What Do Listeners Prefer for Small Room Acoustics?

[Purité Audio]

That makes perfect sense, so all the speaker qualities that have been proven to be admired ,flat on axis and smooth and even off axis are still paramount.
Keith.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

That makes perfect sense

Obviously not to everyone, judging by the knee jerk reactionary strawman, ad hominem and red herring, etc, etc. fest.
Interesting thing is that I never say a single thing online that I wouldn't say in person...and I'm out in the "audio" public quite often.

so all the speaker qualities that have been proven to be admired ,flat on axis and smooth and even off axis are still paramount.

Sure. Discrimination of audio problems decreases with increasing number of channels, but in this case, you are using the exact same setup for your stereo front, zero difference. So yes, all that matters.
Unless of course, a tabletop mono radio fulfills all requirements. But then I'm not sure why one would still need stereo, much less stereo + 2 rears, etc.

cheers,

AJ

 

[amirm]

Are we saying that as most recordings are entirely synthetic constructs and we will never have more than the reproduction of the event we should reproduce that reproduction in the manner that most pleases?

Keith.

As long as such pleasantness is lasting, sure. And for sure don't go mask side reflections because someone says it is the "right" thing to do. If side reflections add to the experience then use them.

That is an entirely different matter than creating an 8 channel system and blasting things into the rest of the speakers which was the "watson" experiment from a decade or two back. For sure, that configuration will create a more pleasing experience for some content especially at first. Question is how lasting is that? When I moved my system to our new house, the room was super live. I am talking no absorption in sight and RT60 times of 1.2 to 1.8 seconds. The first track I played on it was amazing. Super mesmerizing to hear all of those reflections add to the sound coming out of the speakers. But after a day of hearing everything sounding that way, I added absorption and the system sounded better across wider range of content, albeit not quite as nice on the first track I played. The brain doesn't want to hear everything from rock to jazz sound like it is being played in a church!

Now AJ says, well you can adjust and turn off the simulated surround. Yeh you can but where the did the money and space come from for all those extra channels? If you are going to go that route, might as well set it up per specs for multi-channel configuration and get content suited for that.

 

[amirm]

I'm saying I agree with Toole reflections in living spaces (thread topic) are not to be feared like studiophiles advocate.
Post #122:

by Dr. Floyd Toole — April 04, 2016
Some reflected sound is good. Sometimes a lot of the right kind is even better. Concert halls are deliberately reflective, highly reverberant, spaces. This is my “classical” listening room in our custom-built Canadian home. Conceived as a space for enjoying large, spatially involving, works of music, it was the largest “concert hall” I could afford at the time. The very neutral, essentially omnidirectional, Mirage M1s “became” the orchestra and the room became a seamless extension of the recorded space. It provided a very satisfying, involving, experience. Because of the designed-in irregular scattering surfaces, the heavy carpet and thick felt underlay brought the reverberation time down to under 0.5s so the room sounded much less “live” than one would think. It was a nice-sounding space, pleasant to be in. Late at night I have been known to sit in the dark with a glass of good Scotch and listen to non-classical involving pieces of music like Dire Straits “Brothers in Arms” played at high level. I miss this room.

I also think it's incredibly foolish to dismiss 99% of music, which are stereo recordings, yes, many are simply "constructs". Even if not, still only 2 channels. This is a problem:

Post #124:

JJ
In the usual stereo audio presentation, a partial sound stage consisting primarily of the front elements of the sound stage is created by two channels, either sampled from several microphones set in the original sound field or more often by a mixdown of many microphones placed both in proximity to the performers and out in the hall to capture the ambience. The information presented by the two channels, in either case, is a small fraction of the information in the original sound field. Additionally, this fraction is presented to the front of the listener. The presentation does not create an envelopment experience, where one is immersed in the original sound field, as the information is not present.

Ideally, MCH recording techniques, like PSR, would be used. 99% of recorded music is stereo, there is no "true/proper" MCH "option".
But one does have the option to add some envelopment, imperfect, yes, but still more enveloping that "frontal stereo".
So after all the ridiculous red herrings, strawmen, etc. par for the course audio forum nonsense, an option is put forth, that no one is forced to do.
Add envelopment if/when one wishes, scientifically, not lifting cables and rolling tubes and that sort of abject idiocy, but by...added channels. Real, tangible...and purely optional.

cheers,

AJ

I want to be clear that until you can show specifically, neither JJ or Dr. Toole advocate the configuration and synthetic surround you are talking about here. I have been to JJ's home and he has no such system. And I have never ever heard Dr. Toole talk or write about it either. He is a strong advocate of normal multi-channel.

Your quoting them in support of our point of view is inappropriate AJ. Keith did not ask you about room reflections. He asked if synthetic surround is something that we should use. None of the experts you quoted say anything about that.

Please don't try to take advantage of membership by throwing quotes around, hoping they know less than you. You are damaging the true nature of their teachings by misappropriate references here.

 

[Thomas savage]

Surely if one was to go down that route( multichannel) , it would be bonkers not to try stereo + on your old 2 channel recordings that will make up most of ones catalogue?

You can enjoy all of it, keeping your front speakers as is. You lose nothing if you just fancy bog standard stereo for a day. Other than being ridiculed by AJ I can see no issue

 

[Thomas savage]

I love herring, and we have a beautiful wicker man ( strawman) up the road from me near bridgewater ( Somerset)

Being a horse I love straw too, so my ideal man is a strawman

 

[amirm]

I love herring, and we have a beautiful wicker man ( strawman) up the road from me near bridgewater ( Somerset)

Being a horse I love straw too, so my ideal man is a strawman

You are my kind of horse .

 

[NorthSky]

For a small room ...

 

[Dynamix]

^ Imagine all those tiny drivers flapping about, making fart noises while desperately trying to produce low bass. Eww...

This is more like it:

 

[Dynamix]

 

[Dynamix]

I'm kidding, of course.

Or am I...

 

[krabapple]

Now AJ says, well you can adjust and turn off the simulated surround. Yeh you can but where the did the money and space come from for all those extra channels? If you are going to go that route, might as well set it up per specs for multi-channel configuration and get content suited for that.

Why are you guys being such dicks about this?

I use 5 identical Behringer satellites, 1 subwoofer, play *all* 2 channel content in upmixed 5.1 (DPL II Music mode) because IT SOUND BETTER TO ME THAT WAY (and yes, I can do quick-switch sighted A/B of that difference any time I want). I also of course own dozens of dedicated multichannel (3- 4- and 6-) releases. And you know what? Sometimes the DPLII upmix of the original 2 channel mix SOUNDS BETTER TO ME than the dedicated 5.1 remix. Sometimes it doesn't.

To use your language: 'Might was well' get used to the fact that people like what they like. DLPII is designed to work on 2 channel mixes, which thereby becomes 'suited' for a 5.1 configuration set up 'per specs'. Some of us find the 'pleasantness' to be 'lasting' indeed.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Why are you guys being such dicks about this?

I use 5 identical Behringer satellites, 1 subwoofer, play *all* 2 channel content in upmixed 5.1 (DPL II Music mode) because IT SOUND BETTER TO ME THAT WAY (and yes, I can do quick-switch sighted A/B of that difference any time I want). I also of course own dozens of dedicated multichannel (3- 4- and 6-) releases. And you know what? Sometimes the DPLII upmix of the original 2 channel mix SOUNDS BETTER TO ME than the dedicated 5.1 remix. Sometimes it doesn't.

To use your language: 'Might was well' get used to the fact that people like what they like. DLPII is designed to work on 2 channel mixes, which thereby becomes 'suited' for a 5.1 configuration set up 'per specs'. Some of us find the 'pleasantness' to be 'lasting' indeed.

Glad you are enjoying it as much as you do. Just a couple of questions for reference and perspective. First, what on earth is DLPII. Sorry, but I have never heard of it.

Second, what is your music preference? Give us just a few of your most recent plays.

 

[krabapple]

A "DLPII" is a typo. Obviously, given the context.

Recent 'plays' of the top of my head:

2 channel:
All of Prince's '1999' and 'Purple Rain', just yesterday.

Bowie's 'Blackstar'

Bartok 3rd String Quartet

various pieces for two pianos

Ravel, Piano Concerto for Left Hand

Led Zeppelin selections from 'Physical Graffiti'

Wendy Carlos 'Sonic Seasonings'

Tangerine Dream 'Zeit'

Miles Davis 'On the Corner'

Sibelius 4th Symphony

Multichannel remixes: Jethro Tull, Yes, XTC, ELP, Messiaen

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Why are you guys being such dicks about this?

I suspect they know how much I laugh at them, never having heard of 2ch stereo + L7 surround....much less heard it.

*all* 2 channel content in upmixed 5.1 (DPL II Music mode) because IT SOUND BETTER TO ME THAT WAY

"True" MCH police should be at your door in 3,2,1...

 

[amirm]

Why are you guys being such dicks about this?

I use 5 identical Behringer satellites, 1 subwoofer, play *all* 2 channel content in upmixed 5.1 (DPL II Music mode) because IT SOUND BETTER TO ME THAT WAY (and yes, I can do quick-switch sighted A/B of that difference any time I want). I also of course own dozens of dedicated multichannel (3- 4- and 6-) releases. And you know what? Sometimes the DPLII upmix of the original 2 channel mix SOUNDS BETTER TO ME than the dedicated 5.1 remix. Sometimes it doesn't.

To use your language: 'Might was well' get used to the fact that people like what they like. DLPII is designed to work on 2 channel mixes, which thereby becomes 'suited' for a 5.1 configuration set up 'per specs'. Some of us find the 'pleasantness' to be 'lasting' indeed.

You are not using the frankenstein configuration he is trying to shove down our throat. Let him work you over on that and then let me know how you feel.

For now, I have used Lexicon Logic 7. I know what simulated surround is. It sounded better to me too until it got tiring. Not going that way no matter how many times AJ commits suicide over it.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I have used Lexicon Logic 7.

But never just as surrounds with untouched stereo front...like you have now. Admit it.
Now you won't have to admit if you sneak a try with that format....which you've never heard.

 

[amirm]

But never just as surrounds with untouched stereo front...like you have now. Admit it.
Now you won't have to admit if you sneak a try with that format....which you've never heard.

You are missing the opportunity to taste a new pant leg AJ: Krabapple. Go after him while we sit back and enjoy the show. Don't keep repeating the same nonsense with me. Read it already a dozen times.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Krabapple. Go after him while we sit back and enjoy the show.

Only after you tell us what happened when you added that HK AVR to your 2nd stereo preamp outputs and hooked up the L7 surrounds...only.
Krab seems to be doing stereo>DPL 5ch. Not the droids we're looking for, but hey, he along with Sal seem to enjoy it over plain ol front stereo.
Go figure JJ was right plain "frontal" stereo has limitations...for some.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Interesting that Floyd Toole's views on early sidewall reflections differ from this community.

So, is there a “perfect” room? No. It all depends on your expectations, why you are listening (business or pleasure), what program you are listening to, and the condition of the ears you are listening through. In Figure 22.3 at the end of my book presents suggestions for room treatment based on guidance from research. The portions of side walls responsible for first lateral reflections are specified as “optional areas: absorb, diffuse, reflect.” It is a decision to be made by the customer and/or the installer. People who assert that I am in favor of lateral reflections obviously did not finish reading my book. In fact, as chance would have it, I do not have first lateral reflections in my current listening room – one wall is missing, and the opposite one is heavily draped for symmetry. It sounds just fine because the loudspeakers are superb. For multichannel movies and music, including upmixed stereo, early reflections are swamped by the important, and much louder, spatial cues in the surround channels.

For optimum stereo listening if your music tastes are as eclectic as mine, one really needs adjustable acoustics and, possibly, variable-directivity loudspeakers, but we know that won’t happen. We also need old-fashioned bass and treble tone controls to compensate for the unfortunate spectral balances in some recordings created by poor judgment (perhaps) and poor monitor loudspeakers and/or “room EQ” (probably) in control rooms and home studios. Figure 2.4 in my book shows the enormous variations in bass response in numerous recording control rooms employing essentially the same loudspeakers. Recordings coming from these facilities cannot have the same spectral balance. So, as much as we might like to think that getting the playback system optimized may guarantee satisfaction, it is simply not possible. The following figure illustrates the problem – it is called the “circle of confusion”, and it exists because there are no standards in recording studios relating to loudspeakers or acoustics. Consequently, recordings are variable and it is left to the ingenuity of consumers to make adjustments, or to their tolerance to put up with the variations. The sad thing is that we are not listening to the “art” as it was created. If we don’t like something we hear, we have no way to identify where the problem originated, and it could very well be at the source. Pity.