Spending ratios on a hifi system

[raindance]

What are the room dimensions? You can use the modeling tool in REW to see the effects of room dimensions and treatments on predicted response. In my room, for example, which is 24'x14'x 8' the combination of the 8' and the 14' dimensions causes a large 46Hz resonance that needs bass trapping and/or a combination of speakers that don't go too low and multiple subs to live with.

A friend of mine has a square room that no amount of treatment will fix; he has reverted to headphones.

 

[arboleda]

I’ve been out state but return home tonight so I’ll post up dimensions.

 

[Theriverlethe]

Pretty depressing ignorance, particularly from a country that is so high on engineering.

How so?

 

[Willem]

More than half believing that cables, spikes, plugs, isolators etc make an important contribution to sound quality depresses me enormously.

 

[yodog]

I can’t understand that circular pie chart so I can’t be depressed with you

 

[Willem]

About half think that cables etc make an important contribution to sound quality. Such ignorance depresses me.

 

[watchnerd]

What's your cartridge budget?



(ducks)

 

[Willem]

Mine? I think vinyl is an inferior source so ever since the introduction of the cd I have refused to invest heavily in updating my turntable (Linn Sondek, SME 3009 ii improved, Shute V15iii MR, now Shure M 97xe).

 

[dkinric]

Pretty depressing ignorance, particularly from a country that is so high on engineering.

More than half believing that cables, spikes, plugs, isolators etc make an important contribution to sound quality depresses me enormously.

About half think that cables etc make an important contribution to sound quality. Such ignorance depresses me.

Willem, are you ok?
If your emotional well being is dependant on the audio based ignorance of others, I feel really bad for you.

 

[Willem]

Come on, I am perfectly fine.

 

[oivavoi]

To answer the question in the OP seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that the rational ratio these days is to spend everything on an active DSP-based speaker system, preferably one with digital input, an on-board volume control and basic tone controls or eq. Then set apart some small bucks for a google chromecast audio using its digital out as the source, or any CD- or DVD-player with digital output from a flea market. The question is basically if one can find an active speaker which suits one's needs and aesthetics. This gives much more "sound per dollar" than any other solution.

Then one can take it from there, when funds, time, space and spouses allow:
- Introduce some box or preamp with room correction into the system, or buy roon and use the roon equalizer for room correction
- Commit to the hassle of getting multiple subwoofers to work
- Go multichannel, necessitates more speakers and a processor of some kind, preferably one with a good algorithm for upmix from stereo

All of these things will represent improvements over a straight stereo setup, but they add cost and time and take up space etc.

(on room treatment, my opinion is that domestic rooms sound fine as they are for sound reproduction, without major treatment, as long as walls are not bare, there are some book shelves, curtains, carpets etc in place. My view is based both on psychoacoustic studies - the brain adapts to the room - and my own anecdotal listening impressions over the years)

If one insists on passive speakers - and particularly for floor standers there still aren't that many actives much to choose from in the budget range at least - I would say that one should spend everything on getting the best speakers one can afford, and then just find an old AVR with reasonable amounts of power from a flea market or a garage sale.

So my suggested ratio is as follows:
Speakers - 99 percent
Everything else - 1 percent

 

[Theriverlethe]

To answer the question in the OP seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that the rational ratio these days is to spend everything on an active DSP-based speaker system, preferably one with digital input, an on-board volume control and basic tone controls or eq. Then set apart some small bucks for a google chromecast audio using its digital out as the source, or any CD- or DVD-player with digital output from a flea market. The question is basically if one can find an active speaker which suits one's needs and aesthetics. This gives much more "sound per dollar" than any other solution.

Then one can take it from there, when funds, time, space and spouses allow:
- Introduce some box or preamp with room correction into the system, or buy roon and use the roon equalizer for room correction
- Commit to the hassle of getting multiple subwoofers to work
- Go multichannel, necessitates more speakers and a processor of some kind, preferably one with a good algorithm for upmix from stereo

All of these things will represent improvements over a straight stereo setup, but they add cost and time and take up space etc.

(on room treatment, my opinion is that domestic rooms sound fine as they are for sound reproduction, without major treatment, as long as walls are not bare, there are some book shelves, curtains, carpets etc in place. My view is based both on psychoacoustic studies - the brain adapts to the room - and my own anecdotal listening impressions over the years)

If one insists on passive speakers - and particularly for floor standers there still aren't that many actives much to choose from in the budget range at least - I would say that one should spend everything on getting the best speakers one can afford, and then just find an old AVR with reasonable amounts of power from a flea market or a garage sale.

So my suggested ratio is as follows:
Speakers - 99 percent
Everything else - 1 percent

The human brain can adapt to all kinds of things. That doesn’t make it ideal. Room treatment becomes more a question of practicality and diminishing returns.

 

[oivavoi]

The human brain can adapt to all kinds of things. That doesn’t make it ideal. Room treatment becomes more a question of practicality and diminishing returns.

That's true. But there are quite a lot of studies which show that most listeners actually like to have room reflections... Which means that "room treatment" may very well affect the sound negatively, for the average statistical listener at least. That said, there is nothing wrong with experimenting with room treatments and trying to see what one likes personally! Some listeners do seem to like sound one gets from heavy acoustic treatment.

This also depends somewhat on the placement of the speakers I think. If speakers are standing very close to a front wall, it makes sense IMHO to put absorbents behind the speakers. If speakers are placed in a corner 10 cm from the side wall, it may make sense to put an absorbent on the side wall as well, given that the side reflection will have essentially no delay before reaching the ear. But if a speaker is placed somewhat away from walls, and the room has some furniture which removes flutter echo, my own experience - and several studies - indicate that acoustic treatment doesn't necessarily add to the experience.

 

[Willem]

I think it is important to distinguish between frequencies above and below the transition frequency. Above the transition frequency some rugs and bookcases may go a long way and you don't want a completely dead acoustic. Below is a different story.

 

[Theriverlethe]

That's true. But there are quite a lot of studies which show that most listeners actually like to have room reflections... Which means that "room treatment" may very well affect the sound negatively, for the average statistical listener at least. That said, there is nothing wrong with experimenting with room treatments and trying to see what one likes personally! Some listeners do seem to like sound one gets from heavy acoustic treatment.

This also depends somewhat on the placement of the speakers I think. If speakers are standing very close to a front wall, it makes sense IMHO to put absorbents behind the speakers. If speakers are placed in a corner 10 cm from the side wall, it may make sense to put an absorbent on the side wall as well, given that the side reflection will have essentially no delay before reaching the ear. But if a speaker is placed somewhat away from walls, and the room has some furniture which removes flutter echo, my own experience - and several studies - indicate that acoustic treatment doesn't necessarily add to the experience.

Can you list a couple studies? I’m having a hard time finding them.

I’d totally agree that treating the walls closest to the speakers is most important. All moving the speakers away from the wall will accomplish is reduce room gain in the low frequencies, and lower the frequency of the first SBIR cancellation. This will of course have harmonics anyway, but the cancellations won’t be as strong.

 

[oivavoi]

Can you list a couple studies? I’m having a hard time finding them.

I’d totally agree that treating the walls closest to the speakers is most important. All moving the speakers away from the wall will accomplish is reduce room gain in the low frequencies, and lower the frequency of the first SBIR cancellation. This will of course have harmonics anyway, but the cancellations won’t be as strong.

Sure. Dr. Toole's book is the reference and contains most of it though. I'm on mobile on my way home from work, but just some studies I've recently looked at:
- Vertical reflections, timbre and preference https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publicati...al-reflection-on-the-relationship-between-p-2
- room reflections from different directions and the sense of envelopment: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.571.7185&rep=rep1&type=pdf

For a fuller review, there's lots of stuff here, even though much it comes from studies on concert halls, which doesn't completely translate to small rooms: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...eration-in-small-rooms-A-literature-study.pdf

Basically, room reflections - and/or loudspeakers with wide directivity - create a stronger sense of envelopment and spaciousness.

Then there is an (unresolved IMO) debate on whether too strong early reflections degrade stereo imaging and clarity. I don't think it needs to do that, if one sits in the near- or mid field, and makes sure that reflections are not extremely early (1 ms is definitely too early, 10 ms is probably fine, 5-6 ms is decent, according to several experts). But there hasn't been many studies done on this exact question.

 

[arboleda]

What are the room dimensions? You can use the modeling tool in REW to see the effects of room dimensions and treatments on predicted response. In my room, for example, which is 24'x14'x 8' the combination of the 8' and the 14' dimensions causes a large 46Hz resonance that needs bass trapping and/or a combination of speakers that don't go too low and multiple subs to live with.

A friend of mine has a square room that no amount of treatment will fix; he has reverted to headphones.

OP here. The room is 14' by 16', with 9' height.

 

[JohnBooty]

I am a believer in the technical superiority of active speakers. Simply put they can do things that passive speakers and analog crossovers cannot. But...

To answer the question in the OP seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that the rational ratio these days is to spend everything on an active DSP-based speaker system, preferably one with digital input, an on-board volume control and basic tone controls or eq.

This approach will definitely work for many people, but I think a majority of audiophiles will not be satisfied.

Most audiophiles I know have resigned themselves to the fact that there's no single "perfect" speaker. Different speakers have different strengths and weaknesses.

Therefore a lot of audiophiles enjoy the ability to swap passive speakers in and out while leaving the rest of their stack untouched.

Also a lot of audio systems do "double duty" for both music and video. While it obviously can be done, it's not the easiest thing in the world to build some kind of multichannel system out of active speakers.

 

[Theriverlethe]

Sure. Dr. Toole's book is the reference and contains most of it though. I'm on mobile on my way home from work, but just some studies I've recently looked at:
- Vertical reflections, timbre and preference https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publicati...al-reflection-on-the-relationship-between-p-2
- room reflections from different directions and the sense of envelopment: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.571.7185&rep=rep1&type=pdf

For a fuller review, there's lots of stuff here, even though much it comes from studies on concert halls, which doesn't completely translate to small rooms: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...eration-in-small-rooms-A-literature-study.pdf

Basically, room reflections - and/or loudspeakers with wide directivity - create a stronger sense of envelopment and spaciousness.

Then there is an (unresolved IMO) debate on whether too strong early reflections degrade stereo imaging and clarity. I don't think it needs to do that, if one sits in the near- or mid field, and makes sure that reflections are not extremely early (1 ms is definitely too early, 10 ms is probably fine, 5-6 ms is decent, according to several experts). But there hasn't been many studies done on this exact question.

Here’s a brief “meta-analysis” from Dr. Toole. His comments on hearing loss may explain why I find a moderately absorptive room more intelligible, since I have mild high frequency loss.

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation

 

[oivavoi]

Here’s a brief “meta-analysis” from Dr. Toole. His comments on hearing loss may explain why I find a moderately absorptive room more intelligible, since I have mild high frequency loss.

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation

I also much prefer a moderately absorptive room. I'm now in the process of turning my office into listening room nr 2, and I immediately noticed that sound bounced too much around the walls. I find personally that I come a long way by adding book shelves and a thick carpet, though... but your miles may vary I also genuinely think that this is to a certain degree a matter of taste, preference and habituation - and partly taste in music. There's some evidence that transent-rich rythmic (electronic) music is better suited to "dry" acoustics than orchestral/classical music, for example.