I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[Inner Space]

Lastly, may I also refer to the end of chapter 6.2 of "Sound Reproduction" (3rd ed, page 153), citing in turn Hughes et all paper from 2016. who seem to have found that in cases when listening to a recording from a 'real' space in a different 'listening' space, the larger of the two spaces is most often percieved.
This would speak in favour of the claim that the 'small room' acoustical signature of many living rooms need not overpower the basic acoustic signature of the space in the recording.

Yes, I have no reason to doubt those findings. Listening in a normal domestic room is quite clearly not a total disaster, and can indeed be very pleasant and satisfying. The brain can indeed process and separate things out to a wondrous degree.

What worries me about such findings is that "step one" of the experiment is never performed - subjects are never invited to first listen in a non-environment, and never invited to state a preference between the two conditions. They're never asked to compare - in which was it easier to hear the larger space? Which was more pleasant? Which was more authentic, more like reality, less fatiguing?

My hypothesis, based on decades of observation, is that without the brain's deciphering program running hard in the background, the non-environment is not only more accurate in terms of transfer function, but also less fatiguing and ultimately more satisfying.

I readily accept that mine is an elitist perspective, based on being able to fix up my rooms in ways that are ludicrously non-domestic and selfish, and I absolutely applaud those who manipulate more conventional environments to such a satisfying degree.

 

[dominikz]

You can have a passive contribution and which is used a lot in studios and mastering rooms. This way the sound eminates from several directions. The whole idea with lateral arriving diffuse energy was exactly to replicate the spaciousness and enveloping sound from the best concert halls or other larger recording venues. It works very well and turns 2-channel stereo in to something entirely else.

Thanks! Indeed one can use treatment and manipulate listening room reflections (by e.g. sound scattering elements) to enhance the sense of envelopment when listening to stereo. But IMO that is in basic principle similar to using normal listening room early reflections to increase the sense of envelopment - a position which dr. Toole seems to be a proponent of. In either case we're leveraging listening room acoustic signature to create additional spaciousness which is not originally encoded in the (2ch stereo) recording. Of course one can then further investigate which variant would be more pleasing to listen to, and whether the preference is consistent with e.g. various recordings.

Yes, I have no reason to doubt those findings. Listening in a normal domestic room is quite clearly not a total disaster, and can indeed be very pleasant and satisfying. The brain can indeed process and separate things out to a wondrous degree.

What worries me about such findings is that "step one" of the experiment is never performed - subjects are never invited to first listen in a non-environment, and never invited to state a preference between the two conditions. They're never asked to compare - in which was it easier to hear the larger space? Which was more pleasant? Which was more authentic, more like reality, less fatiguing?

My hypothesis, based on decades of observation, is that without the brain's deciphering program running hard in the background, the non-environment is not only more accurate in terms of transfer function, but also less fatiguing and ultimately more satisfying.

I readily accept that mine is an elitist perspective, based on being able to fix up my rooms in ways that are ludicrously non-domestic and selfish, and I absolutely applaud those who manipulate more conventional environments to such a satisfying degree.

Thanks for sharing your experience! I understand your reservations and I also don't know if such research was ever done - it would definitely be interesting to read if it was. All I've read so far seem to be anecdotes, which I agree is not enough to generalize.

Perhaps I should also say that personally I don't find 2ch stereo very convincing or all that similar to reality. That doesn't mean I don't find it enjoyable - I very much do. Though I absolutely agree that some setups will come much closer than others - and I'm sure I haven't heard the best ones!

Lastly an anecdote from my experience - when doing audio editing I often find listening room acoustics distracting and find such work more easily done on headphones, and most difficult to do on loudspeakers in relative far field. On the other hand, when listening to music for enjoyment it is the exact opposite for me - I much prefer loudspeakers at a distance, and I suspect the envelopment created by the listening room reflections have much to do with it. When doing audio production and trying to e.g. nail tonality or pan the elements I find that nearfield monitors generally work best for me, as a kind of compromise between headphones and typical living room loudspeakers.
So I seem to prefer different listening environments depending on what I'm doing and so far found they all have their relative strengths.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks! Indeed one can use treatment and manipulate listening room reflections (by e.g. sound scattering elements) to enhance the sense of envelopment when listening to stereo. But IMO that is in basic principle similar to using normal listening room early reflections to increase the sense of envelopment - a position which dr. Toole seems to be a proponent of. In either case we're leveraging listening room acoustic signature to create additional spaciousness which is not originally encoded in the (2ch stereo) recording. Of course one can then further investigate which variant would be more pleasing to listen to, and whether the preference is consistent with e.g. various recordings.

Whether one is adding something or not depends on very much on the environment the music was mixed/mastered in. In most cases, and as long as we're talking about professional studios, it's been mixed in such environment with late diffuse energy. So in that sense you may actually be getting closer to how the mixer intended it to be.

Secondly, it removes late arrival specular energy which colors the recordring. And thirdly, the goal is as mentioned to get as closer to the recording venue where you have more spaciousness, but obviously that depends highly on where its' been recorded and we know that much music material today is recorded in small dead boxes.

So I guess you can both say it can add something but also get closer to the recordring or mix. It's certainly very pleasing and if it arrives sufficiently late in time it will not color the intial time delay of the recorded signal.

There's study of it here:

AES E-Library » Influence of Rear-Wall Reflection Patterns in Live-End-Dead-End-Type Recording Studio Control Rooms

The original statement of LEDE control room design theory advocated the use of diffuse energy composed of reflections, highly interwoven in time, and 'significant' reflections from the rear wall of the room to trigger the precedence effect and render these and subsequent room reflections...

www.aes.org

 

[thorvat]

I have been in many, and I listen in rooms I make as dead as possible. Again, live music and live speech might sound dull and lifeless in such rooms, but recordings made elsewhere sound exactly like where they were made. You're still confusing production and reproduction.

Well, I have been to Hawai and seen with my own eyes folks enjoying pineapple pizza so I know better than to question somebody personal preferences. However, I have yet to see you and @Bjorn citing some research which confirms listening in acoustically dead room is generally preferred. Btw, are you also selling acoustic treatment panels?

As for the cost, loss of comfort and aesthetic concerns when transforming your room into ugly windowless container so it can become acoustically dead, let me remind you that there exists a technological marvel which allows you to get rid of room reflections in much cheaper and more effective way. It's called headphones and you should really try them.

 

[thorvat]

The exception may of course be extraordinarily live living rooms, but luckily most normally furnished ones seem to have relatively short decay times.

Anyway, just my 2c!

I cannot agree more, as Indeed they do. And all you need is to put some good speakers into them and start enjoying your music, skipping the need to confront your wife resisting your idea to put ugly panels all around your room.

 

[Inner Space]

However, I have yet to see you and @Bjorn citing some research which confirms listening in acoustically dead room is generally preferred. Btw, are you also selling acoustic treatment panels?

I'm not in the least little bit interested whether listening in acoustically dead rooms is generally preferred. All I care about is what I prefer. But equally, I await your citations of experiments where listeners have been properly exposed to both options. Do you have any, or just your own unexamined assumptions, intuitions, and folk wisdom?

And no, I don't sell acoustic panels - I make the records you enjoy, and well enough that they still sound good through the storm of random noise in your room.

 

[Bjorn]

@Bjorn[/USER] citing some research which confirms listening in acoustically dead room is generally preferred.

Not I'm not. Quite the contrary, I greatly prefer rooms that are very alive with much energy.
It seems to me that you misundertand much of what's being shared and base it on your assumptions.

And FIY: I design speakers and have far more financial gain by selling speakers rather than acoustic treatment. The latter requires a lot of follow up and teaching, and with very low mark up to domestic spaces. But I know and understand the importance of acoustics and personally think a well treated room is far superior to mutichannels.

 

[Vuki]

It doesn't have to look like a mess and still can have low rt60

 

[krabapple]

I thought we were talking about music, not only music videos.

We are talking about recorded sound reproduction, and there is music on DVDs as well, including soundtracks to movies as well as a 'music videos'. To dismiss it is audiophile snobbery.

 

[sarumbear]

We are talking about recorded sound reproduction, and there is music on DVDs as well, including soundtracks to movies as well as a 'music videos'. To dismiss it is audiophile snobbery.

Can you point me to a DVD which is only music, please?

 

[AdamG]

Can you point me to a DVD which is only music, please?

Is this what your looking for? Just one source: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Rock-DVD-Audio-CDs-Vinyl/s?rh=n:67204,p_n_binding_browse-bin:387646011

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

 

[krabapple]

No, my response was not particularly pointed a you or your post. Sorry for that.

I agree with you. You can treat the room with absorption on every surface to kill the bad off-axis sound. But unless you're sitting on-axis ( assuming the sound is good there) in the sweet spot, and paralyzed from the neck down, it doesn't work: anyone not sitting in your lap will hear bad sound.

Not a good solution unless you have no friends to socialize with, and have a good close relationship with your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner.

I think that all along the research community of which you and Dr. Toole are part have underestimate the, er, shall we say non-gregariousness of the sorts of people who care most about home audio.

We/they are often indeed 'sitting alone in the sweet spot' (as poignant a phrase for this hobby as one could make)

 

[krabapple]

Can you point me to a DVD which is only music, please?

Why does it matter to you whether the music on a disc accompanies a video not? Audio snobbery?

Multichannel music -- the initial thing you were misinformed about -- became digitally available circa the late 90s via DVD (and I'm leaving aside the existence too of 'DTS CD', and multichannel from VHS tape) . Video soundtracks can be talk only, talk + music, music only, and audio tracks on DVD that have no video or static video.

And so what?

 

[sarumbear]

Is this what your looking for? Just one source: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Rock-DVD-Audio-CDs-Vinyl/s?rh=n:67204,p_n_binding_browse-bin:387646011

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

That is not a DVD but a DVD-Audio, completely different formats, requiring completely different players. I was commenting to your following comment, which is not correct.

Every DVD release (and every BluRay release) is and has been multichannel since virtually the start.

 

[Vuki]

I think that all along the research community of which you and Dr. Toole are part have underestimate the, er, shall we say non-gregariousness of the sorts of people who care most about home audio.

We/they are often indeed 'sitting alone in the sweet spot' (as poignant a phrase for this hobby as one could make)

As can be seen in the picture of my listening room - one chair only

 

[krabapple]

That is not a DVD but a DVD-Audio, completely different formats, requiring completely different players. I was commenting to your following comment, which is not correct.

And as well as lossless, DVD-Audio discs routinely include the audio in the same formats -- DTS or Dolby -- found on DVDs.

And again why does this matter?

My claim:
Every DVD release (and every BluRay release) is and has been multichannel since virtually the start.

remains true regardless of what you believe.

 

[krabapple]

As can be seen in the picture of my listening room - one chair only

I can see why.

 

[ernestcarl]

a well treated room is far superior to mutichannels.

I vote for both. Well treated, for sure; but also the ability to quickly switch to MCH esp. when the content is encoded that way.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I vote for both. Well treated, for sure; but also the ability to quickly switch to MCH esp. when the content is encoded that way.

Two towers and some subs, can really get you far. I admit that surround can be fun. But most movies and everything else I watch or listen to... works just fine in 2 channels.
Back to the preference sore.... well. It seems like most people forget that a simple scale, won't make up for all the work that it sometimes require, to make a system sound good in a given room. Further, people with a hifi-hobby, seem to like the journey, and not that all too easy - pick one - be fit for life. Even though it might be so - scientifically - I don't think we'll ever agree fully, especially with something as full of feelings, as music
We can maybe more easily make a list of speakers, that fulfil a given predefined reference - more or less. But fully predict one's liking( full of feelings). That is another matter - IMO.

 

[krabapple]

I vote for both. Well treated, for sure; but also the ability to quickly switch to MCH esp. when the content is encoded that way.

Inconceivable! And how strange that Toole's book SOUND REPRODUCTION depicts a multichannel system and treatments...in the same room diagram!

A well-treated room with a stereo setup is hardly 'far superior' to 'multichannels'. That's just tendentious silliness.