The wait is over: Genelec 8381A point source main monitor has arrived

[Newman]

(to Newman): It's a game changer even if you remove the "Active Room Treatment" part out of it. The level of control it gives over bass management to the user is on the level one could only obtain previously with a Trinnov. Bringing that level of control to processors/AVRs that cost a fraction of that is, by itself, a game changer in my opinion.

Then you add in the "ART" part, and it can make a $5K Denon do things even a Trinnov can't do.

So do you agree with me that Sancus was calling it a game changer. He says that it is an “absurd misrepresentation of what he wrote” to claim he said it is a game changer. Even though he used the exact words, “…it changes…the game…”.

And he calls me a troll. Still waiting for an apology here about that one. Do you think I’ll get it?

But I’m not sure what you wanted me to learn from your words above? Does it answer my question about experimental evidence? About evidence that it is not just another solution looking for a problem (with regard to home hifi)?

cheers

 

[Curvature]

Does it answer my question about experimental evidence? About evidence that it is not just another solution looking for a problem (with regard to home hifi)?

It's a good question.

There is limited evidence that cancelling LF ringing is preferred. This attached paper is interesting for example. I don't think it's a definitive paper by any means, of course.

 

[Jon AA]

So do you agree with me that Sancus was calling it a game changer. He says that is an “absurd misrepresentation of what he wrote” to claim he said it is a game changer. Even though he used the exact words, “…it changes…the game…”.

I don't really have interest in interpreting one person's interpretation of what another said. I can tell you that I think it is a game changer. Of course "game changer" is a subjective term, one can invent any definition he wants. I know it has changed my immediate subwoofer plans for our new house, if it ever gets built, which will save me much time, effort and money (if it works as I believe it will). So it has quite literally "changed the game" for me.

Does it answer my question about experimental evidence? About evidence that it is not just another solution looking for a problem (with regard to home hifi)?

Academic studies are always a good thing. However, one must acknowledge the reality that there are times when new stuff becomes available to the masses faster than independent research about it can be done and published. If you're waiting for a Harman-like listening test formal study on everything, you're never going to try anything new. All one can really do is try to really understand how something works, make a judgement call on whether you think it may be beneficial to you and give it a try.

Something I've noticed on a wide range of subjects where there's an argument over whether "a thing" is worth it or not, there seem to be a large percentage of people on the side of "it's not worth it" who don't have it, which would only make sense. They can surely say those who do "have the thing" are biased, and they're probably correct in many cases.

But there is also often a refusal to realize that those who "have the thing," not only have a lot more experience with that thing, but can often switch it on and off at the press of a button and hear the difference for themselves--this gives them infinitely more knowledge about the difference that thing actually makes.

A good example is in the never ending argument about stereo vs multichannel/immersive music. Many of the loudest voices saying it's not worth it, not only don't have it themselves but have very, very little (or even zero) experience with it in a proper setup. They seem to forget everybody who does have it can switch between it and stereo at the press of a button in real time. Maybe, just maybe, they have a better idea on what difference it actually makes. Comparisons such as this are infinitely easier to do than speaker comparisons.

Everybody who gets ART, will be able to switch it off at the press of a button. If it's a solution looking for a problem, it should be clearly evident to those who listen.

 

[Newman]

Academic studies are always a good thing. However, one must acknowledge the reality that there are times when new stuff becomes available to the masses faster than independent research about it can be done and published.

So much so that it’s more the norm than the exception, in a competitive marketplace that highly values points of difference aka ‘special features’.

If you're waiting for a Harman-like listening test formal study on everything, you're never going to try anything new.

That’s not true at all. It means I will try everything new that arises from solid research. I started equalising for smooth flat direct sound based on solid research. I started equalising summed sound in the bass based on solid research. I started looking into multichannel sound, and adjusting the positions of the speakers, based on solid research.

All one can really do is try to really understand how something works, make a judgement call on whether you think it may be beneficial to you and give it a try.

To me that’s a sucker play. That’s exactly how snake oil products get traction. Some dude writes a white paper on how ‘something works’. Bonus points if Stereophile or TAS interview him and treat him like an authority on the subject. We think, “that’s interesting, I wonder if it will benefit me, I think I will give it a try.” We try it and, lo and behold, we experience the claimed benefits.

Sucker play. It was all imagined. We should know better on ASR.

Something I've noticed on a wide range of subjects where there's an argument over whether "a thing" is worth it or not, there seem to be a large percentage of people on the side of "it's not worth it" who don't have it, which would only make sense. They can surely say those who do "have the thing" are biased, and they're probably correct in many cases.
But there is also often a refusal to realize that those who "have the thing," not only have a lot more experience with that thing, but can often switch it on and off at the press of a button and hear the difference for themselves--this gives them infinitely more knowledge about the difference that thing actually makes.

This only gives them an infinite opportunity to sucker punch themselves. An opportunity that is rarely passed up. Then they race to the forums and post anecdotes about their ‘experiences’. Snake oil salesmen the world over go, “hooray!” More money changes hands.

Meanwhile, the owner’s actual knowledge about the difference the thing makes to the audible sound waves remains at zero.

A good example is in the never ending argument about stereo vs multichannel/immersive music. Many of the loudest voices saying it's not worth it, not only don't have it themselves but have very, very little (or even zero) experience with it in a proper setup. They seem to forget everybody who does have it can switch between it and stereo at the press of a button in real time. Maybe, just maybe, they have a better idea on what difference it actually makes. Comparisons such as this are infinitely easier to do than speaker comparisons.
Everybody who gets ART, will be able to switch it off at the press of a button. If it's a solution looking for a problem, it should be clearly evident to those who listen.

These are the ‘user reports in a thread’ that Sancus referenced as evidence. Exactly the storyline I described above. Useless.

Also note that my question is specific: comparing ART to expertly implemented multi sub and EQ, using one of the advanced methodologies. The great majority of home-based ART ‘tryouts’ won’t be making that comparison, even if they did manage to control their ‘press of a button’ listening tests for non-sonic variables and for level matching. Even if they did.

cheers

 

[Newman]

It's a good question.

Thank you. I am grateful to see that not everyone sees me as an intentional troll.

There is limited evidence that cancelling LF ringing is preferred. This attached paper is interesting for example. I don't think it's a definitive paper by any means, of course.

Thank you again, much appreciated. I have seen that paper before, but it was good to refresh myself on it.

My reading is that it reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers.

You have also reminded me of what Floyd Toole wrote in ASR:-

Question: Are there any examples of this "active room treatment" for people's listening rooms? I wonder how it would compare in cost and function to passive treatments like bass traps, resonators, tube traps, diffusers, etc.

Answer: Yes indeed. If you have my book - any edition - you will find explanations about how passive combinations of multiple subwoofers can be used to predictably attenuate room resonances in rectangular rooms, and in active solutions for rooms of any shape, can manipulate them, to create regions of similar sounding bass for several listeners. NO traditional acoustical absorption is required. The information is also in the Audio Engineering Society publications, under Todd Welti, the inventor and author, part of my research group at Harman.

My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.

cheers

 

[Curvature]

Thank you. I am grateful to see that not everyone sees me as an intentional troll for asking it.

Thank you again, much appreciated. I have seen that paper before, but it was good to refresh myself on it.

My reading is that it reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers.

You have also reminded me of what Floyd Toole wrote in ASR:-


My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.

cheers

I would agree it's a goldmine (hits the measurement jackpot; clearly a case where audibility is uncertain). I don't think it's just fluff though, and I'm very interested personally, because there's no space for more than one sub in my small living room. Potentially, ART may help where bass traps (real ones) have been too bulky and expensive to install. As usual I've already addressed problems with EQ but there is significant seat-to-seat variation, particularly with height.

The expense of Dirac products and complicated integration of HTPC or HT gear turns me off though.

Edit: Is it required on top of multisub? Marginal gains probably kick in.

 

[Newman]

It turns me off too (the bit about compicated integration)…..but I suck it up and get on with it

I never forget my 20-year-old dreams of a 2A3 SET and full range driver…somehow miraculously made to sound fulfilling.

 

[RickNRoll]

I'm waiting till they bring out the SET version of this.

 

[Curvature]

It turns me off too…..but I suck it up and get on with it

I never forget my 20-year-old dreams of a 2A3 SET and full range driver…somehow miraculously made to sound fulfilling.

Tooooobzzzz

Replacing them with LEDs or mini glowing displays just ain't the same.

 

[Jon AA]

To me that’s a sucker play. That’s exactly how snake oil products get traction.

You seem to have ignored the whole part about "understanding how things work." When you truly understand how things work, you aren't fooled by snake oil. You don't swallow some BS whitepaper just because it exists, you evaluate it and can determine if it's BS or not.

Maybe I take my background for granted, as an extremely mechanical/analytical Engineer who has made a long career out of looking at (or coming up with) a thing and judging whether it will work or not. But then having to prove it with math. If every initial judgement was a complete shot in the dark, I would have been very bad at my job.

I can understand those who don't have that capability being more cautious/skeptical, but anybody who is actually interested in understanding can at least put forth some effort to do so. You don't seem to be doing so. You're completely ignoring all the bass management capabilities it unlocks that have never before been available on "regular consumer" equipment that I mentioned, you seem to be ignoring the fact that MSO and DLBC do nothing over 60-80 Hz if you have decent speakers, etc.

The great majority of home-based ART ‘tryouts’ won’t be making that comparison,

What's your evidence for this? My understanding is that one cannot even purchase an ART license without already having a DLBC license. A very high percentage of early adopters have already had DLBC for a while. That may not be true a couple years from now, but for now it is.

 

[Newman]

Maybe I take my background for granted, as an extremely mechanical/analytical Engineer who has made a long career out of looking at (or coming up with) a thing and judging whether it will work or not. But then having to prove it with math. If every initial judgement was a complete shot in the dark, I would have been very bad at my job.

I can understand those who don't have that capability being more cautious/skeptical, but anybody who is actually interested in understanding can at least put forth some effort to do so. You don't seem to be doing so.

I don’t need to. Because one can’t prove audibility with calculations - as the history of audio tech has taught us all too often. Based on your post above, maybe that’s a blind spot for you, with your confessed highly-analytical, highly-theoretical approach to “understanding things”. It is certainly a blind spot in regard to your attempts to deal with my key question, which has nothing to do with whether or not ART demonstrably reduces room resonances.

cheers

 

[Jon AA]

Well, you can lead a horse to water but...even though you liked Curvature's post, it's clear you didn't bother to read the paper he posted. I'll highlight the points of interest to "answer your question" from the discussion and conclusion portions, based upon scientifically controlled actual listening tests:

In general, there are three tiers of perceived performance established by these results:

1. The configurations associated with the highest quality are based on active removal of energy for the room (i.e., C.A.B.S. and SSS). These are also the most expensive to implement since they require, at least, two subwoofers and a digital signal processing unit. If multiple subwoofers are available, the results obtained here suggest that their most cost effective use is through the application of a simple “source- to-sink” method.....

A strong correlation has been demonstrated between the perceived improvement in reproduction quality and the decay times of low frequency energy in the room. This is in line with previous research into aspects of modal perception [7, 9, 12] and corroborates the previous suggestions that modal control methods that are based on direct reduction of modal decays are more likely to achieve a perceptually efficient outcome....

Interestingly, perceptual improvements afforded by position control, multiple subwoofers, or magnitude equalization are in general associated with a reduction of decay times for parts of the frequency but may involve a consequent increase in others. This is an interesting result that raises the question of which regions, within the frequency range under study, are more likely to be associated with the largest perceptual improvements when acted upon. This is a topic of current study for the authors. In contrast to modal decay reductions, a significant perceptual improvement resulting from the direct reduction of frequency response variation is not always evident.

Of course it did not test ART specifically. It did test two different methods of active cancellation of modes which both resulted in a significant reduction of decay time and easily beat the setups that didn't in perceived sound quality. Since ART has been shown to successfully do the same thing, it's not a stretch at all to expect there is a very good chance ART will result in similar sound quality improvements.

At this point, there is a lot more evidence indicating that is the most likely result than your "hypothesis" that it's "snake oil."

 

[Curvature]

Since ART has been shown to successfully do the same thing, it's not a stretch at all to expect there is a very good chance ART will result in similar sound quality improvements.

Fazenda has other good papers on this topic as well. I posted the graph below in another thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...atment-goldensound.45104/page-74#post-1629663

The main comment I'd leave is that the study is concerned with detecting any effects, but not with preference specifically.

I don't think there are any equivalent preference studies for bass resonance fully isolated from FR (amplitude vs. bandwidth vs. subjective impact). Toole's and Olive's studies looked at resonance with impacts on FR.

 

[Newman]

Well, you can lead a horse to water but...even though you liked Curvature's post, it's clear you didn't bother to read the paper he posted.

Dude, stop making accusations about me. This is about the third time you have said to me "you ignored this" or "you clearly didn't bother"...and you are wrong every time. You are also wrong with your clear hints that you have a superior analytical capability to me. Would you like me to start alluding to the level of emotional maturity behind such a style? No? Well, stop it. Lift your game.

I'll highlight the points of interest to "answer your question" from the discussion and conclusion portions, based upon scientifically controlled actual listening tests:



Of course it did not test ART specifically. It did test two different methods of active cancellation of modes which both resulted in a significant reduction of decay time and easily beat the setups that didn't in perceived sound quality. Since ART has been shown to successfully do the same thing, it's not a stretch at all to expect there is a very good chance ART will result in similar sound quality improvements.

At this point, there is a lot more evidence indicating that is the most likely result than your "hypothesis" that it's "snake oil."

Quite the opposite.

I did read the paper, and I have already commented on it, in post #205 (which I won't say "you clearly didn't bother to read"), and said what I learned from it (and I won't add "using my superior analytical capability"). I shall quote myself and repeat it here: "it (the paper) reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers."

In other words, those benefits in measurements and audibility reported in the paper were achieved with known subwoofer techniques. No need of any ART-type processing to get those benefits. Also no need of metres-thick room treatments, which Dirac say are the only way to get the benefits without their product. Hence the paper actually supports my concerns about the need for ART to get those benefits. Hmmm! Not to mention Floyd Toole's comments that reductions in room resonances can be achieved with known subwoofer techniques and no massive room treatments -- exactly the stuff in the paper. It's all in my post #205.

PS I never said ART is snake oil, even though you used quote marks to indicate that I did (and that's bad form BTW). I shall repeat my words from post #211: "my key question has nothing to do with whether or not ART demonstrably reduces room resonances." Clear?

 

[ferrellms]

It's a main monitor so yeah it's not going to be perfect. Like I said, they sacrifice perfection for maximum SPL output.

It's still miles better than, say, the 1236A. You're not going to buy the 8381A because you want the best measurements, you're going to buy it because you have a giant honking room.

You obviously have not heard them.

 

[ferrellms]

Sorry, I don't think this is the right thread to go back and forth trying to convince you of anything unrelated to the 8381A. I don't see this technique as fundamentally different from room treatment, just more practical. Toole suggests room treatment for bass is useful if you can accommodate it, in both his book and his guide to building home theatres. That's good enough for me. Multi-sub cannot help you at all above the range the subwoofers are playing, either.

It would require several feet thick bass traps to absorb low frequencies and thus remove them from the sound of the room. Just get a cardiod speaker like these or Kii or D&D.

 

[Jon AA]

I did read the paper, and I have already commented on it, in post #205

I was actually being polite. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read (or just skimmed) the paper, instead of flat out saying you didn't understand what you read.

I shall quote myself and repeat it here: "it (the paper) reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ,

And there's the evidence. ART (and presumably the variation of the Double Bass Array Trinnov is currently working on) don't occupy "the same space" as traditionally implemented multiple subwoofers and EQ. They. Don't. Do. The. Same. Thing. Lumping them into the same "space" shows a lack of understanding of how they work.

In other words, those benefits in measurements and audibility reported in the paper were achieved with known subwoofer techniques.

Known by whom? Which room correction systems use them? Can you point me to a single DIY tutorial on how to implement such a system? I'd venture to guess 99.99% of even die-hard enthusiasts have never even heard of CABS or SSS nor would have a clue on how to implement them.

DLBC, MSO, GLM, yes. Those are commonly used (and quite sophisticated) "multiple subwoofer and EQ" techniques. And they just don't do the same thing. Other than reducing ringing from resonant peaks, they don't make a significant difference on the decay time of the bass. Which again, was determined to be highly important as the major finding of the paper you read.

Also no need of metres-thick room treatments, which Dirac say are the only way to get the benefits without their product.

And Genelec actually agrees in a round about way. If using GLM and the RT60 in your room is too high at low frequencies, the only solution they offer is....bass traps:

In other words, GLM doesn't do diddly in that regard.

I was asking about experimental psychoacoustic evidence (not by Dirac of course), relating to the audibility (and preference) of reducing the room reverb decay time at bass frequencies, to the degree that ART achieves, compared to multiple subs crossing to main drivers and all expertly equalized up to 300-500 hz.

And you were presented with such evidence that systems that do a similar thing, based on similar concepts were, in fact, preferred. And you've chosen to ignore/misunderstand it because you've already dug in your heals and won't be moved.

 

[Newman]

Since ART has been shown to successfully do the same thing,

They. Don't. Do. The. Same. Thing.

Duuuuude…..

 

[Jon AA]

Duuuuude…..

I agree with Sancus, you must be trolling. Your reading comprehension cannot be that poor, the context of those statements was quite clear. Different comparisons--sytems that actively cancel and reduce decay time and those that don't.

methods of active cancellation of modes which both resulted in a significant reduction of decay time and .... ART has been shown to successfully do the same thing,

ART (and presumably the variation of the Double Bass Array Trinnov is currently working on) don't occupy "the same space" as traditionally implemented multiple subwoofers and EQ. They. Don't. Do. The. Same. Thing. ..... DLBC, MSO, GLM, ...Other than reducing ringing from resonant peaks, don't make a significant difference on the decay time of the bass.

 

[Newman]

So what? Your first self-quote above is still referring to techniques that involve subwoofers without ART processing and without metres of absorption. Yet, as per your words, they do the same thing as ART.

Your second self-quote conveniently adds the term ‘traditionally-implemented’ in order to exclude the techniques I am talking about. Makes you look good in your own eyes, but it’s irrelevant to my points, because my point is that these ‘non-traditionally-implemented’ techniques exist and, as per your words, do the same thing. Without ART processing. Without metres of absorption.

Which has been my entire point from the start. All the way from post #180.

PS not happy with your name-calling.