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

[Axo1989]

On purely subjective/aesthetic grounds, I have to say I generally dislike the look of room treatment. I don't know if it's having spent so many years in mixing theaters, reminding me of work, but in domestic rooms it strikes me as blocky, imposed on a room, and utilitarian. (I also don't care for the aesthetics of pro monitors, in home settings...mine anyway).

At the same time I did need some good balance to reflections in my room, and having an acoustician involved, we managed to mostly build-in and hide acoustic treatments so they weren't eye-sores.

It's funny because people routinely comment on the sound of the room! Most of my guests are non-audiophiles but most, even on entering the room and beginning to have a conversation stop and say "oh, it sounds so nice in here..." It's slightly on the deader side of an average room which is one thing that I think cues them "something is different," but there's this "low noise floor" sensation where voices sound smooth and clear. I think it's why I can also play movies at fairly low volumes and still easily hear details and dialogue remains clean and easy to hear. (Of course there are some reflections going on, it's not like it's an anechoic chamber...but the room "sounds nice" and everything in the room "sounds nice," from people to music coming through speakers).

Well I think Cameron's colour scheme maximises the anti-aesthetic.

But it's also fun in a I'm-in-an-OTT-HiFi-listening-room way. I can take that in small doses. But overall I agree with you in the sense that rooms often need some treatment, and it's possible to integrate that with a good aesthetic (or to a range of tastes, including mine and presumably yours). But it takes a bit more thought and work maybe. Even a fair bit. Worth it I reckon.

 

[goat76]

Still, where's the proof all room reflections ruin audio? This whole thread started from a video made by a known bad faith actor proclaiming all room reflections are undesirable. Many in this thread provide evidence to a contrary prescription for typical home rooms. We even have some discussion as to why a mixing or control room would want different than a home room.

Intuition about sound can be incredibly counterproductive and misleading. I understand why many here have reservations about evidence suggesting certain reflections can improve or not detriment sound. Yet, the evidence for unequivocally calling all reflections bad seems far too unapparent.

I'd be curious what people who say they prefer headphones would think if they were studied for any room preferences for speakers. Would they prefer reflection-deaded rooms like GoldenSound's or the regularly furnished rooms that get suggested by Amir? Getting the testing to be blind would require both rooms to appear identical, which might be prohibitive to proper blind AB. The test would still would be interesting if possible, I'd wager.

One of the main problems with the discussion in this thread (and many others) is that a lot of people seem to think in a black-or-a-white manner, but the truth almost always lands somewhere in between in the so-called grey area.

I don't believe that "all room reflections ruin audio", quite the opposite actually. I think reflections are needed/necessary and the reason for that is also not just one single reason. One reason is that it's totally unnatural and will most likely give a claustrophobic feeling for most people to just be in a room without any reflections, we simply expect just by walking into a room that we at least hear the reflections from all the sounds we make by just being in the room. And another reason when it comes to listening to music in such a dead environment is that it will most likely reveal some obvious flaws with the simple stereo system, a system containing just two sound sources that are tricking our sense of hearing to believe what we think we are hearing. I do think some masking from our own listening environment is needed to at least hide some of the weak points that otherwise could ruin the stereo illusion.

Most people who have visited an anechoic chamber and heard music in such an environment say it's an awful experience. I totally believe them.

I would like to listen to music in the room that started this thread, just by looking at it I have a hard time believing that it sounds completely dead just because he treated most of the early reflection points. What I see when I watch the video is a lot of naked surfaces all over the place in his room and many of those later arriving reflections will reach the listener's ears at the listening position. So I don't think it's a completely dead room at all.

 

[amirm]

This is the "best" visual video that I found on YouTube that will visually try to explain how sounds propagate in the room. It's targeted to the home studio professionals but I found it interesting.

High on production values, low on acoustic science. My company became a dealer for them 10+ years ago. They said they had acoustic programs that would compute the right products for any room. We gave them our conference room and what came back was woefully wrong. Their products are gorgeous to look at and very low cost. Alas, none of their absorbers are way too thin to be broadband. And none have remotely a chance of dealing with room modes.

On their sound sample, listening on my laptop speakers, I much prefer the naked room than the dead one they landed on at the end. The treatments sucked the life out of solo vocal for example.

 

[Somafunk]

It's funny because people routinely comment on the sound of the room!

I get similar responses from friends to the point that three of them have implemented various treatments in their own rooms after borrowing my Umik mic, from homemade stuff after showing them Jesco’s YouTube channel Acoustic Insider to GIK stuff, all are very impressed with their results and can’t imagine removing it. All of them use studio monitors of some sort and are electronic music fans so perhaps it’s something to do with the playback of such audio or perhaps some folk just prefer a less reflective sound.

 

[amirm]

I would like to listen to music in the room that started this thread, just by looking at it I have a hard time believing that it sounds completely dead just because he treated most of the early reflection points. What I see when I watch the video is a lot of naked surfaces all over the place in his room and many of those later arriving reflections will reach the listener's ears at the listening position. So I don't think it's a completely dead room at all.

What? Almost every surface is covered with acoustic products. Likely some 80% has panels of one kind or the other. His vocal test at the end sounds quite dry with the products on the wall. As soon as you put wall to wall carpet, you have already covered a large area of the room. Once there, you have to be very careful in how many more products you add to the room.

 

[Axo1989]

On their sound sample, listening on my laptop speakers, I much prefer the naked room than the dead one they landed on at the end. The treatments sucked the life out of solo vocal for example.

I read your comment first, then listened to the video comparison. Then (really) laughed out loud. You be you I guess. You must have a very different taste and ear for things. If you enjoy that as a listener, of course that's fine, but it's actually helpful to know in other contexts.

Edit: ok "on laptop speakers" so who knows what you heard.

 

[tuga]

Not a word he said is about this. He said and quoting Dr. Toole, that a real performance has reflections coming from you from all directions. That experience cannot be recorded and replicated in stereo. By allowing side reflections, you allow a bit of that experience to bleed through this limited system we have called stereo.

That after being told what is there you still misread it, it tells me that you have not read Dr. Toole's book.

I was not replying to Toole's book but to the person I quoted, though I have read it, some parts a few times. That seems to have been the problem. Everything looks fine and dandy on a superficial reading.

A 'real' stereo recording over speakers is unable to reconstruct the original soundfield, you don't have to read Toole's book to understand that. All you need is a recording with an audience clapping and the sound coming from in front of you.

 

[Axo1989]

All you need is a recording with an audience clapping and the sound coming from in front of you.

On the "they are here/you are there" scale, that's called "you are right up the back there".

 

[hemiutut]

I see a lot of repetition in this thread of "you haven't read Toole's book" to anyone who doesn't agree with everything said in it,
as if there is no other respectable engineer who does not agree 100% with everything Toole says.
and a few have been quoted in this thread.

There are fans who have in their homes boxes like the JBL LSR305, which meets the standard of Harman group
and they have verified by themselves and with all the time in the world that in their rooms they prefer to treat lateral
They prefer to treat the side reflections rather than leave them untreated or put furniture in that area,
because in their listening conditions there is hardly any spatial improvement and instead there is an evident detriment of the recorded ambience.
and after adding those panels most of the music he listens to sounds more realistic to him.

In this thread there are not few who have written seem to have shared something similar to what I have commented
and not because of what a guru says or not,
but because they have verified it for themselves in their own rooms.


Similar to the video posted by tuga;where apart from the personal taste for having added so many panels
that seems to bother some people so much and not at all to others, what I think nobody can deny is that the clarity, intelligibility and precision of the image has increased,
intelligibility and precision of the image, sounding more natural or real to my taste.

That untreated room sounds to me as if I had put the concert inside another room; a room that also sounds bad.

And I emphasize that I am saying listen, without mentioning the ETC or any other acoustic parameter.

Those who listen only with charts instead of with their ears, in my opinion, have the same problem as those who follow a single guru as if they were following a single guru.
one guru as if he were the only one who is absolutely right in all his conclusions,
even those that do not agree with the rigorous studies of other gurus... Science is always open to new advances,
where those same gurus have modified their opinions over the years and most probably the same will happen in the coming years.

Testing more for yourself in your own living rooms using your ear more and just not so much third party books or charts,
helps to understand that there is probably no single guru whose conclusions are 100% certain and conclusive for all kinds of listening conditions, and that each one of them is likely to be 100% accurate and conclusive for all kinds of listening conditions.
and that each of them is probably partially right.


And last but not least, you may be familiar with the fact that some gurus in their books say
that equalization above 500hz is poor, but well that in the next blind test:

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

Shortly after completing the first blind listening test, @Inverse_Laplace and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions. Written summary follows, but here is a video if you prefer that medium: Speakers (calculated preference score in...

www.audiosciencereview.com

the Edlfier r1280t were equalized in several zones of the band, including above 500hz.
They went from being pre-EQ'd with a lousy score to being very close to all of a Neuman KH80.
So maybe with a properly performed and more accurate EQ on a mediocre speaker, the need to buy a spinning box will be avoided.
the need to buy a box with such a perfect spinorama to sound at the level of those that do have it.
And that in a room without dedicated treatment, whose directivity of the box will influence more on the perceived sound than in a more treated room.
And there I drop it.


Written with translator

Regards

 

[MattHooper]

On their sound sample, listening on my laptop speakers, I much prefer the naked room than the dead one they landed on at the end. The treatments sucked the life out of solo vocal for example.

Interesting. I much preferred the “treated” sound. I could hear the distinct timbre of the voice and instruments better.

This seems to speak to personal taste. At the symphony some people insist on sitting well back in the hall so that they get for them the correct blend of hall and instruments. Whereas I preferred to sit close, where I’d experience more vivid and distinguishable instrumental timbres. For the same reason I enjoy closely mic’d orchestral instruments in recordings, where others may feel that is improper.

 

[hemiutut]

High on production values, low on acoustic science. My company became a dealer for them 10+ years ago. They said they had acoustic programs that would compute the right products for any room. We gave them our conference room and what came back was woefully wrong. Their products are gorgeous to look at and very low cost. Alas, none of their absorbers are way too thin to be broadband. And none have remotely a chance of dealing with room modes.

On their sound sample, listening on my laptop speakers, I much prefer the naked room than the dead one they landed on at the end. The treatments sucked the life out of solo vocal for example.

Do you really like the sound better without the acoustic treatment ?
It is clear that your tastes vs mine are totally different.
In a room with those acoustics I can't stand even 5 minutes.

Written with translator

Greetings

 

[Somafunk]

nteresting. I much preferred the “treated” sound. I could hear the distinct timbre of the voice and instruments better.

This seems to speak to personal taste.

Yeah me too, the untreated room sounds like my shower room with its HomePod mini

 

[MattHooper]

Yeah me too, the untreated room sounds like my shower room with its HomePod mini

Yes. I certainly have no problem with reverb on vocals or instrumentals, but that was a particularly ugly reverb effect from the reflections - it was overbearing and competing with the voice/instruments.

Had it sounded like a more tasteful reverb I may have chosen it over the dry/treated track.

 

[youngho]

You think what the brain does with those two differing signals is going to make simple sense to you? Answer is absolutely not. You better read and listen to research that says that reflections coming from sides have a very different effect and role than reflections coming elsewhere.

This graph always reminds me of the Blauert bands, as well as the BBC dip, since depressing this peak range seems to push the apparent source back

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Interesting. I much preferred the “treated” sound. I could hear the distinct timbre of the voice and instruments better.

As did I. I've only listened on my laptop though, not sure that that's a fair test as were are discussing a full system set up thoughtfully in a room.

 

[MattHooper]

As did I. I've only listened on my laptop though, not sure that that's a fair test as were are discussing a full system set up thoughtfully in a room.

"How about some geetar?!"

 

[CtheArgie]

Do you really like the sound better without the acoustic treatment ?
It is clear that your tastes vs mine are totally different.
In a room with those acoustics I can't stand even 5 minutes.

Written with translator

Greetings

@hemiutut , I don't understand this video at all, and it is not about the language. This company is describing a "monitoring" or "mastering" room, maybe possibly a recording site too. It does not describe a room where I listen to music. Both my office and the "music room", do not have any specific acoustic treatment and they sound quite well. REW tells me I have some problems in both, but they are relatively minor and do not bother me (yet!).

Not only that, his examples are those for RECORDING music and may not have anything to do with listening.

Recently, I visited Nick Rubin's Shangri-La recording studio in Malibu, and the rooms all have different acoustic "characteristics" which suit the musicians and producers potential needs.

 

[Geert]

Do you really like the sound better without the acoustic treatment ? It is clear that your tastes vs mine are totally different. In a room with those acoustics I can't stand even 5 minutes.

It sounds awfully without treatment, but it's fake. A room that size doesn't sound like that. Not to mention you can't really assess the sound of a room via a recording as our brain misses the spacial information.

 

[dfuller]

Do you really like the sound better without the acoustic treatment ?
It is clear that your tastes vs mine are totally different.
In a room with those acoustics I can't stand even 5 minutes.

Written with translator

Greetings

I know an algorithmic reverb when I hear one. That's not what a room sounds like.

It sounds awfully without treatment, but it's fake. A room that size doesn't sound like that. Not to mention you can't really assess the sound of a room via a recording as our brain misses the special information.

Exactly. That's artificial reverb. Sounds like a plate to me.

 

[Thomas_A]

It sounds awfully without treatment, but it's fake. A room that size doesn't sound like that. Not to mention you can't really assess the sound of a room via a recording as our brain misses the special information.

Agreed. Even binaural recordings are suboptimal, though they come a bit closer.