Congratulations. Experimentation is frequently rewarded. Once in a while I'll do something big as well. I can see how that could work. Added bonus, the view is more open.
Acoustics experts - a little help please
Hey all,
I have 9 foot ceilings and I sit in a 9 foot equilateral triangle with my speakers. Do I need to treat the ceiling? Absorption or defraction? I'm trying to get a deeper more 3D soundstage.Speakers are 46" from the front wall which is treated with absorption and defraction.
Thanks!
60 responses Add your response
I made a radical change. My music room is connected to a dining room and I've always had my speakers set up on the long wall of the music room. Had an epiphany and decided to treat the two rooms as one room and move the speakers to the 1/2 way point between the rooms and eliminating the stuff between the speakers. The front wall is now 12 feet behind the speakers. My soundstage is now 3D. Everything sounds completely different and better. My dining room is now a room with musicians in it. New setup photo in my virtual system pics. |
@thom_oz It would be silly to put the output of a turntable/phonostage through any ADC conversion for a different eco-system. Keep it as is... But, as we both know, vinyl either came from master tape or a hires digital studio master. If you like the sound of analog master tape...there is a solution to get the sound of analog master tape from any digital file. It could be files ripped from a CD, hires files bought from qobuz, etc. You can put such files through Mark Levinson’s/Daniel Hertz Master Class Software. It converts the file and produces the sound of analog master tape (whatever the secret sauce is). Such files can be played in stereo, sent to Bacch, sent to a atmos processor and extracted into a multi speaker array, etc. The sound of master tape remains.... If you bought a daniel hertz streamer/dac, above mention function to get the sound of master tape is built in. Otherwise.. software it it..
|
@deep_333 I have around a dozen of SW's 5.1 surround sound remixes and I'm a big fan (have not heard Atmos mixes of those yet of course). I wish Giles Martin had even half Wilson's skill at this. I have zero interest in running my records thru object oriented surround sound extraction. I'm happy to leave such separation to people with more skill and access to the multitracks. Also, running 50 year old vinyl thru 50-65 year old electronics makes way more sense to me than to digitize them. It's a rarity that a CD version of a vintage recording pleases me as much as the vinyl cut straight from tape (there are a tiny handful of exceptions where the original vinyl was botched - one example: Badfinger 'Ass' sounded pretty bad when released, the 2010 cd is a profound improvement.. |
The perception of detail is a relatively complex topic. For example, i could play you a) a stereo mix on a pure stereo rig, b) move you to the next room -> run the same mix through an object based/3d audio upmixer and also c) compare the same stereo mix converted to a DTS X native mix played on the same You will note that in the object based rig, you will perceive a lot more detail (previously submerged in stereo) because it is discretized, coming at you partially from a different speaker in 3d space other than the front stage with correct spatial nuance and phase information. You may think "holy crap, this was actually buried in that stereo recording?", yes it was....further, compression, etc is not an issue in such a dts x, atmos, etc mix, i.e. you can truly salvage some old legacy botched recording. In stereo, it is a reverberant field from a front stage and room interaction (correct phase? all bets are off). Your ability to perceive above mentioned detail could be a hit or miss. I’ll leave headphones out (just a convenience thing really)...it has nothing to do with the reality of live music. Here’s a interview with Darko and prog rocker Steven Wilson (he does a lot of atmos mixes). He left some things out, but, gets into some pertaining line items. https://youtu.be/NAEJYS5AFJM?si=aJUB38BxF9Vzr6-2 Room treatment is a basic foundation, room dependent, but, still follows a formula, stereo or otherwise.
|
@deep_333 you're correct that I was not thinking of object-based surround or 3D audio at all. For my uses and room I haven't pursued expanding past 5.1 in my surround-sound music, and I only own one Atmos capable music disc (Abbey Road on Blu-Ray) anyway. A point I was implying and not outright stating though should be clarified: a simple, clean & accurate stereo setup in a moderately treated listening room can deliver spectacular results when playing back vintage, high quality stereo recordings delivered in any format. You might be blown away at the information you have missed, buried those records that you've listened to already 300 times. And if you're hearing more on headphones than from your pricey, well regarded home speakers (rather than vice-versa) the untreated listening room or indifferent speaker placement may be the problem. |
Further, any stereo mix is not set in stone. If the mastering tech got too high the night before, you got a trash mix from him the next day. Any enthusiast can a learn a few things from the pros and by himself, get some hardware, study some pertinent software and remaster something to his tastes. On your ’personal’ remaster, you can "fix" a existing trash legacymix,... enhance the soundstage, put some "depth" on it if need be, drop the noise floor, fix the anemia, etc on a stereo mix...or you can level it up to a full blown object based audio (atmos, auro, etc) mix on your own... It is my favorite pasttime, in fact. The avg audiophile could learn to remaster something instead of tweaking away with fuses and cables. |
Not sure if your read the whole comment... @thom_oz The definition of 3D is getting a li’l blurred here. I have a couple of combinations of purist stereo, especially one built around a pair of tads that will do what you’re trying to describe and more. Multichannel ’Object based’ 3D audio is a technology that only came around 2014 onwards for residential use and it is a different thing. It has nothing to do with channel based stereo or older/legacy ’channel based’ multichannel audio. The current proved-in upmixers for object based audio are 360 reality (Sony), Auromatic (Auro 3D), Neural X (DTS), DSU (Dolby) and a couple that are proprietary to Yamaha. With the latter, it doesn’t matter what the quality of your recording was. A setup for object based would comprise of a minimum of 5 to 7 bedlayer speakers and 4 to 6 height/ceiling level speakers. This technology will pick up some trash stereo mix and discretize it, put it up as a sonic dome all around you, stretching from the perimeter of bedlayer+ceiling speakers and beyond. Sound engineers can also produce a object based audio mix for such formats, in which case you won’t need to upmix anything (considered a native mix), When set up correctly, it didn’t matter that you had 9 or 11 speakers, all of them will disappear and you should feel like you’re floating around in a sonic dome/sphere. Sound objects will materialize and disappear, materialize/disappear, materialize/disappear anywhere in space inside this sonic dome....like ’flowers’ blooming and going away.....it’s called 3D. "Hey, i got my almost 100 year old technology called stereo, but, now i have a muscle speaker and it is all 3D now"...doesn’t quite work like that. Some purist stereo streamer/dac manufacturers have some dsp "enhancements"/ soundstage tricks hidden away through FPGA, etc...didn’t matter, phase is off, etc and it is still limited by 2 speakers sitting up on the front stage. Why is this 3D not all that prevalent? a simplifed answer is that it costs a lot, needs a huge room, steep learning curve, probably requires hiring a professional, etc...
|
@deep_333 why would you say: "Setting expectations straight, 3D is a foolish concept concept in purist stereo." -? I'm primarily listening to CD thru McIntosh MX-113 and a 2200 amplifier, and Sonus Faber Cremona speakers. My experience with this is 180 degrees opposite your assertion. It is dependent on the recording quality (and most modern releases won't cut it) but in my treated room listening to pop, jazz, classical and even some older electronic music I can get a massive sound stage with well-defined height, width & depth. Sometimes the center image seems to float behind the speakers and sometimes well on front of them. On many tracks a single element will sound like it's behind the wall that's behind my head. The effect can be even more pronounced when listening to my (spotlessly clean) vinyl with a Rega P6 and Ortofon 2M Black cart. I blame this added sense of space to the crosstalk & delay inherent to vinyl playback, that and the extremely high quality of some vintage lacquer cuts from tape-not-digital. "Lush" barely describes the experience.
|
You are right and it is even more complex than just the right balance of reflections locations/diffusion locations/absorption locations... The acoustic material content of the room matter, his size parameters , his geometry, his topology (windows doors apertures) and his acoustic material compositioncontent... Without being there it is difficult to gave advices if we are not a very professional experimented acoustician... Anyway i used non esthetical resonators and it takes me 2 years to be done with them i had experience really in one small room only ...
The only thing i know is that any room can be tuned, i tune mine with a speaker in a corner for example near the wall and the other not in a corner ...
|
Hi, Maprik One of the most effective and efficient resources on your topic is Jim Smith's book (and DVD) "Get Better Sound". Highly recommended in these and other forums. Here is a link to Jim's website: Jim also offers personal consultation. Check out his entire website. Most Highly Recommended. Cheers, Ken
|
My understanding is that first reflections affect sound the most so treating your side walls, ceiling, and floor at these points is important. Rather than putting the cloud directly above your head, I suggest you place it just as you would absorption for the side reflections, which would be in front of you. Right above your head would likely not take care of the reflection off the ceiling at the listening position. My virtual system has pictures of same. |
OP, Glad you are hearing good results by changing what is between the speakers. Once I start fiddling with the stuff in between my speakers, I realized I could easily hear the hole they created in the sound stage. I motivated me to eliminate the stuff in the center, except the amp and the soundstage filled the space and behind it. It was painful for me, buying a 4 meter expensive pair of interconnects, but worth it. |
Made a few simple changes in moving equipment below the height of my speakers and moved my coffee table away. Also removed the top shelves of my equipment stands since they aren’t in use now so the stands are more skeletal. I also moved my TV back as far as I could and have it covered with a defraction panel. Unfortunately i can’t move my TT shelf that is bolted to the wall studs. Nevertheless, the results are positive. Listening to Birds by Dominique Fils-Aimé i think the bass is moved back a little into the soundstage with the vocal a few feet in front. Other interesting percussion sounds cime from behind the vocals as well. It’s a good start for 0$. Now thinking about ceiling treatments. |
To OP As posted above, the recording must have the sense of depth and height. IMO, if the recording has the sense and you know it but cannot hear that, then i think it must be your speakers?? What i have observed is that I have a set of speakers that images very well, BUT i also have a set of speakers that cannot image with depth and height. so do not disregard that speakers also play a role in depth/height projection |
Most important point, which I assume you have delt with, but just in case - Do you have a recording that has the information needed to create a holographic image? Most recordings do not actually have this information. I use an Opus 3 recording of "Depth of Image", a compilation of exceptionally recorded miscellaneous vocal, small orchestra, solo guitar, etc. The booklet or record jacket tells you what you will/should hear in a well set up system. I first heard this played over a modest, but well set up, system. A group of 4 musicians and you felt you could walk in amongst them and join in. That said, I have a set up similar in size (9'x10'x9'). My speakers are a bit further out into the room (6'). I located my chair with bass nodes/nulls and high frequencies in mind. I have no sonic room treatments or bass traps, etc, but I do have drapery, big Persian rug, bookcases, etc. I have box speakers and do toe them in a bit. It all works quite well. Your question re ceiling treatment, I don't think so unless you have an up tilted frequency response you can't deal with in other ways. I looked at your photos and I could imagine all of that equipment on the wall behind the speakers might interfere with imaging potential more than ceiling reflections.
|
If it wasn’t that obvious earlier, try moving your seat forward as a test, closer to the speaker/away from the back wall....I would wager that a midfield listening distance not more than 7 ft and playing with toe-in may increase the perception of depth and layering....free of cost, to begin with... (Before trying other speakers, tinkering with subs, etc) |
BTW, even though ChatGPT recommended it, I chose not to treat my ceiling. Floor to ceiling Bass traps in all corners, front & side wall absorption, rear wall deflection. I did not want to overdo it & have thick wall to wall carpeting & a large overstuffed couch. Early indications are excellent. Improved clarity, no loss in dynamics. |
I am sure a professional would help. I am currently treating my HT/2 channel listening area. I read several forum discussions, watched several videos and consulted with ChatGPT before proceeding. I found ChatGPT to be excellent. You send the dimensions of your room, equipment, room specifics (windows, carpeting, furniture etc) and even send it pictures of your room. |
@ditusa This is great advice, components and racks not good room treatments. My sound stage extends from very near floor to ceiling, coherent life size images require properly designed acoustic treatments on front wall, diffusion works for me. |
In my opinion, all the equipment in between the speakers is destroying your 3D soundstage. Try to keep all audio equipment below the height of the speakers close to the floor see here @ 3:30. Mike |
So if bacch is out of the question..... here are some things you could try to achieve the goal of tricking yourself into deepening/layering the soundfield...incrementally. - a sub sitting on the front stage or a front corner did no favors for above mentioned goal. Get a pair of microsubs that are easy to move around/hide away like the kef kc62. You will need to keep them somewhere behind or near the couch on either side, use a crossover betwern 80 to 100hz and experiment. Keep an open mind and stray away from the 'group think' on dovetailing/where a crossover should be set. - Sidewalls are far enough away that they may not matter much, proximity of couch to the back wall is the biggest culprit, said distance is too small for correctQRD diffusion formula to work properly. Some diffusion at the equivalent of reflection points on the ceiling may bear some fruit on the 9 ft ceiling. - Your 2 way speakers appear to be nothing to write home about. A concentric driver design such as a TAD ME1TX monitor/standmount would be a conducive speaker, if you can afford it. There are some things designed into tads, in consideration of phase characteristics when more than 1 speaker is in a space (as would be the case with stereo). On the cheap, a Tekton impact monitor could serve as an alternate perhaps, but, less forgiving than the tad. You'd have to get more ocd with placement, toe-in and interspeaker distance. The latter's array produces some semblance of a horn+concentric driver hybrid - Watch out for some culprit electronics that have a soundfield 'flattening' effect....couldn’t say much about a Hegel, but a very famous brand that starts with a 'M' tends to have that effect and so on... It may be the best you could do in consideration of your room's limitations.
|
So I downloaded some audio apps to my phone. One of them measures RT60. I put my phone in my listening position and clapped my hands at both right and left speaker positions. I don’t know if this is the correct way to do this since there were no instructions and I can’t find any online. Anyway, multiple tries from these 2 positions gave me RT60 readings of 0.34 - 0.36 msecs. From my research it seems anything below 0.50 is good. But what does this tell me other than I have an acceptable reverb level? . |
It takes me 2 years full time to understand my room and created the necessary mechanical control devices...it was fun but i was retired and had the time... Small Room acoustics, different from great Hall acoustics in his exigencies and conditions,is a very complex matter... People want simple solutions... I recommend to study and experiment... It is fun and rewarding... If you want a specific advice at distance you must consult an experienced acoustician... I recommend to the OP if he has not the leisure to work it himself and study it to consult a serious acoustician... If not, you must read, study,experiment... Nobody can replace your ears/brain by his...
|
@mahgister gave good advice about consulting an acoustician. Most people here are too proud to consult one or just want to try to figure it by themselves spending years sometimes with mediocre results. Jeff at hdacoustics is very good. He can tell you what you need to do to get the best sound out of your space. Good luck! |
Dont feel sorry but instead stop insinuating about someone post and spoke directly to someone face...Your "sorry" feelings resemble you false question mark after your false question " why now ? "... And if you claim something about someone spell it clearly... It will be appreciated...
|
I dont make a concrete point for you because you dont read the articles i pointed to perhaps in many other threads.. Here a man is in need of a concrete advice, applied acoustics is a serious job i cannot do at distance being not an acoustician with multiple experience in applied acoustics... I apologize and i recommended a serious acoustician... Now you wrote 2 posts insinuating that what i said is meaningless... Go read my articles recommendation and then criticize them...I will answer straight... But if you wrote posts to insinuate without arguments you are just trolling me ... Is it clear ? Give me an example where i dont make a point by the way ? Go i wait...
|
i concur with this very good recommendation... I listened his videos few years ago ...
|
exactly what I am trying to improve on. 