The quest for my hyper speaker - Very Large room dilemma

[FrankW]

Yes, I agree that we studio folk are all deaf morons.

Not what I said but ok. Fact is, when tested, it seems many had "professional" damage. Not to mention like to project their own preferences on consumers, whether shared or not.

"Prefer" is such a weak concept.

It's everything when it comes to consumer audio reproduction actually. Not to mention Ali's eventual choice.

Certainly it's not a question about fidelity.

The intellectual gyrations caused by reluctance to answer hard questions is amazing. The fact is, if we're interested in fidelity - i.e. hearing only what's in the recording, with nothing taken away and nothing added, then all reflections are destructive.

Laughably ignorant of perception, since only perceptual fidelity would be relevant, not "reflective" fidelity. But 100% par for course with "studio" type discussions.
Fidelity(accuracy) to what?

 

[Colonel7]

Can we please stop the side arguments to respect the OP’s thread? OP have you thought about the Sigberg Mantas? Available in June and designed for extreme SPL and can do far listening distance. Audioholics is going to do a review with measurements although not sure what that timeline will be. Thorbjorn Sigberg is a member here and has a thread on the Manta development.

 

[Willem]

I like large listening rooms (we have one, though not this large). The problem is that if you want to cleanly reproduce dynamic peaks in large rooms you need a lot of power, or efficient speakers, or both. In this case that power requirement probably amounts to a few thousand watts, given that a bit more volume demands a lot more power. Few if any full range domestic speakers will be able to handle that kind of power, but fortunately the biggest power demand is at the lower frequencies. Therefore, the easiest solution is to use a high pass filter to relieve the main speakers of the heavy lifting, and add a couple (four?) of biggish subwoofers that will each add another thousand watts or more. If you choose a higher than normal crossover frequency the benefits are even more, but in that case you may have to locate two of the subwoofers close to the main speakers.

 

[thecheapseats]

Yes, I agree that we studio folk are all deaf morons. (But you seem to have built a whole hobby around our product ... go figure.)

hilarious... that made me laugh out loud...

 

[Sokel]

Therefore, the easiest solution is to use a high pass filter to relieve the main speakers of the heavy lifting, and add a couple (four?) of biggish subwoofers that will each add another thousand watts or more. If you choose a higher than normal crossover frequency the benefits are even more, but in that case you may have to locate two of the subwoofers close to the main speakers.

Tried it and my room is 1/3 or less than OP's and with lower ceilings and no ,it won't do it.
A big room needs plenty midbass (100-300Hz),that's what makes big sound and it won't come from small mains and subs.
It needs BIG 3-4 ways to fill and maybe subs to deal with modes.
(that's only by experience of course).

 

[mj30250]

The intellectual gyrations caused by reluctance to answer hard questions is amazing. The fact is, if we're interested in fidelity - i.e. hearing only what's in the recording, with nothing taken away and nothing added, then all reflections are destructive. But practical researchers know most people won't go as far as eliminating reflections, so they explain away the huge disadvantages of domestic listening as "Envelopment!" "Spaciousness!" and so on. Total cop-out.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I also think that people tend to employ "fidelity" with varying degrees of strictness. If one were to truly claim complete fidelity to a recording as a goal, then yes, building a true studio space would be required. But then, there have been thousands (millions?) of recordings made in thousands of different studios. How is one ever supposed to account for the varying acoustical properties of every recording studio in a single listening space? At some point, accepting that reality can never be perfect is not a cop-out. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to making the effort...cue the Vince Lombardi quote about "perfection" and "excellence". There's also, of course, the matter that people are not accustomed to listening to music in a heavily treated space. We are accustomed to reflections and for the most part, we like them. If I am playing an extremely accurate, high-quality recording of a tenor saxophone through extremely accurate, high-quality speakers in my very meagerly-treated finished basement, I would expect and hope for it to sound like the actual musician and the instrument are in the basement with me. That means that I will hear many of the same reflections (destructive and otherwise) that are inherent to the acoustical properties of the space. To me, that largely satisfies "fidelity" in as far as I am attempting to reach it - you and others are of course free to disagree.

For me, my (perhaps loose) idea of fidelity is largely a matter for speakers rather than the room. I don't want my speakers to add or subtract from the recording. That is for me to do (should I want to) via EQ, tone controls, bass boost, etc. Of course, a typical room will have a large impact on the experience, because, well, that's what rooms do. And yes, I realize it may seem that I am completely missing your point, which I believe to be that speakers can and perhaps should be engineered to be as room-agnostic as possible, but again, live instruments and human voices don't act in that manner in reality, and while bad rooms can obviously make a shameful mess of good speakers, many rooms can be tamed to within reason without turning them into recording studios.

So yes, I believe that there is a general point at which "fidelity" and "mass market appeal" can reasonably meet.

 

[Willem]

Tried it and my room is 1/3 or less than OP's and with lower ceilings and no ,it won't do it.
A big room needs plenty midbass (100-300Hz),that's what makes big sound and it won't come from small mains and subs.
It needs BIG 3-4 ways to fill and maybe subs to deal with modes.
(that's only by experience of course).

It worked for me, although there is an obvious limit to the effect. It will not work with tiny bookshelves (tried that, just out of curiosity), although even those will be improved, but with pretty large speakers such as the OP is using it will make a real difference. My wonderful Quad 2805s have limited headroom and at 70-100 sqm my listening space is large. My three subs add quite a bit of headroom and dynamic capability to the system, and a sense of spatial reality. I crossover at 80 Hz.

 

[kipman725]

I would argue that minimizing room effects with pattern control, absorption and multi sub approaches is best as we now have computers that can process massive FIR filters and so adding in reverb and diffusion can be done digitally if required. https://www.waves.com/plugins/h-reverb-hybrid-reverb

 

[gnarly]

Yes, both the Wisdom and Steinway systems require matching subs. In the case of the Steinway systems they do not consider them subs, but rather woofers... in particular they are called "boundary woofers". They crossover higher than is typical of subs and must be up against a wall or in the wall. And yes, you do use quite a stack of them. For the LS systems you typically use 6 per side.

Wow, 6 per side. Nice.
I can see why Steinway crosses their "boundary woofers " higher than typical subs. As my second concern with the LS towers was the fact the 5.5" mids are open baffle, which despite there being 15 of them, might struggle to produce clean SPL above the typical sub xover frequency (80-100Hz)

For full disclosure we are dealers for both of these lines as well as several others discussed in this thread. My comments are reflecting actual experience. Most of our projects involve working with high net worth clients and NDAs so I can't get into details, but I will add to this discussion that we have installed the in-wall version of the Steinway LS speakers in an enormous room that is three stories tall with an open cage elevator off to the side. The speakers are hidden behind walls covered with custom decorative grillwork. The far wall is floor to ceiling glass for the spectacular view.

Cool. Glad to hear that. No wonder I enjoy your comments.

When desired, the system fills the room at concert levels. They absolutely handle huge spaces with amazing grace.

I don't doubt it at all.

Hey, are you familiar with any large CBT's that employ multi-line sections (like the Steinways)?

I've built 7 1/2ft straight and CBT line arrays using small "full-range haha" 3 1/2" speakers. A CBT's ability to diminish vertical reflections is unparalleled ime.
About the only DIY speaker projects i still find tempting (beyond a better synergy/unity), are line arrays that employ multiple sized lines...and particularly for a CBT.

 

[Sokel]

It worked for me, although there is an obvious limit to the effect. It will not work with tiny bookshelves (tried that, just out of curiosity), although even those will be improved, but with pretty large speakers such as the OP is using it will make a real difference. My wonderful Quad 2805s have limited headroom and at 70-100 sqm my listening space is large. My three subs add quite a bit of headroom and dynamic capability to the system, and a sense of spatial reality. I crossover at 80 Hz.

That's me (one speaker) without subs at 80m² ,mic at 2,8m at MLP:

"System" SINAD

Would the concept of "system" SINAD (from source to speakers) be useful in component selection for a good stereo system? Let's assume a listening SPL of 85dB @ 1m, and a room noise floor of around 40dB SPL. Assuming +20dB headroom for signal peaks, and another -20dB noise headroom. A system...

www.audiosciencereview.com

(obviously that's without EQ.With EQ this 31Hz is ironed for normal listening but left as is for late night )

 

[gnarly]

The intellectual gyrations caused by reluctance to answer hard questions is amazing. The fact is, if we're interested in fidelity - i.e. hearing only what's in the recording, with nothing taken away and nothing added, then all reflections are destructive. But practical researchers know most people won't go as far as eliminating reflections, so they explain away the huge disadvantages of domestic listening as "Envelopment!" "Spaciousness!" and so on. Total cop-out.

I also think 'envelopment' and 'spaciousness' are mainly used as cop-outs.
Not to say they don't exist and/or, are not pleasing; but they are often used as an excuse to justify compromised speakers and destructive room interactions imo.

The biggest eye opener in my 50 adult years of audio pursuit, has been hearing very high-quality, powerful playback outdoors, as reflection-free as possible.

Still is. I spent all last winter working in my room on a 3 channel LCR matrix setup for enhanced stereo. Big constant directity speakers with lower that usual pattern control frequencies. With great success, couldn't be happier.........
........until, like every spring, I set one or two of the speakers up outdoors ....
and get the cotton removed from my ears, once again reminding me just how destructive reflections really are.

 

[Willem]

I guess that is one reason why people like dipoles such as my Quads.

 

[kipman725]

@gnarly this is a good point, I often setup high quality PA systems outdoors and it sounds better than anything indoors. The required 'house curve' differs though so if you took speakers that sound good indoors outdoors without adjusting EQ it would probably be not as good as it could be.

 

[Short38]

If I remember, AR3’s filled the concourse of Grand Central Station rather effectively. You may want consider a pair of those.

 

[Galliardist]

I also think 'envelopment' and 'spaciousness' are mainly used as cop-outs.
Not to say they don't exist and/or, are not pleasing; but they are often used as an excuse to justify compromised speakers and destructive room interactions imo.

The biggest eye opener in my 50 adult years of audio pursuit, has been hearing very high-quality, powerful playback outdoors, as reflection-free as possible.

Still is. I spent all last winter working in my room on a 3 channel LCR matrix setup for enhanced stereo. Big constant directity speakers with lower that usual pattern control frequencies. With great success, couldn't be happier.........
........until, like every spring, I set one or two of the speakers up outdoors ....
and get the cotton removed from my ears, once again reminding me just how destructive reflections really are.

It’s a case of two scenarios.
First, the dedicated, treatable room where you control things well.

Second, the multi purpose living space where you are restricted in what you can do.

I can’t call my own situation where I have the second case a “cop out”. Nor do I have a lot of sympathy for tbe blood, sweat and tears school of audiophilia where the rest of us are looked down on as not trying. I don’t have the million dollars that would buy me a dedicated room where I live - so that’s that.

As for using a consultant or installer, if they are good, why not? Just because you are “experienced”… so? The point remains to listen to music, not to spend your life worrying about the next upgrade or what you might be missing. So some of you enjoy the struggle, fair enough. But you still need to start from a good position.

The consultant may save you money as well by good choice of components. It’s entirely valid.

 

[pos]

@aliqaz, in your situation you should probably follow @Mr. Widget's advice and try renting a few PA systems.
This would let you determine exactly what SPL/bandwidth you need to shoot for, and also try different directivity setups, all that backed up with (generally) accurate specifications and measurements. You might even want to try things like line arrays (why not) and cardioid bass, nearfield bass, etc.

Playing with these parameters you would also be able to evaluate what kind of room treatment you would have to resort to.
Your local PA rental companies might also be able to provide advice and guidance with less bias than installers, as their job is not to sell products.

In the end you would "just" have to replace those ugly boxes with something more house-friendly, but at least you would then have a clearer idea of what to look for.
You might even be able to get custom boxes build using the same drivers, etc.

Easier said than done, and probably a long endeavor, but better than shooting in the dark IMO.

 

[sarumbear]

In terms of tonality and dispersion my current speakers are absolutely great (revel f208s). I prefer both wide and narrow dispersion and have tonally accurate speakers that represent both in some of my other systems (Philharmonic BMR, r3). I use room correction extensively (Dirac/xt32/anthem arc, above and below 500hz for different systems as the situation demands).

Why don’t you upgrade to a top of the range Revel if you like them? The SPL capacity between F208S and Salon2 is pretty large.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yes, I agree that we studio folk are all deaf morons. (But you seem to have built a whole hobby around our product ... go figure.) In the meantime, this deaf moron would comment:

"Prefer" is such a weak concept. I have attended various tests with various questions. The strongest question is, "Which of these sounds like real life?" The "prefer" metric is weak because participants - by their own admission - tend to answer based on, "This is what I'm used to, but more of it." Which doesn't offer hard data other than in terms of market appeal. Certainly it's not a question about fidelity.

The intellectual gyrations caused by reluctance to answer hard questions is amazing. The fact is, if we're interested in fidelity - i.e. hearing only what's in the recording, with nothing taken away and nothing added, then all reflections are destructive. But practical researchers know most people won't go as far as eliminating reflections, so they explain away the huge disadvantages of domestic listening as "Envelopment!" "Spaciousness!" and so on. Total cop-out.

Taken to the extreme this would mean we would be best off listening in an anechoic chamber. I don't believe that to be true. With speakers that have even off-axis response, some reflections wil indeed add to the experience of envelopment, width/depth of soundstage etc. These are somewhat "fluffy" concepts that are hard to measure, but they are not made up concepts.

 

[gnarly]

@gnarly this is a good point, I often setup high quality PA systems outdoors and it sounds better than anything indoors. The required 'house curve' differs though so if you took speakers that sound good indoors outdoors without adjusting EQ it would probably be not as good as it could be.

Yeppers. Definitely needs a different "house curve" indoors vs out.
I keep the ability to change house curves on the fly, to handle recordings varying tonality, so the indoor to outdoor transition is no biggie at all.

It’s a case of two scenarios.
First, the dedicated, treatable room where you control things well.

Second, the multi purpose living space where you are restricted in what you can do.

Yep. And for me, I like to add a third scenario to the mix....outdoors.
My earlier comparison of the indoor work i did over the winter, to recent outdoor listening, would be #2 a restricted multi-use room vs #3 outdoors.
In not too many years back, I had a #1 dedicated, designed for audio room, where I could compare it to outdoors....first time I did that that was the real eye opener i spoke of.

I can’t call my own situation where I have the second case a “cop out”. Nor do I have a lot of sympathy for tbe blood, sweat and tears school of audiophilia where the rest of us are looked down on as not trying. I don’t have the million dollars that would buy me a dedicated room where I live - so that’s that.

Yes, and good for you, and I think most folks recognize that 2nd situation..happily.
The "cop-out" I think, is when someone starts looking for reasons to deny known auditory, acoustic, and speaker science ...when in challenge to others when they talk about their experiences with they've found to work better for them.

Also agree with the no sympathy part...
It really irks me when others tell me or imply that I need to do more to reap all that's available.
I think we should all simply share what we're doing, how/why we like or dislike it, and perhaps why or why not we think it works.
We each have our own thresholds of time, effort, and $$...not to mention interest. To each their own, huh

As for using a consultant or installer, if they are good, why not? Just because you are “experienced”… so? The point remains to listen to music, not to spend your life worrying about the next upgrade or what you might be missing. So some of you enjoy the struggle, fair enough. But you still need to start from a good position.

The consultant may save you money as well by good choice of components. It’s entirely valid.

Not sure where this came from...
Did someone say to avoid consultants?
Baaaad idea. Other than, I would avoid any I can't get references for, or have installations I could go hear.

 

[Duke]

Thank you for the calculations. Considering this, are you aware of any commercially available speakers that can accomplish this [90 dB average, 110 dB peaks @ 20 feet in 35,000+ cubic feet of airspace]?

Probably JBL M2s + subs; PBN M2!5's (ask Peter whether they can be EQ'd in the low bass region for your large airspace); Danley Hyperions (again ask about EQing the bass; Klipsch Jubilee (subs needed); and whatever @Bjorn recommends. (I have ideas but they would not be off-the-shelf designs.)

In my opinion Bjorn really knows what he's doing, whether or not there is independent measurement confirmation. His posts demonstrate that to me (whether or not I agree 100% with every word of every sentence), and the speakers shown in his photos address things which imo matter. For instance, his midbass horns have an adequate round-over around the mouth, which avoids or greatly minimizes the mouth reflections which typically color the response of big midbass horns. Not to mention how elegant they are for something that size.

I agree with the following, even though uniform directivity down to the Schroeder frequency is something my own designs do not accomplish (my target is 700 Hz, based on research by David Griesinger, but I concede that down to Schroeder would be even better):

Uniform directivity is essential and should ideally be that down to the Schroeder frequency. This leads to a much less coloration from surfaces and more a correct tonality. This is actually more important that a super even frequency response on-axis anechoic. Especially in rooms with no or little acoustic treatment. Most speakers recommmended here don't fit that bill and will not measure that well placed in a normal room. That being said, in this big room you will avoid many acoustic problems. At the same time, some other will arise but they are easier to deal with. [emphasis Duke's]