Is the only true reference in audio to compare your system to the original mastering system?

[MattHooper]

I tend to believe that theory that you get the most transparency and air when you rely on direct sound as opposed to echoes. Which is to say that it isn't the best Idea correct for overall response at the listening position.

I'm not sure I'm speaking directly to your point, but along similar lines:

I like a lot of direct sound myself, even with speakers that offer wider, even dispersion. The direct sound seems most pure and smooth. However, I also like playing with acoustics to dial the sound to taste. I have a wide variety of surface coverings - curtains on every wall, some diffusors etc - that I use to dial a more lively-roomy sound, vs a deader room with more direct sound dominating. When I've covered certain surface areas, and with my listening position the usual 6 to 7 feet or so from my speakers, I get a very convincing sense of just the acoustic on the recording occurring between the speakers. A sense of the speakers being a portal between which I'm peering in to very specific acoustic scenes, different from the acoustic in my room.

The more I open up the walls everywhere, the more reflections, the more open, airy and "live in the room" sound I get for voices and instruments. Though at the expense of a slightly more crude, homogenized tonality. I often like to split the difference. I start with a more dead room, so I'm hearing just the acoustics of the recording. Then by gradually opening up some reflections I hit a point where the acoustic of the recording is still very distinct, but there's *just* enough airiness that the sound opens up and feels more live. The effect not being the "they are here in the room" sound of tons of room reflections, but the effect of "I am there" where the acoustics of the recording, say a quartet recorded in a church, just sound more realistic, like I'm peering in to the real place of the recording behind the speakers, vs a sort of "canned recording effect" that seal off the recorded acoustic from my room. If that makes any sense...

 

[Feanor]

I'm not sure I'm speaking directly to your point, but along similar lines:

I like a lot of direct sound myself, even with speakers that offer wider, even dispersion. The direct sound seems most pure and smooth. However, I also like playing with acoustics to dial the sound to taste. I have a wide variety of surface coverings - curtains on every wall, some diffusors etc - that I use to dial a more lively-roomy sound, vs a deader room with more direct sound dominating. When I've covered certain surface areas, and with my listening position the usual 6 to 7 feet or so from my speakers, I get a very convincing sense of just the acoustic on the recording occurring between the speakers. A sense of the speakers being a portal between which I'm peering in to very specific acoustic scenes, different from the acoustic in my room.

The more I open up the walls everywhere, the more reflections, the more open, airy and "live in the room" sound I get for voices and instruments. Though at the expense of a slightly more crude, homogenized tonality. I often like to split the difference. I start with a more dead room, so I'm hearing just the acoustics of the recording. Then by gradually opening up some reflections I hit a point where the acoustic of the recording is still very distinct, but there's *just* enough airiness that the sound opens up and feels more live. The effect not being the "they are here in the room" sound of tons of room reflections, but the effect of "I am there" where the acoustics of the recording, say a quartet recorded in a church, just sound more realistic, like I'm peering in to the real place of the recording behind the speakers, vs a sort of "canned recording effect" that seal off the recorded acoustic from my room. If that makes any sense...

I seem to recall that some people like to minimize "early" reflections, i.e. first reflections e.g. from side walls or basically anywhere you could see the speaker in a single mirror, but not deaden the room as a whole. I guess the idea is to keep and airy ambience but preserve the transparency.

 

[dasdoing]

I seem to recall that some people like to minimize "early" reflections, i.e. first reflections e.g. from side walls or basically anywhere you could see the speaker in a single mirror, but not deaden the room as a whole. I guess the idea is to keep and airy ambience but preserve the transparency.

first reflection treatment is manly for the stereo image. main problem is speaker reflecting on the oposit wall and from there into your ears. this is sound from the right speaker coming from the left and vice versa. but there is the effect of hearing the ambiance of the recording cleaner.
most studios use this approuch https://blog.soundsnap.com/glossary/live-end-dead-end/
I think totaly dead (in all frequencies) would be the ideal, but the problem with dead rooms is that they are very unconfortable because they are so diferent from the expected; it sounds like outside but you are inside. it's probably only psicologic. I remember when my girlfriend said she had a sensation of deafness when entering my first reflection treated room. she got used to it very fast though

 

[MattHooper]

I think totaly dead (in all frequencies) would be the ideal, but the problem with dead rooms is that they are very unconfortable because they are so diferent from the expected; it sounds like outside but you are inside. it's probably only psicologic. I remember when my girlfriend said she had a sensation of deafness when entering my first reflection treated room. she got used to it very fast though

I had my room renovated with the input of an acoustician and I find it has an incredibly "comfortable" sound, whether listening to the hi-fi or just speaking. What intrigued me was that many guests - total non-audiophiles - have remarked about the sound of the room simply when we sit in there and talk. They say "this room sounds so nice, our voice is so clear, you don't even have to speak up much. It feels relaxing." Never thought I'd hear such things from non-audio-geeks.

 

[dasdoing]

I had my room renovated with the input of an acoustician and I find it has an incredibly "comfortable" sound, whether listening to the hi-fi or just speaking. What intrigued me was that many guests - total non-audiophiles - have remarked about the sound of the room simply when we sit in there and talk. They say "this room sounds so nice, our voice is so clear, you don't even have to speak up much. It feels relaxing." Never thought I'd hear such things from non-audio-geeks.

yea, you can have a conversation wispering. also noise coming from the outside is not amplified by reflections, making the noisefloor lower.
I don't feel unconfortable in my room I can stay here all day long

 

[tomelex]

It is interesting to see that as this thread evolves, folks start talking about their personal preferences and room treatments etc. Some folks feel the recording is the "reference" as it is the only thing we have, yet when we play back this recording at our home, with our unique speakers and rooms and ears, is the recording still the reference anymore, or is your room and your preferences becoming the "reference"?

"reference" is thrown around a lot, is it what we are pursuing or are we just making air move about at our house with our system and describing if we like it or not or what we do or don't like etc. If we cant define reference, ie something that is reproducible at some other place, what are we talking about when we say reference, again, if the recording is the reference, then once it hits our speakers and our room it is something else at that point.

In the audio club, back when we met once in a while, we all got to hear different folks systems, we brought our recordings, and we heard the effects of the gear and rooms on our recordings overall sound, and no two places sounded alike, let alone move a few feet one way or the other effects on base etc. If the recording is the reference, it sounded different at each home. And, none of then sounded "wrong" either, actually, maybe some had the speakers a bit too far apart for my tastes, or things like that, but the music sounded good in each case.

I am still believing that once you leave the spot the master or mix engineer sat at and listened at, the reference no longer exists, strictly speaking.

 

[dasdoing]

Iwith our unique speakers and rooms and ears, is the recording still the reference anymore, or is your room and your preferences becoming the "reference"?

thats why (I)we started talking about personal preferences flat response, and room treatment taking the room out of the equation.

At the end we have two kind of sources:
a) non-processed recordings (in terms of audio effects and EQing)
b) heavily processed recordings

for a) we need to reproduce the frequencie response of the mics to hear the sound the same(*) it was at mics position (let's forget imaging, since people here don't like treatment anyways)
for b) we need to reproduce the frequencie response of the system the recording was mixed/mastered to hear the sound the same(*) it was at sound engineers position

(*) in both cases we need to reproduce the same loudness level, too, because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour. but that is another topic and the fact is: we never know the true reference level