus. Probably the last thing i´m gonna try is the Sirrah by RTFS, but i am not sure if i really want to do that or if I should just give up before I do.

When I see rooms like Amir's or Mr. Toole's, I think: Yes, in such a large room everything probably sounds great.

A 15m2 room is very challenging and it's not possible to achieve the same spaciousness and envelopment as in a bigger room. It will naturally be more dead when you at same time want to control the acoustics, though there are certain ways to make it sound livelier and more spacious. Room modes and resonances will also go much higher in frequency in such a small room and there's less space to place effective low frequency treatment.

I don't think the speakers you have help much either here. They suffer from combing and polar lobing both horizontally and vertically, there's no constant directivity over a wide frequency range, and no minimization of floor bounce (unless placed on the desk) or vertical reflections.

 

[youngho]

This description of recording methods would seem to support Griesinger’s expressed concern (each instrument might be loudest at the nearest microphone but then also get picked up at varying lower levels and delays by the other 28 microphone?)

 

[tuga]

This description of recording methods would seem to support Griesinger’s expressed concern (each instrument might be loudest at the nearest microphone but then also get picked up at varying lower levels and delays by the other 28 microphone?)

I haven't listened to this CD in ages, I might give it a go with headphones to see if there's an audible issue.
Denon is not claiming that the recording is perfect but I remember finding it interesting and educational to listen to.

 

[Keith_W]

I find this whole discussion and topic frustrating. I've been trying for many years to get as good a sound as possible in my small room (15 sqm). To do this, I have bought the best (neutral) speakers I could afford, bought and tried almost all hardware and software DSPs and EQ solutions available (Antimode, Dirac, REW+EQAPO, Neumann.control, Neumann MA1, RME ADI-2 DAC), bought and compared various room acoustics panels, bought 2 PSI AVAAs, bought 2 subwoofers, I have bought surround speakers and upmixing software and spent endless hours tinkering around. Toole's book is in my nightstand next to my bed, but honestly although it is interesting it hasn't helped me much on a practical level (it's not just there, I've read it too).
As a result I have a dead room and in the end I am still not satisfied with the result. It's alright and honestly (sadly) I've never heard better sound anywhere. But I'm never really thrilled, but still hear deficits practically all the time (unsatisfying bass, unstable stereo image und things like that).
But: Even if I tried it with less treatment, it was never better, but always (even) worse. Just now I also tried again to do without the side panels, but that is simply counterproductive - the stereo image becomes more imprecise than before.
Of course, it could be that this is all psychology or that stereo simply doesn't work any better. Maybe I should have hired a professional from the beginning.
But in the end, I've almost reached the point where I think 1) that it's just never going to be really good in a 15sqm room and 2) that as a user I'm left alone with the subject of room acoustics and there's no really useful help - depending on where you read and who you ask, you read and hear contradictions everywhere, there seems to be zero consensus. Probably the last thing i´m gonna try is the Sirrah by RTFS, but i am not sure if i really want to do that or if I should just give up before I do.

When I see rooms like Amir's or Mr. Toole's, I think: Yes, in such a large room everything probably sounds great.

You should start a separate thread on the issues you are having with your system. I for one, would be interested in seeing measurements and how the ASR community goes about solving your problem.

 

[Thomas Lund]

How do you address this issue? Would the speakers need low- and sub-bass lift EQ if the room was treated in that range?

You may compensate a bit with EQ, but a time domain issue can't be fixed that way. Call an acoustic consultant, find a better/larger room, or monitor at a shorter distance. Here is another slide from the same room, showing T60 and ITU-R BS.1116 requirements between the green lines. Bringing in a good crowd (30 people) helps a bit, but LF decay still goes wild, compromising at least the lowest three octaves of potential envelopment (from the recording).

 

[theREALdotnet]

I find this whole discussion and topic frustrating.

I can relate to all the experiences you describe. In the end, we have to work with what we’ve got. My room is only slightly larger than yours, but I also had unexplained unsteadiness or balance issues in the stereo image at some stages. To the point that I thought I was going deaf in one ear.

At some point, it all cleared up and I’m still not entirely sure why. I think precision helps. Measure your angles and distances carefully, don’t eyeball things. In a small room this seems to matter a lot. Be precise with your microphone placement during measurements. When Dirac tells you to measure around a circle of at least 1m, believe them.

As for an unsteady stereo image, this can mean two things: comb filtering effects when you move your head, or wandering instruments depending on pitch. I found the former can be cured by experimenting with toe-in angles (small increments!). The latter can be related to hearing asymmetries, or to uneven reflectivity or absorption throughout the room.

There are a gazillion test tracks for diagnosing all kinds of audio issues, but here are a couple I find immensely useful:

- The LEDR test signals. Don’t worry so much about the “Up” and “Over” signals, the “Lateral/Behind” signals are where it’s at. They show up speaker-sidewall distance and toe-in errors easily and without straining yourself. The Audio Beat has some good instructions and pictures for using and interpreting these test tracks.

- Disc #2 Track #13 from the CD “The Music Surround Spectacular - The Tests” on Delos. This track will show up, like no other I’ve found, uneven reflections and room symmetry issues across frequency bands.

 

[theREALdotnet]

What Toole does, consistently , is summarize, with proper qualifications, the results of research by many others as well as himself. Areas of uncertainty are noted. Variation is noted. You don't see him writing that everyone will prefer reflected sound. In fact, if you've read his book, which I persistently doubt you have, you'll see that his template for a multi-seat home listening room involves optional use of on-wall absorption or diffusion.

I agree and believe that much of the confrontation stems from selective quoting used to further some line of argumentation.

 

[Thomas Lund]

Not sure I fully understand what the graph depicts. You say the room measures flat but the red versus green line indicates a gradual build-up of low frequency energy, suggesting the room was not treated in the low end and it was only the sound system that measured flat. I guess they want the red line to be lower than the green, more direct sound versus late which means better room treatment. Can you elaborate?

Comments are merely from a monitoring perspective, and then you don't want the room to distort/improve the recording too much. At recent AES conventions this has been discussed as "the Inception dilemma", i.e. a room in a room.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

You should start a separate thread on the issues you are having with your system. I for one, would be interested in seeing measurements and how the ASR community goes about solving your problem.

I have started a few threads already in the past in my search for better sound in my room, if you are interested.
Current room and latest measurements (trying to optimize bass response with dual sub setup with software): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...live-bass-control-dlbc-dual-kh750-subs.43054/
Same room, trying to decide about new absorbers: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nd-plate-resonator-against-dip-at-80hz.34703/
Same room, trying surround setup for upmixing setup (almost never use it and ditched the center since then because it did not do any good): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ve-ear-level-close-distance-music-only.29959/
Previous, slightly smaller room (trying different kinds of acoustic products/meaures): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-a-small-room-subs-ma1-absorbers-avaa.27288/
Previous room, when still fighting with sub alignment (before Neumann MA1 was introduced): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...bwoofer-and-eq-also-passive-absorbtion.12264/