The ASR "objectivists tribe" ;) has to read the Keynotes at the AES160th by Lars Risbo

[kyuu]

Sorry if I am being a dufus...
Surely the amount of preferred room reflection/reverb is somewhat subjective?

Sure, but I believe Toole (and others) have shown that, in blind testing, most people prefer a "normally" reflective room (not so live where you get "flutter echo", but where a furnished room typically ends up naturally). Shouldn't be surprise, given that other testing has shown that most people prefer a sense of "spaciousness" and "envelopment" and don't give two whits about the audiophile bugbear of "imaging".

 

[Chr1]

Indeed. But these are all vague terms/preferences, and seeing as most peeps don't have an anechoic chamber, we therefore have to choose... Perhaps somewhat according to taste.

Or no?

 

[pablolie]

I really shouldn't be interested in this but...your reference setup does not include subwoofers?

it does, as noted above... but for the type of music and at the level I listen, I probably could live without.

 

[pablolie]

A car's acceleration would be the same on earth and on Mars, if Mars had oxygen in the amount earth has and the car had equal traction on both planets. F=ma.

absolutely not. radically different atmospheres. much weaker gravity. vehicle acceleration is about far more than that simple high school formula.

 

[Buckchester]

I feel like many people here put far too much importance on imaging. At least, far more than I do. I mean, isn’t most imaging in the recording anyways?

 

[krabapple]

It's the situaion I have (though removing the coffee table doesn't seem to make a great improvement, certainly none in perceived symmetry

Toe in only works when there is sufficient and, preferably uniform, directivity. Below where it all goes omni toe-in is no help.

And where is that cutoff? Your post was about the two octave above that.

 

[krabapple]

it does, as noted above... but for the type of music and at the level I listen, I probably could live without.

sooo...you use Dirac on the low bass?

I dunno, I guess I'm getting at why you say you are so averse to EQ.. though you use it for subs? That's using EQ...arguably 'a lot'. Which is fine! It's the most defensible/sensible reason to use 'room EQ'.

 

[krabapple]

"Early sidewall reflections are a good thing"

....can be, if you prioritize envelopment, and only have two speakers.

(or something to that effect) may be the majority position, but it is not a universal conclusion among those with expertise in the subject:

"The earlier and the greater in level the first room reflections are, the worse they are. This aspect of sound perception is controversial. Some believe that all reflections are good because they increase the listeners' feeling of space

No one believes 'all' reflections are good.

 

[Mort]

Some people just like to argue, and it's best to move on.

 

[Duke]

For me the point here seems to be whether the focus is on imaging (+coloration) or on spaciousness.
For imaging early reflections apparently are on the detrimental side.
But they tend to increase spaciousness. So it seems to be a question of individual preference and compromise, as is often the case.

I think that's a good assessment.

However, is spaciousness always a good thing? Or can there be a “wrong“ kind of spaciousness?

At the risk of overgeneralizing, there are two kinds of spaciousness: That provided by the playback room, and that which is on the recording. Imo the playback room's "small room signature" is the "wrong" spaciousness, and the "recording's venue spaciousness" (whether it be real or engineered or both) is the "right" spaciousness.

And at the risk of oversimplifying, having less energy in the early reflections and more energy in the late reflections can tip the balance towards the "recording venue's spaciousness" being perceptually dominant.

In my opinion.

 

[TimVG]

A big point of course is that the Harman supported research* was aimed at standard home installations, and I believe many of their testing rooms were aimed at simulating 'average' consumer rooms. I hope no one in their right mind believes that a company like Harman didn't have in-house knowledge of how to design and build a proper room.

Although I do completely understand the argument that average European rooms are smaller and speakers are much closer to boundaries than in US homes. Since we are stuck with what we have, either someone takes upon themselves to conduct new research, or not. But at this point it is speculative and/or personal opinions. My personal opinion (not that anyone's asking), in a small European listening room, is that I like my sidewall reflection to be as close timbrally to the direct sound as possible. Off-axis anomalies becomes evident quickly in this type of room, to my ears. YMMV

*Despite being openly available, the results were of course to improve their commercial products.

 

[olieb]

Sure, but I believe Toole (and others) have shown that, in blind testing, most people prefer a "normally" reflective room (not so live where you get "flutter echo", but where a furnished room typically ends up naturally).

Comparison of room acoustics in blind tests? I don't think there are that many rooms where you can significantly change the room acoustic properties, let alone in a way this is invisible for a listener.
One could do it binaurally though. I did not find something like this in Toole's book, do you have a link to point me to?

Shouldn't be surprise, given that other testing has shown that most people prefer a sense of "spaciousness" and "envelopment" and don't give two whits about the audiophile bugbear of "imaging".

Imaging would not be high on my list, but a “realistic“ timbre and an appropriate spaciousness would be up there.
My experience is that this does not go together too well with strong reflections in the listening room, if the recording is presenting music from a concert hall.

 

[Duke]

....[early reflections] can be [a good thing], if you prioritize envelopment, and only have two speakers.

I don't disagree, but early reflections are not the only way to get envelopment.

"Where the background [reverberant] stream is easily separated from the foreground [direct sound] stream, envelopment is about 6 dB stronger for a given direct-to-reverberant ratio." - David Griesinger

In other words, a sufficient time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections is highly conducive to a good sense of envelopment.

And if you subscribe to the school of thought that says early reflections can be detrimental to imaging but late reflections are not, then at least theoretically there may be a way to have BOTH good imaging AND good envelopment simultaneously.

And just for the record, I'm an advocate of loudspeaker directivity control and/or manipulation, rather than absorptive room treatment, as the way to get there.

 

[RickS]

I don't know why people think 70% of the answer is the same as nothing. We will never get to 100% with speakers or headphones because there are no standards of production. With no reference to reality, then we can only build high confidence models of what works. The last 30% has to be dealt with or ignored, not used as a means to dismiss incredible progress we have made after decades of research.

If folks want to say the research is not good enough, then show up with your research. If you have none, then don't spread folklore.

I thought @Lars Risbo was interested in investigating non-linearities of which, no one has done more work to highlight them than ASR. I plan to do a lot more but throwing rocks at us as not caring is great example of friendly fire.

But now it seems we are going after tired arguments of dead vs live rooms??? Very strange.

Felt compelled to pile on a bit as I understand the importance of scientific skepticism but does seem rich to question documented studies done under controlled conditions by qualified engineers (like NRC and Harman efforts). Would be valid to try to reproduce the study or do a comparable updated one and compare, but concur that a stream of FUD is not credible or helpful.

While proper room treatment can be useful, it is not for everyone. Just because it is applied in studios or music venues, does not mean it should be mandatory to achieve great sound. For most consumers, room treatment will also be the exception rather than the rule. If I hear some speaker needs a treated room to sound good, am inclined to question which reality the designer lives in.

 

[Duke]

While proper room treatment can be useful, it is not for everyone. Just because it is applied in studios or music venues, does not mean it should be mandatory to achieve great sound. For most consumers, room treatment will also be the exception rather than the rule. If I hear some speaker needs a treated room to sound good, am inclined to question which reality the designer lives in.

Agreed!

“A speaker that has controlled dispersion does basically the same thing you'd expect an acoustic panel to do, but it does a better job. And it allows you to get away with no panels on the wall." - Matthew Poes, acoustician

 

[Suono]

Agreed!

“A speaker that has controlled dispersion does basically the same thing you'd expect an acoustic panel to do, but it does a better job. And it allows you to get away with no panels on the wall." - Matthew Poes, acoustician

but a diffuser with wide dispersion and treating early reflections will have both spatiality and focus

 

[olieb]

“A speaker that has controlled dispersion does basically the same thing you'd expect an acoustic panel to do, but it does a better job. And it allows you to get away with no panels on the wall." - Matthew Poes, acoustician

I see the advantage of “no panels“, but there are some things directivity can't do.
You have to point the speaker somewhere (probably the listening position) and on the wall behind there will be reflection, unless one uses panels. And diffusion is another thing impossible for directivity.

 

[Suono]

Imaging would not be high on my list, but a “realistic“ timbre and an appropriate spaciousness would be up there.

This is the point: spatiality must be sought up to the limit of loss of focus. Loss of focus equals loss of timbre and high fidelity.

 

[Bwaslo]

And where is that cutoff? Your post was about the two octave above that.

I wrote: "for two more octaves of range beyond the directivity of the C6Bs". Beyond can be below, too, in this case it is. C6B is directive down to ~1kHz, Orbit is down to ~230Hz.

 

[krabapple]

I don't disagree, but early reflections are not the only way to get envelopment.

"Where the background [reverberant] stream is easily separated from the foreground [direct sound] stream, envelopment is about 6 dB stronger for a given direct-to-reverberant ratio." - David Griesinger

In other words, a sufficient time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections is highly conducive to a good sense of envelopment.

And if you subscribe to the school of thought that says early reflections can be detrimental to imaging but late reflections are not, then at least theoretically there may be a way to have BOTH good imaging AND good envelopment simultaneously.

(And just for the record, I'm an advocate of loudspeaker directivity control and/or manipulation, rather than absorptive room treatment, as the way to get there.)

Sure, the devil is in the details! Toole has written plenty on the topic.

He also included in his book, diagrams and recommedations for home theater* wall treatments (absorption and diffusion)... which would be odd if he was as exclusively pro-reflection as some seem to think.

* a dedicated viewing/listening room with multiple seats