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

[bmc0]

Am I correct in assuming that [...]

Yes.

 

[amirm]

In my experience, which are 90% modern studio multi-track recordings, having overly live "point of first reflection" side walls only serves to blur and lose image focus of the front soundstage. From what I've seen of studio photos, the environment the mixing rooms used to create the mix are quite dead also?

Mistakenly, yes, per study I have quoted.

I was at a show where a boutique label had one of their talents do a live concert for us. After it was finished, I asked the singer if she liked her recording dry or wet/live. The producer asked the crowded room which they liked. Overwhelmingly the room voted for live recording and said that they add that ambience in for that reason. The singer was surprised and said she liked it dry. This is at the heart of a lot of Dr. Toole's teachings. That listeners crave this kind of effect in their system. So much so that he said only multi-channel could give them what they want.

 

[Oddball]

I don't know what you are talking about. International audio standards have been established with testing using just a handful of trained listeners. The context here was that professionals would not at all like reflections. The data sharply shows that assumption is wrong. It does this powerfully and highly convincingly. For people who claim professional like dead rooms, the stats would have had to be completely on their side.


This is the participants:

"1.3 Subject Pool
The subject pool was composed of professional recording
and mixing engineers from the Montr´eal area, editors
and producers, recording educators, and students of McGill
University’s graduate program in Sound Recording. The
subject pool consisted of 26 individuals ranging in age
from 24 to 63 and included both males and females. The
subjects averaged over 10 years of formal musical training
and approximately 10 years of production experience
(Fig. 6). Subjects were evenly split between those whowork
primarily on classical or jazz and those who work primarily
on pop and rock productions."

This is a very large study for this domain.

What I am talking about it that if one is using sampling, the only scientific way to do it is statistics. Sample rate is one of the most relevant points and it relates to the whole of the "sample" which in this case is all of us that can hear. Testing 26 individuals is not statistically sufficient sample. Whatever this test proves is not statistically correct.

As a believer in science and common sense, to me this test is inconclusive on all levels. It might give some clues to other people, but absolutely nothing scientific about it - just the opposite. Low sample rate and then also geared to "experienced" listeners. Not sure how and why inexperienced listeners were picked out?

 

[amirm]

What I am talking about it that if one is using sampling, the only scientific way to do it is statistics. Sample rate is one of the most relevant points and it relates to the whole of the "sample" which in this case is all of us that can hear. Testing 26 individuals is not statistically sufficient sample. Whatever this test proves is not statistically correct.

I know you are saying that. Problem is you are using some kind of lay intuition to say it. Not with any proper knowledge of basis for it.

Massive amount of psychoacoustic research has been performed with handful of listeners. The famous foundational research by Fletcher and Munson into threshold of hearing using only 11 subjects.

Clearly you don't understand how such research is conducted so saying you don't think it is significant is immaterial.

 

[amirm]

As a believer in science and common sense, to me this test is inconclusive on all levels.

This is not proper qualification to opine. You have to have subject matter expertise or at least be well read. Common sense has no place in this unless you meet those qualifications.

 

[Oddball]

I know you are saying that. Problem is you are using some kind of lay intuition to say it. Not with any proper knowledge of basis for it.

Massive amount of psychoacoustic research has been performed with handful of listeners. The famous foundational research by Fletcher and Munson into threshold of hearing using only 11 subjects.

Clearly you don't understand how such research is conducted so saying you don't think it is significant is immaterial.

I clearly understand what I am saying. It is just not what you want to hear. But my point is valid on scientific basis. It undermines most of what you hold dear, but that is not a reason to disagree on our approach.

I am completely inadequate to speak with you on the knowledge of audio, but I do not need lessons in logic or process. That is where I come from.

 

[Oddball]

This is not proper qualification to opine. You have to have subject matter expertise or at least be well read. Common sense has no place in this unless you meet those qualifications.

Pls don't take this personal - it is more of approach to audio testing results. I actually really love the work you do and you probably should have stayed out of this horrible thread that ended up nowhere. I do have all the basic quals and than more. I don't want to upset you, or the others, just want us all to stay honest to the scientific principles.

If you think you need to ban me out of thread it might work well for both of us. The level of BS in this thread is above anything I have seen and approaching AVS levels.

 

[amirm]

The level of BS in this thread is above anything I have seen and approaching AVS levels.

I am addressing the BS. You keep objecting with nothing to back it as if your opinion alone is supposed to matter. Exactly what vocal few do on AVS do.

 

[Buckchester]

If you listen to a band playing, it lacks pinpoint imaging. Instead, you hear a diffused soundstage where everyone is playing. This is what I meant by what live sound. Huge amount of studio recordings have this aspect as evidenced by a ton of studio recorded tracks used in audio show demos.

I have thought this many times too when hearing people talk a lot about imaging.

 

[Duke]

If you listen to a band playing, it lacks pinpoint imaging. Instead, you hear a diffused soundstage where everyone is playing.

Well, my understanding is that it depends on the specifics.

In the context of concert hall acoustics and psychoacoustics David Griesinger finds that there is a critical distance from the orchestra within which one can (for example) localize which violin is playing which part, and beyond which one cannot. This transition in the ability to localize the sound source occurs over a distance of about one meter. He calls this the "Limit of Localization Distance", or LLD.

My understanding is that a "really good seat" in a concert hall is within the LLD distance from the stage AND has sufficient temporal separation between the direct and reverberant sound to enable the perception of envelopment. These tend to be the seats up close and near the center.

Maybe this is just me, but being able to close my eyes and effortlessly visualize where the sound images are located functions sort of like a surrogate for being able to see the performers. I have no idea whether imaging plays a similar role for anyone else.

 

[Buckchester]

Guys..many posts here stresss too much over minutia I find…

 

[Buckchester]

I’m currently listening to music on my Revel Performa 3 set up and it’s hard to imagine a system sounding much better… unless the bass could kick me in the chest

 

[Duke]

Guys..many posts here stresss too much over minutia I find…

I’m currently listening to music on my Revel Performa 3 set up and it’s hard to imagine a system sounding much better… unless the bass could kick me in the chest

Imo if your Revel Performa 3's sound so good that "it’s hard to imagine a system sounding much better", somewhere there's a designer who got the minutia correct.

 

[Oddball]

I am addressing the BS. You keep objecting with nothing to back it as if your opinion alone is supposed to matter. Exactly what vocal few do on AVS do.

Well, there is nothing that really matters in this thread. So not sure what I would object to except for the what I did. Not sure why you would compare me with AVS folks - part of that is unexplained for. All I can do is to send my setup and I do have some REWs along with it. The keynote is I have figured out (kind of) No need for anything else, or any theory behind it. It is as good as it gets nowadays. Future, well, you guys do that part but looking grim right now with the tools at your disposal.

 

[kemmler3D]

It is an AES paper:
The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical
Listening Environments

"2.3 Subjects’ Preference
After the experiment each subject was asked which
acoustic treatment created the best listening condition for
mixing. Eight subjects decided it is Diffusion, seven decided
Absorption, and eleven decided Reflection. We decided to
test subjects’ level preference and variance performance
based on that information (Fig. 11)."

View attachment 537132

Error bars on that are so big I wouldn't bet $10 on the real outcome ...

 

[pablolie]

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'.

not averse to EQ at all. I use it. I said that.

 

[amirm]

Error bars on that are so big I wouldn't bet $10 on the real outcome ...

But you should as the argument has been that no one that makes music wants reflections.

 

[Duke]

But you should as the argument has been that no one that makes music wants reflections.

If I'm the one who said something that came across that way, can you point it out? Because if so, then I communicated very poorly.

 

[Sal1950]

This is at the heart of a lot of Dr. Toole's teachings. That listeners crave this kind of effect in their system.

That may be so as some personal preferences.
Then again, I wonder how we can balance that result against the explosion of serious headphone listeners over the last couple decades? They remove all room reflections?

 

[kemmler3D]

But you should as the argument has been that no one that makes music wants reflections.

If anyone wants my opinion (well, when has that ever stopped me?) I think opinions on that vary almost as much as in the audiophile world. You can find plenty of people who make money producing music with varying opinions (and varying levels of education) in acoustics. The circle of confusion swirls onward...

I wonder how we can balance that result against the explosion of serious headphone listeners over the last couple decades? They remove all room reflections?

That one is more easily explained with demographics and economics... people getting into the hobby don't have any damn space for speakers the way people did in the 50s-80s. Good sound is much more achievable with headphones if you have roommates...