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

[Sal1950]

And what do you prefer when you listen? I prefer a violin coming from two in-phase point sources than listening to 14 sources. I always speak on a case-by-case basis (room, distance, energy).

What you know or think you now is neither here, nor there. Folks believe in all kinds of things. What matters is what you can prove.

Something I recall reading in Toole’s book was that if your speakers have good on and off axis response, people prefer the sound when not treating first reflection points.

I haven’t measured it, but in subjective terms I can’t notice any timber difference between the left and right speaker once I have adjusted reflections on both sides using some absorption.

A bit. I am saying if sidewall reflections make a listener believe more in what they are hearing, you don't want to eliminate them for the sake of it. The reflections are making up for the shortfalls of the system+recording to the mind.

Wow, for once I'm agreeing with @MattHooper ? LOL
No one here can deny the results of the Harmon listening tests, the results are what they are.
But IMHO they have simply shown user preferences under the specific test and listening conditions. We already know that other testing has shown response mods other than dead flat
to win preference polls also (room curves?). OTOH, many audiophiles (myself included) like those posting above have found that some amount of control of first reflections very desirable.
YMMV

 

[Sal1950]

And then I’m careful not to play the surrounds too loud for I think some of the reasons you are getting it.

That would depend on what your using the surrounds for. If through whatever means you're mainly attempting to add ambiance to stereo recordings, setting their level by ear is simply a total preference choice.
OTOH, if your playing real discreet multich recordings, then it is mainly correct to set levels (and timing) to equal balance levels, most specially for music surround.
But of course it's your choice and system to do as you please.

Let's not get too far off topic as the test results discussed here are focused on a stereo presentation.

 

[Suono]

@Sal1950 And in fact, I've always argued case by case (environment, distance, energy), setups where the walls were far from the speakers didn't feel the need to absorb/diffuse at all. In my room, I had to absorb/diffuse the lateral and ceiling sound, not the sound behind the speakers and the listening position. For me, focus is the priority.

 

[Ype]

Wow, for once I'm agreeing with @MattHooper ? LOL
No one here can deny the results of the Harmon listening tests, the results are what they are.
But IMHO they have simply shown user preferences under the specific test and listening conditions. We already know that other testing has shown response mods other than dead flat
to win preference polls also (room curves?). OTOH, many audiophiles (myself included) like those posting above have found that some amount of control of first reflections very desirable.
YMMV

Sure, but what is wrong with starting with what would be best practices in stereo preferred by most people?

If I want a more direct sound field I simply listen in nearfield, in midfield or far field I have a better idea of what the average user in their room would hear.
One needs both approaches in mixing and especially mastering.

For playback one can do whatever they like, but after spending a lot of time and energy on treating first reflection points, how are you going to ABX this to how it was before?
I can compare both experiences simply by listening in near and mid field, how do you know what you prefer?

I presume you are aware of how thick your absorbers need to be not the color the sound and all of this is done well.
The preferences of how many reflections and how loud one wants to hear the reflections also differs between music and voice as well as from genre to genre from what I remember.
However, most people prefer louder beneficial reflections and/or higher delays then a room can give us, also depending on the recording, which one can do by up mixing and adding more speakers in front of the listener but at a different angle.

One however does not want to hear echo's, which is impacted by both loudness and delay.
This will never happen with just the reflections in a small listening room.

But one has to start somewhere, and that is with what we know.
As for me personally, side wall first reflection points would be one of the the last places I'd treat for stereo and if I wanted to treat it I'd try diffusors first, as they are seen as beneficial reflections.

Again, we have to start somewhere, so I start with what is pretty well understood, get the basics right, which is a great designed speaker.
If one wants to add room treatment, do not start with the side wall first reflection points, see it as an optional choice, but after treating other parts of the room that have not been shown to be beneficial reflections in stereo.

I have seen no mentions of which first reflection points you are treating, so we might be going around things the exact same way.

Edit: added a bit more context without going into too much detail, hope I got the balance right.

 

[Ype]

I also find it difficult to imagine anyone would have a problem with this approach.
If one does feel free to respond.

I'll try to explain better. I'm not saying that room reflections aren't useful; aggressive ones negatively impact focus. If a live violin is played in front of me, I get the maximum focus possible. If I lose focus in stereo playback, I've lost high fidelity.

Thank you for that thoughtful response.
From my viewpoint you lost *some of the high fidelity the moment you used a phantom center.
After that everything becomes a compromise.

Things are as they are, general adoption beyond stereo in recordings is still not a thing, but my point was simply that a phantom center is by itself compromised.
Perhaps what I typed above makes my views and concerns on this more clear.

In the end I want people to get maximum enjoyment out of music, if one for instance has a bit more hearing damage, treating reflections is generally preferred.
This is not to say that you do, but I have friends with hearing deficiencies and their opinions are their own, we simply try to find what sounds best to them, and the data would predict this would be nearfield or with more reflections treated.

 

[Karmacoma]

Testing 26 individuals is not statistically sufficient sample.

Your incredulity is understandable and would be justified if the study was a medicine study made on random people with totally different biology and lifestyle judging on 1 parameter at 1 moment, here you need a lot of participants for it to be relevant because of all the unintended parameters which will generate high statistical noise.

Here it's a different kind of study, first because of the panel selection, then the number of factors tested, the nature of the factors themselves, the repetition of the tests that can become quickly very high, all of this happening in an environment that is highly controlled: all of that increases significantly the statistical relevance of such studies, even with a small panel.
To make an analogy it's a bit like you were able to test 200 medicines on 16 people with the exact same biology and lifestyle in a single day, it's a bit of a gross analogy but that's the best I got.
More broadly, whatever the subject, the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is made by the number of parameters you'll manage to be conscious of and you'll try to control (and you'll always be partly subjective because you can't be conscious of all the parameters).
Here in these studies the control is very high compared to medicine studies, which have little control for practical reasons.
(Sorry for my broken english, hope you got it).

 

[oldsysop]

bleached sounding

WTF ?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Have you ever heard of a scientific hypothesis?

Of course I have, but it has nothing to do with what you are doing--you're just spitballing, tossing ideas out there as they occur to you, as if your kaleidoscope of opinions might, at some vast quantity, through some alchemical process, transmute into empirical fact.

The fact is that the claims made by Risbo about hysteresis require evidence that has not been provided. Drawing analogies between the (again, claimed without evidence) "grainy" audio quality he describes and empirically undeniable and measurable noise in a visual image is of no scientific value at all. It is not a hypothesis. It is just noise.

 

[MattHooper]

WTF ?

Since you (kind of?) asked…

I found the monitor audio platinum speakers of that time to be too tipped up in the highs.
Sometimes I find that, when certain upper frequencies dominate, my subjective impression is of a bright, whitish sound that has been sprayed over the speaker timbre, lending a whitish “bleached out” tone to the presentation. Like the sonic equivalent of a photograph that has been lightly sprayed with a fine see-through mist of white paint, bleaching out some of the colour in the photograph.

Hope that helps.

 

[MattHooper]

The fact is that the claims made by Risbo about hysteresis require evidence that has not been provided.

Yes, that’s why I carefully separated out that issue from the one I’ve actually been discussing with you.

The issue hasn’t been a disagreement over the lack of evidence for the hysteresis distortion claims from Purifi. As I said from the beginning, we agree on that.

The issue I’ve taken up with you has always been specifically focussed on the nature of certain claims included in your posts. In your attempt to be sceptical you have included open-ended generalized claims, principles like (to paraphrase):

When it comes to describing an as-yet-unproven phenomenon, you cannot use any analogy to proven phenomena.

And when it’s pointed why out that principle is clearly false, and would even subvert some of the methods of science, you continued putting forth the same position anyways;

“What exactly is empirical about theorizing about something whose very existence has not been established?”

This has been explained to you several times.
I’ve given various examples. Like how scientists, researchers and engineers started by theorizing/hypothesizing about the properties of AI (including by analogy to human intelligence) well before AI even existed. It was that very process that led to AI!

Because that’s one of the processes of science! When you hypothesize the possibility of some phenomenon - which includes phenomena whose existence has yet to be established - you hypothesize characteristics and descriptions of that phenomenon, so you know what you’re looking for.

So you’ve just ignored the answers to your questions, and the relevant points made against your claims, and handwave it all away as if this form of reasoning is good for nothing but fiction.

Since it’s clear there’s nowhere to go from here but spinning in circles, time to bow out.

Again… if you were just expressing scepticism along the lines that Purifi needs to go beyond just claiming hysteresis causes a particular audible distortion, and that they need to produce good evidence for this…of course! That’s obviously defensible and it looks like everybody here pretty much agrees. I certainly do.

Our disagreement was over the more general, false claims about empirical reasoning that kept showing up in your posts as well. They were not in service of scepticism - those misunderstandings were polluting your otherwise reasonable skepticism!

Over n out.

 

[Sal1950]

WTF ?

Matt's got a lot of subjectivist blood in his veins. LOL

 

[Sokel]

There's a compromise as always.

From what I have experienced at least, is genre and preference specific.
I have my place treated, genre is classical.

But side walls are 4-5 meters far from each speaker so no treatment there.
The give and take is the "big" sound I like (which usually needs big gear+a tad live, big room) but at somehow reduced reflections.
And then there's depth witch (in my place) is not what it should be without a treated ceiling.

It's so complicated it gets chaotic sometimes.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Yes!

My recollection is that, from the study where they tested for whether loudspeaker preference rankings changed from one room to another, when they analyzed the scoring for all the rooms together, the room itself (rather than the loudspeaker!) was the dominant factor. But it was the difference in the bass response - i.e. the difference in the speaker/room interaction in the bass region - that determined which rooms generated the highest scores!

Imo one implication is this: If we can significantly improve the speaker/room interaction in the bass region without spending too much money (like without going to the expense of buying a bigger house with a better room), that could be money well spent.

While I agree (linear) bass performance is extremely important, I sometimes feel like the "bass is 30% of perceived sound quality" is expressed as somehow 30% is more than 70%.

I also think many people conveniently lean into this because it's much harder to fix the rest of the spectrum, as it requires physical, acoustic treatment of the room.

I have two main systems, one in a relatively normal living room with limited acoustic treatment, and one dedicated listening room which is quite heavily treated and with less than half the decay time of the living room.

The sound in the dedicated listening room (using the same speakers) is VASTLY superior to the living room. And I would without a doubt prefer the sound in the dedicated listening room with no EQ in the bass, to the sound in the living room with EQ in the bass.

 

[Suono]

The sound in the dedicated listening room (using the same speakers) is VASTLY superior to the living room. And I would without a doubt prefer the sound in the dedicated listening room with no EQ in the bass, to the sound in the living room with EQ in the bass.

I don't find it hard to believe, but it would open up another battle.

Many people here don't even have a pair of loudspeakers optimally placed in the room, let alone in a treated listening room where the impact of side reflections could be properly evaluated (some even have speakers hung upside down in a completely asymmetrical room ). Given the soundstage that a stereo pair can recreate in such a situation, it's no wonder that multichannel is often advocated as the best solution even for stereo recordings. Nevertheless, there are many opinions and beliefs and a lot less experience.

Great truth, starting from the stereo triangle and its optimal positioning inside the listening room and talking about hysteresis becomes a luxury.

 

[RickS]

While I agree (linear) bass performance is extremely important, I sometimes feel like the "bass is 30% of perceived sound quality" is expressed as somehow 30% is more than 70%.

I also think many people conveniently lean into this because it's much harder to fix the rest of the spectrum, as it requires physical, acoustic treatment of the room.

I have two main systems, one in a relatively normal living room with limited acoustic treatment, and one dedicated listening room which is quite heavily treated and with less than half the decay time of the living room.

The sound in the dedicated listening room (using the same speakers) is VASTLY superior to the living room. And I would without a doubt prefer the sound in the dedicated listening room with no EQ in the bass, to the sound in the living room with EQ in the bass.

Am pleased you enjoy your treated room. Am pretty sure most enthusiasts expect better sound in a dedicated, properly treated space.

To expand on my earlier point, while many enjoy music despite not having a dedicated room, can also say that none of my kids (2 live in apartments) even have a hifi system despite experiencing superior sound in my home. In any case, would love to hear more about what is better about your dedicated room, but will wait for a better place. This thread is already so off topic you would wonder what the moderators here are doing.

 

[Mort]

course I have, but it has nothing to do with what you are doing--you're just spitballing, tossing ideas out there as they occur to you, as if your kaleidoscope of opinions might, at some vast quantity, through some alchemical process, transmute into empirical fact.

Ignore is your friend

 

[krabapple]

Do you recall the photo of @Floyd Toole's room from his home in California, the one where his Revel Salon 2's are standing on their heads atop a piece of furniture? On the left-hand side he has thick curtains where the first same-side-wall reflection would have happened, and on the right side he has an open doorway where the first same-side-wall reflection would have happened. So the ASW-broadening sidewall reflections were greatly diminished or eliminated. I hope that's not the antithesis of something desirable.

NB, Toole's is a surround system, and he uses upmixing a lot. There are more ways to create envelopment than just sidewall reflections -- and of course, he's simply letting his room be a normal room, with furnishing and uses beyond simply audio consumption.

 

[Buckchester]

While I agree (linear) bass performance is extremely important, I sometimes feel like the "bass is 30% of perceived sound quality" is expressed as somehow 30% is more than 70%.

I also think many people conveniently lean into this because it's much harder to fix the rest of the spectrum, as it requires physical, acoustic treatment of the room.

I have two main systems, one in a relatively normal living room with limited acoustic treatment, and one dedicated listening room which is quite heavily treated and with less than half the decay time of the living room.

The sound in the dedicated listening room (using the same speakers) is VASTLY superior to the living room. And I would without a doubt prefer the sound in the dedicated listening room with no EQ in the bass, to the sound in the living room with EQ in the bass.

Really? This surprised me. Is that bass in the dedicated room pretty good to begin with? Are the speakers in the dedicated room significantly better?

I’d be interested to see the measurements - normal room with eq, dedicated room without eq. But as others have mentioned, maybe better suited for another thread.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Really? This surprised me. Is that bass in the normal room pretty good to begin with? Are the speakers in the dedicated room significantly better?

The same speakers. The bass is decent without EQ in both rooms.

EDIT: The improved size of soundstage and sense of space and immersion is to me significant. Some rooms have more trouble in the bass than mine, but I think even in a "worse" room with regards to bass, I think I would still be hard pressed to give away the overall sound quality of a well treated room if I had to choose.

 

[gnarly]

Way more than once, I've wished audio preferences had its own designated field of study, apart from audio engineering.
I think statistical studies of preferences, no matter how rigorously done, have bastardized physics-based audio engineering.....and I wish they would take a hike away, from purer audio science.

I think this is largely due to the emphasis on preferences in small-room home audio studies, as being representative of preferences across all of audio in general.
I think small room variability and the masking problems posed in small-rooms, almost make preference studies in them a bit meaningless for the individual in their own room/environment. Not to mention how different music responds to different acoustic environments.