I will only add to his observation that many aspects of room acoustics cannot be "seen" with only usual room measures...
You need way more...
Psychoacoustics concepts , and HTRF and inner ear measures...And i used mechanical devices as Helmholtz tuned resonators distributed to experiments with ...
Most people spending money on the gear had no idea of what acoustics is and do for a maximally or even minimally satisfying acoustic experience...
Add to that mechanical resonance /vibrations controls and electrical noise floor controls , and nobody in a buying upgrade spree who had never seriously work on a SPECIFIC chosen system BEFORE any upgrade, nevermind his cost, had a clue about what acoustics (which is not only room acoustic ) can do ...
It is easy to spot this reading audio forums...
And no gear seller can say straight to his customer , when you will buy my gear pieces it will not be enough at all ..
😁😊
i learned this with a low cost system yes, but after few years of experiments non stop ( i am retired) ...
The most ignorant are some who mock the others as me who had not listen to 30 amplifiers 40 dacs and 30 speakers... 😊
They think they know what is better , in design perhaps they are right , better design matter but less than they think...
Knowledge and experiments matter more than any piece of gear at any price ...
I already owned one of the best speakers of the past the Tannoy dual gold monitor... Their design is superior to many other speakers on many front... But my actual chinese low cost active speakers which are low -fi sound better them on spatial qualities in near listening in my acoustic dedicated corner or rival them on some aspects now ,in spite of their driver limitation in the bass for sure , BECAUSE they are well embedded mechanically, and electrically and acoustically ...
Alas! when i owned my TOP Tannoy i had learned nothing about acoustics or vibration controls or electrical noise floor controls at these times, i believe owning the best gear was enough as marketers says... I never listened to the Tannoy at their peak potential... I modified my low cost active speakers , thanks to Helmholtz genius, and embed them rightfully and if not for their limit in the bass under 50 hertz they will beat the Tannoy completely ..If i had the Tannoy and a room today they will crush my chineese speakers for sure...I am happy anyway now even with these low-fi speakers well embedded and modified...
It is the reason why the distinction between low-fi, mid-fi, and high-fi , had less meanings for me than the distinction between minimal acoustical satisfaction and maximal acoustical asatisfaction thresholds...
The minimal threshold is not a stopgap by the way ... You know why ?
Because all acoustic characteristics of sound qualities are there in a minimal amount and enough to put you in a sonic heaven ... Better design and more costlier gear will not necessarily be so well balanced in all aspects in a bad acoustic room and with no resonance control and no electrical noise floor control... This is why my system is not a frustrated stopgap at all ... I am proud of my ratio price /sound qualities...
Why do you think i know acoustics is key, not price tag ?
Non stop experiments each day for one year full time...
Now read me right : acoustics will not replace good design at all nor compensate for low cost gear limitations ...But in reverse high end gear cannot do what acoustics and mechanical and electrical workings controls do...
|
Acoustics with an (s) which is not only mere room acoustic but psychoacoustics too is almost everything in audio, it is PRIMARY ; cables and gear are SECONDARY in relation with the MINIMAL acoustical satisfying experience threshold ...
The MAXIMUM experience imply and ask for acoustics knowledge with dedicated room with a cost exceeding high end gear most of the times and are impossible to reach by most here ...
We then must learn how to embed and control any working system electrically in the grid of the house and of the room and we must learn how to embed the mechanical vibrations/resonance field in the system/house/room and most importantly we must learn how to embed and control the system/speakers in the acoustic field of the room and the listener position and learn how to control their relation ...
Speaking about the importance of a dac choices or about cable choices or amplifier choices is not "even wrong" for sure and it is SECONDARY matter ....What is the PRIMARY matter and goal is learning how to embed any system at any price ...
Anything else may be promoting a race toward consumerism and ignorance ...
Obsession about sound is not science nor experience...
Concepts matter more here than money...
When your system is MINIMALLY good, you are so amazed by music, so astounded by sound qualities , you forgot audio race and you immerse yourself in music...My system value is 1,000 bucks at most by the way...
You can think i am deluded if you want to justify your expanses... 😁
The difference is less between the low-fi,mid-fi and high-end gear systems as such and more between minimally acoustically satisfying and maximally satisfying system and this is determined more by acoustical and mechanical and electrical embeddings controls than by gear price tags...
And i never said that i could not benefit from costlier component for those who dont understand my point and want to react negatively... Any gear piece can be upgraded and improved... This is a common place fact not an argument against my point ...
|
I would disagree with you about how much the room affects the sound. It affects it some but it’s not gonna make average equipment compete with the best of the best. Sorry that’s as direct as I can be.
I am tired by your misreading but i thank you for your invitation to post...
You seems a very good person to me then ... I want that to be clear...
Now i will clarify something you MISREAD about my experience...
No room acoustic will correct a bad design or compensate for it or replace gear choices...
IS IT CLEAR? ...
But on the other hand No high end speakers and system can perform at their PEAK POTENTIAL in a bad room ...
Is it clear ?
And any low cost system will improve a lot with room acoustic controls BUT WILL NOT EXCEED THE POTENTIAL OF A HIGH END SYSTEM for sure ...
Is it clear ?
Now we can have a low cost systen that give a relatively good " audiophile" experience if we work with not only acoustic but with electrical noise floor control and vibration/resonancve control...
I call it the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...
Is it clear ?
Then in no way a low cost system giving a minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold because of acoustic and electrical and mechanical control well done, in no way such system will rival some very high end system... The only exception may be high end system in bad room ...
is it clear ?
In a word claiming as you do that high end system exist and are better than low cost one , is a common place fact known by everyone even me ... What i said dont contradict that... But you dont seems to understand what i said ...
Psychoacoustics rule the gear not the price tag...
I thank you even if we differ because you are a gentleman ...
My deepest respect ...
|
I distinguished minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold and maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold INSTEAD of the distinction between mid-fi and high end ...
Why ?
Because the distinction between mid-fi and high end is related to price tags not only to objective design quality in all cases...
The distinction between the two acoustical satisfaction threshold had no direct and immediate relation with price but is related mainly to the way the three working embeddings controls are put in place ...
The MINIMAL threshold is reach by me now with my low cost system ... Passed this minimal threshold exist many levels between good system in display here by many members and world level system as mike lavigne one ...All these are under or above this MAXIMAL acoustical satisfaction threshold...
it is not price tag that define good sound but acoustics knowledge, for sure a top system on the world stage will cost a lot of money and a lot of studies and a lot of experiment time ... This is the bad news..
The good news is anybody can reach the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold at relatively low price if he put his mind in studying what to do to control the electrical noise floor of the system , of the room and of his house... Then he must learn how to control vibrations and resonance ... And the last but not least he must learn how to control the room acoustics to serve his ears brain and the speakers relation ..
|
Are you of good faith or are you able to read correctly ?
If you listen to some here you can put any equipment in a good room and it will sound the same?
I dont like behind the back remarks about me...PUT MY NAME or stay mute ...
And also LEARN HOW TO READ: I never said that we can put any cheap low cost gear in place of high end gear forr the same acoustic result in a room and it will sound the same ...Acoustics dont replace design quality ... I said that any system will improve in a dedicated acoustic room at any price and often improve more than many upgrades ...An upgrade to be a real one must be made in OPTIMAL acoustic condition ...
First room acoustics is the MAIN factor to improve sound ONCE and only ONCE we had a relatively synergetical system to begin with ... ( here the system price do not matter because we all have budget limit... do you get it ? )
Suppose your system value is 10,000 bucks, it will be a greater improvement to modify the room for the better than buying a 1000 bucks cable or a new dac near the same price level than the one you already have etc ...
But for sure if you own a cheap amplifier no room acoustics will compensate for this fact ...All begin as i said above with a relatively good gear system according to our budget and synergetical to begin with ... But Upgrades urge race is useless most of the times BEFORE learning and experimenting with acoustics ...
Do you get it ?
There is three main working dimensions for any system at any price, the electrical noise floor level, the mechanical controls of vibrations, the acoustical control of the relation speakers room ... These three embeddings controls matter more than almost any piece upgrade and anyway these three embeddings controls jobs must be done BEFORE a costly upgrade to be able to evaluate the level of quality of what you already own before throwing your money out of the window... Some have bought 40 amplifiers and never had experiment with their acoustics... Complete lost of money....
Next time adress to me if you doubt one of my post ...not about me behind my back...
|
Are you able to get any sentence right ?
I never said that the Merriam definition is wrong ...
I never said that this definition is untrue...
I said that this definition is NOT ENOUGH ...
I said that acoustics science dont use a mere synonymus definition, as any dictionary, but A BOOK entirely to describe what is "musical" ...
neither me nor Acoustics contradict the Merriam dictionary, ACOUSTICIANS COMPLETED IT with experiments , and a set of concepts to CIRCUMSCRIBE all the aspects of this concept ...
Are you of good faith when you discuss ?
Myself i am and if i am wrong i admit it by the way ...
The rigorous definition of "timbre" acoustics experience ,
The rigorous analysis of "distortion" effects on perception ,
The rigorous analysis of the conditions for "immersiveness" .
The rigorous defintion of the "spatial qualities" of sound , ( this is not discussed in this video by the way )
All that 3 factors on these four are defined in this video, Is it "hodge-podge " of words salads as yourself too can make easily as you pretend ?
Or is it meaningful as it is for me ?
Try a little brain work and listen to it BEFORE answering ...
As you will see if you dare to listen to this video, you will understand that in audio yes there is individual taste for sure but there is way more and it is no more about individual taste but about acoustics rigorously defined concepts refering to the acoustics conditions for "musical" experience...
that goes beyong the Merriam Webster defin ition by a synonym ...
I could stir up a vast hodge-podge of words also, and then spill them all out willy-nilly on to a computer screen, and that too would meet the criteria of "going beyond Mirriam Webster." However, it certainly would not make the junk I typed factual and Mirriam Webster’s definitions fictional.
|
And now everybody can read what you claim :
Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...
Keep it where ever you wish. It doesn’t matter to me, but at least it does appear as if you are now understanding that the definition of music/musical/musicality is a matter of "taste and opinion."
Are you unable to understand anything ?
I already said and repeated many time ... In the word "musical" ,
TASTE THERE IS BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE...
Then contrary of what you claim about me i know that individual taste play a role in the definition of "musical" ... You get it ? TASTE THERE IS....
What does it means , it means that it is not about mere individual taste ... BUT MERE INDIVIDUAL TASTE IT IS NOT ...
It means that the definition of "musical" in acoustics dont negate the existence of INDIVIDUAL taste , nor it nullify his value or existence; but it use the collective experience of all humans of all origin and fields of life to create A CONCEPT defined by analysing together all human subjects and then making a precise complex definition of "musical" that goes beyond the Merriam Webster definition by a synonym ...
Defining a word by another word meaning almost the same dont solve any problem... The dictionary cannot be on your side... It is useless when i use an acoustics definition which is way more elaborate... But you dont even know that this concept exist in acoustics ...
Do you get it ? Or too stubborn ?
|
What you did was typed a lot of undecipherable word salad that you stated was indisputable FACT. Then you went on to state that Mirriam Webster has it all wrong, but you have it absolutely and undeniably correct. And you still won’t explain why anyone should take seriously that gobble-de-gook that you type, but not Mirriam Webster.
Mirriam webster define as any dictionary a word by another synonymus word ... Musical is defined as euphony or harmonius which are synonyms...
Acoustic definition dont work by synonyms but used Controlled PARAMETERS in controlled environment to define a concept ...
I give a video about acoustics of "musicality" listen to it :
|
. . . and if one does hear a sonic improvement with better electronics in a bad room--it is obviously due to "confirmation bias."
It is not because an amplifier sound better by its design than another amplifier in a bad room that the definition of "musical" is grounded in individual taste ...😊
You put in my mouth the false claim i never said that it is impossible to distinguish between a low cost design and a way better and costlier one ... Only an idiot can say that, and i am not one ...
The sound of a good amplifier ( in a bad or good room nevermind) is grounded in the craftmanship of the designer and his knowledge of psychoacoustics as explained by atmasphere , and it is grounded then in ACOUSTIC , bad room or not ....
Euphony is not a word used to justify your gear choice, it is a concept used by the designer to improve the amplifier design because this concept has a spexcfic acoustic meaning ..
I think that you even confuse acoustics with an "s" with room acoustic ...
I think also that you conflate my point and my position with the naive objectivist who think that only some electrical measures of the design verified by their toy tools matter...
Sorry i am not a subjectivist focussed on his taste for the gear and i am not an objectivist focus on his pet tool measuring fad...
Am i too complex for your brain ? it seems so...
😁
Buy a book ...
|
There is no democracy in acoustic no more than in mathematics ...
I had given many arguments to assert my opinion about what means "musical" ...
Like a children repeating "no" with no argument at all you repeated common place fact : musicality is a question of taste , which is a claim which as i already said is NOT EVEN WRONG ...
Individual taste is beside the problem about what is musicality ,because you cannot define something by mere individual taste you must define "musicality" or "euphony" as a collective experience resumed in a concept defined by objective parameters and confirmed subjectively by most subjects speaking a language or listening some music in some Hall ...
As i said you conflate individual taste with the collective conditions for a "musical" acoustic experience ...
Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...
We do all have opinions.
However, some state that their "opinions" are undisputeable facts.
|
I only quoted you. Why are you throwing a hissy fit?
But do you know what they say about opinions?
When someone is polite enough to qualify his post to another person at the end by : "it is my opinion too " it is a politeness formula...This say for a third person reading it : it is only our opinion...
When a third party , a dude come suggesting that this "opinion" is like the paper we use to wipe something i will not name , instead of answering by arguments , it is an insult ... Do you get it ?
Do you need a drawing ?
|
My opinion too .... Thanks ....
Well, you know what they say about opinions. . . .
You are comical in your lack of argument... Then attacking my answer to another poster...
Do you think that what you just say dont apply to your own "opinion" ? Your "opinion" is king ?
Are you a conscious being able to recognize yourself in a mirror and able to manipulate logic ?
Then why your "opinion" contradicting acoustics science , because any system own the signature of the room where it is, why your "opinion" is it the only one immune to your own judgement about my "opinion" ?
I must conclude that you are not a robot, because robot are at least logical...
Everybody here "know that electronics in front of the speakers" as you said make a difference each time and IN ALL TIME ...But the point to understand is not this common place fact known by all from 7 years old to 77 years old , anyway known by all of us , but the fact that audio main factor is acoustics , when a synergetical system is chosen at any price ...For sure marketing sellers dont claim this to their gullible customers...
Then as you said , you know what they say about SOME opinion ? Some "opinion" are common place fact without any use save repeating a common place experience: no amplifier or dac sound the same for sure ... so what ?
Read about acoustics and psychoacoustics and call this a new day in your life ...
Acoustics is the sleeping princess and your ears/brain are the kissing prince and the gear pieces are no more than the 7 dwarves... Do you get it ?
It is not my opinion , it is a fact ...
|
My opinion too .... Thanks ....
Hi @calvinj - with all due respect, the speakers-room interaction is a practical reality, scientifically proven - it is not a belief or "school of thought". 😁
It is all about actually hearing your system - or as much of it as possible!
Speaker placement and even small touches of "treatment" make an appreciable difference, particularly in the low frequencies and the audibility - or not - of certain frequencies.
- REW is excellent free software, graciously available to music & audiophiles allowing you to model your room and get speaker placement tips as well as listening optimum position
- Since you are satisfied with your system / hardware, you could consider small, unitrusive "room treatments": placement of couches and armchairs which absorb low frequencies; artwork strategically placed that offer absorption or diffusion (Paintings, sculptures)...
- Don’t forget the benefit of using a sub or two -- not necessarily to add bass, but to disperse room modes (somewhat) making the bass more intelligible... i.e. you can hear it better. You could even hide these (I have...) and they will still be useful!
Of course the equipment makes a difference - but any system can only operate within the confines of the room it is in.
Believe me (😀) it is a practical matter - not a philosophical one.
|
|
The fact that electronics matter a lot when we pick our system pieces is well known and called : synergy....
I just changed a bad low cost cable for a better low cost cables i already had and added a low cost tube preamplifier well designed to my active speakers and for my secondary headphone for the best... Then synergy matter and can be helped as anyone know by adding the rightful pieces .😊
The fact that the greatest improvement will always be acoustics as in room or as in acoustics gear modifications using acoustics concepts , ( modification of porthole design and modification of the wave guide) these facts are way less well known...It is why they must be known ... This improvement facts going on with acoustics basic are true even compared to most upgrades of a single piece of gear ... The only exception will be going from low-fi to top hi-fi speakers which will represent too a high improvement ...
The two "schools of thoughts" you are refering to are not schools of thought but 2 groups ignoring that measures or tastes are not enough ...
One group vouch for set of electrical measures which are not enough at all and the other group in the name of "tastes", which is not enough either, ignore acoustics factors and psychoacoustics factors and measures and go for an upgrading race to improve his S.Q. blind to acoustics by necessity ( not all people own a dedicated room or know its importance )
There is only one enlightened group for me : People who takes into account all factors in the right order ...
I want to be clear....😊
Repeating common place fact as changing electronics piece can improve S.Q. will not change acoustic and psychoacoustics truth ...It only will add to the feud "between these two school of thought" ...
It is why i stubbornly repeat basic which goes over this feud...In acoustic we used "ears" and we use "measures" ...
|
I never say that the room is eveything if you read my post... I said acoustic is the prime factors which is a fact ...I add that no acoustic will compensate for a bad gear design too ...
All matter even cables...
But there exist and order of priorities:
Synergy between gear...
And pieces of gear cannot be compensated by acoustic... A bad amplifier will stay bad in a good room ...
The most important transformation once the system is synergetical and relatively good and chosen by the owner will be ACOUSTICS ... Not an upgrade or a change in cable ...
I ONLY want to be understood ...
So I do not buy that the room is EVERYTHING.
|
I understand that it could appear so indeed ...
I will just add for clarification , that no amount of acoustics will compensate for a bad cable limitations , nor the reverse the best cables and gear will not beat their room and replace acoustics ...But the improvement given with a top notch acoustic controls is huge and exceed almost all upgrade in % of S. Q. ... Even if not amount of acoustics will compensate for the improvement from a low cost amplifier to a top high end one ...
Then the fact that most people are limited by their possibilities to transform a living room had no choice to improve by upgrading the gear dont create 2 schools of thought here ... It just reveal the limits of some and the better possibilities of others ...
Acoustics rules at the end ...
I wish you the best new year ever ...
@mahgister , almost everyone who posts here claims to be knowlegeable; however, quite often their opinions appear to me to be 180 degrees out from each other. Therefore, I will continue to refer to different schools of thought.
|
i understand ...
But acoustics knowledge is not a "school of thought" it is the essence of audio...
Even those who design dac or amplifier must be inspired by acoustics and psychoacoustics concepts about human hearings ...
My best to you ...
@mahgister , I wasn't directing that post at you. As a matter of fact, I rarely completely read most of your posts. However, I don't think that anyone can read through the responses to (for example) this thread, and deny that the "school of thought" I referenced does not exist.
|
I said that most upgrades will matter less and be less impactful than acoustics well done in a dedicated room ... ( this does not means that my low cost speakers will rival a Revel salon speakers to be CLEAR ) Saying the acoustic truth dont exclude the other secondary truthfull fact that a well thought upgrade will make a difference even if you had no dedicated acoustic room and even no acoustics measures at all ..
People dont like the truth... 😁 Then they put "words" in your mouth ...
Keep your " school of tought" in the fiction section of your head ....
Acoustics rule the gear evolution and impression and design ...Not the reverse ...
It sometimes almost reads as if there is a prevailing school of thought here that is that if you don’t have an acoustically treated room it just doesn’t matter what gear you put in it because it is all going to sound bad.
|
long story short, rooms matter alot, often at least as much as the cumulative effect of all the equipment
Exactly and it is my experience ...
but if you have a bad room, a lot can be done to make the listening experience fairly good, most notably minimizing room effects by going nearfield or semi nearfield
You are right for the "minimizing part...But even nearfield listening as you implicitly suggested ask for some acoustic treatment of the room to be optimized ...If you want a soundstage over the speakers in depth and encompassing the listener near field position for sure even in near listening you must put some reflective waves to good use .....
room treatments can help in some difficult rooms, but often a very bad/weird room just cannot be handled just by treatments
This is why in my "difficult" past room i used not only passive treatment with materials to reach a good ratio between dispersion , reflective areas and absorbing area and their location , but it was not enough ... I used ACTIVE mechanically tuned devices called Helmholtz resonators in a grid fashion all around the room to change the zone pressure distributions to my liking ...It was not esthetical , you needed a dedicated room but it cost me nothing , it was fun to experiment and the results were stunning ...A soundscape encompassing my listenin position at peanuts costs ...
|
I believe you by the way ...
Happy new year ....
@mahgister yes implementation is key. Our owner engineer has really focused on implementation. He obsesses about it.
|
You are totally right and i believe you without any doubt ...
But nothing i said negate the irreplaceable potential of any superior costlier design ...
As nothing replace embeddings controls ..
My only point is we can learn how to be happy with a minimal low cost system for a minimal acoustic satisfaction ... Here price dont matter , we must learn ...For maximal acoustic satisfaction just learning is not enough we must BUY the superior design... But BUYING it without learning how to embed it is a waste ... That is my point ...
@maghister you probably have done a great job maximizing what you have. But there is equipment that is just next level. My Infigo method 4 Dac for example uses the latest 9038 ess Sabre Dac chipset. The owner of our company worked with the chip inventor before. They have ways of limiting distortion built in to the build of the Dac while maintaining its musicality. Premium power supplies are used in the equipment. Everything has been researched to limit noise, distortion and crosstalk. We realized that the chip gives off heat and heat causes distortion. So mini heats sinks were built between the individual dac chips to limit that distortion caused in the second or third harmonics. There is a lot of technology parts and tried and proved implementation used in my Dac alone. Basic or other equipment is not going to give you that level of performance because you change your room. Is it expensive yes. But it took 2 whole years of work and a year worth research to develop it. A lot of trial and error was put into it. No matter how you set your room up. This thing with the right synergy is gonna sing regardless of what room it’s in. It’s going to wipe the floor with the entry level dacs period. It’s just built better all the way around. Sorry your room ain’t gonna beat the build quality and research that goes into a product like this. We have had dac shootouts with all of the similar cost no object products and we are held our own 100%. The Msb, lampiztor, wadax, Weiss, Nagra and the DCS. Look is it expensive yes. But the build quality of this type of gear as well as the technology and implementation is next level. Put this stuff in the perfect room with good synergy and it’s a wrap. There are just levels to everything. The Chevy ain’t gonna be a Lexus because the latter is just flat out built better with better parts, research and technology behind it. @mahgister not minimizing what you have done. You make great points and have done an exceptional job with what you have but the room fixes all is part of the equation but with exceptional equipment in the right room and right synergy is where it’s at more than most. Even great components in a sub par room can still take you to bliss. Just my opinion!
|
Nobody nevermind any embeddings controls will transform a low cost design to a higher end design ...Period... 😁
But nobody can hope to create an optimally working system with no embeddings electrical mechanical and acoustical controls, paying high cost price without learning nor acoustics nor anything else, this is hopeless ...
This is what i learned...
And everybody can live with a MINIMAL acoustic satisfaction threshold once reached by good working embeddings and some modification with low cost gear ...
But if a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold is not a stop-gap at all , it is a minimal threshold not a maximal one 😊... My peanuts cost system is more than good but it will be ridiculous and laughing stock indeed to compare it to any high end superior design ...
But superior design dont do miracles EITHER ( EVEN with the BACCH system 😊 because it gives immediately something that do not exist in stereo system but anyway the room acoustic must be well done )
Acoustic and electrical and mechanical embeddings controls do big improvement toward the true working potential qualities for any system at any price ....
|
My system is average ... THe tweaking is not ...
i was frustrated and with no money ... I am no more frustrated ...
You are very kind and patient with me ... Thanks ...
Happy near year ...
@mahgister I have looked at your virtual system many, many times and what you have done is so remarkable and interesting. Your perspective is valuable and yet another important piece of the puzzle.
|
You are completely right ...My two last purchase cost me peanuts and are not junk ...
But i spoke about a TOP low cost system under 1000 bucks which will not be a mere stop-gap here compared to 10,000 bucks one ... it is IMPOSSIBLE to experience audiophile sound with active cheap speakers WITHOUT modifying them for example then knowing basic acoustics... MIne have cost me 100 bucks 12 years ago ( i disliked them for all this time till i modify them because anyway i did not have any other choices ) and they will sell 150 bucks today ... Try that ...
@mahgister building a very good system under $1000 is easier than ever these days...I’ve put together quite a few for myself, family and friends..
|
Well @mahgister I agree with many of your points, but I sense you take your perspective too far and diminish other experiences and audio realities to severely.
Perhaps few with coslier system will think so that my claims contradict their uopgrades history ...
Not the majority of people with low budget will all think so though for which i claim that acoustical, electrical and mechanical embeddings controls matter much than a costlier upgrade...
And most people unable to take the time and unable to have the luxury to own a dedicated room will think as you too that i exagerate completely ...
But acoustic truth dont care about democracy or price tags proud owners ...
|
There many ways to walk the road, related to tastes, gear design, budget constraint, trade-off choices related to the gear and trade-off choices related to the embeddings controls choices but there is only one road through acoustics concepts and experiments...
Acoustics define sounds experience parameters, nevermind the other factors and choices...
And acoustics here is not mere few panels on the walls, and it is not even mere physical complete acoustic room controls for a system , it is more , it includes psychoacoustics basic concepts too ...
We cannot experience something we do not even imagine, and we cannot experience something we then cannot understand at all ...
Buying any piece of gear does not give us experience ... Only by luck and money it may and only may in some cases give a relatively good system at relatively high price...
Try to build one very good under 1000 bucks...Good luck! 😁 This is my bench test for knowledge ...
It is impossible without basic real knowledge in acoustics and in others aspects mechanical and electrical ....
And anyway some with very costlier one will say it is impossible period ! So much they vouch for gear design upgrades and price tag investment and nothing much else...😊
I vouch for acoustics concepts and the way to experience them by experimenting ...
It could be the room speakers relation , but it could be also with it speakers design or headphones acoustic improvements and modifications , it could be on top of that acoustics modifications of stereo system basic flaws ( BACCH filters and crosstalk etc ) ...
Then compared to that, gear upgrade are most of the times MINOR improvement ... It is the opposite in audio threads where upgrades are presentend ALWAYS as MAJOR improvement at very high cost... It is NOT EVEN WRONG ... Thats my point ...
|
I concur with your anecdote content : a room can be already relatively good , even if in my opinion it is the exception, and may needed less acoustic content than others, i concur with you on the fact that non professional acoustic treatment can become too heavy and detrimental; where we differ is in the fact that a completely dedicated optimal acoustic room is the same as a relatively good one ...
To reach some optimal for some ears ( the owner ears) and for specific system , this task ask for something ONLY a pro ascoustician generally can do , with esthetics and optimal results and at a very high cost because this is necessary to reach optimal high end results...
It is my experience after my heavy transformation of my past room with among other things a distributed grid of 100 Helmholtz variously tuned resonators of different size from few inches to 8 feet , an experiment impossible to do esthetically at low cost and in any living room ... Thats what i talked about speaking of optimal results and not only of relatively good results and about about the very few already good room which we must not conflate with optimal one ...
I only wanted in my post to make the point than the usual habit in audio threads of thinking that a room is "good" , which may be relatively true in a low % of room , for many reasons related to acoustic content, dimensions, geometry and topology , this habit is generally underestimating what is "good" means and what is optimal and what it means ...
Thats my point about the general importance of acoustics which is experienced by very few people , because no one transform his living room and not even his audio room in a MESS and and an unesthetical at low cost; or almost no one transform his dedicated room with a pro acoustician by re-design in it at 100,000 bucks esthetically; which is the cost for the job by a pro ...
Ask mike lavigne about the cost of his "optimal" room ...😁
Then you are not wrong in your post and i believe you because i experimented with it but we must not confuse a badly done acoustic with a mere relatively good one and this one with an optimal one ... There is three cases here not two ... And almost all rooms needed to be optimized ( 90 %) ... But most people knowing it or not, anyway live very well with relatively bad room , if not bad , then they live with relatively good room which is the minority case but very few live with optimized room ...
The problem is the general lack of experience with astonishing room and the underestimation of dedicated acoustics over costly upgrade of gear to compensate for a problem 90% of audiophiles cannot even imagine ...
How many people say what i say here , insisting on this difference and the crucial importance of acoustic ? Not many, most argue about a few walls panels , and those who did dont advocate for the extreme position i take ... I exagerate and i am wrong or i am right ...Pick your opinion...😁 It is ok ...
But one fact will not change , most people cannot and never could have experimented enough to know about this essential fact : acoustics rule ...This cost a lot of money way more than most high end system , if not, it makes a mess of the room save if you redesign it yourself with very good craftmanship in carpentry and in acoustics...It cost a lot of time , and almost no one not already retired can do it ... I was retired ...
My dedicated room at the end of this optimization process was an apparent looking mess for the eyes not for the ears ... 😁 My cost was few years of experiments and one year full time ( i am retired ) but i am not a carpenter nor am i very talented with my hand and i had no money ... But i learned what acoustics "means" ...
Acoustics is not the cherry on the gear cake at all, it is the reverse ; the system is the cherries and the icing on the cake itself (acoustics) ... Thats my truth ...The reverse of general audio forum truth ...
At the end i was so surprized by my results with the soundscape around the listening position , with a low cost system, that myself will not even believe it...Thats is optimal acoustic...Not just relatively good or wrong which is a fact almost always unbeknonwst to the owner because the potential of a dedicated room is very high ...
But this truth of mine is not a "good news" for most people ... Because most will never enjoy this fact ...Then it is not an appealing truth ...It is better to believe the marketing appeal to upgrade and pay for 200, 000 bucks gear system in a living room because marketing assure us that this is way "better" than a 100,000 bucks one in the same living room ... Suffice to read any audio forum to observe this "faith" reflecting the underestimation of acoustics....😊
I wish you the best new year for you and your family....
@mahgister you may disagree, but I stand by my experience and experiences. Also, like you, I have experimented for many years with room treatments and vibration control. Not a newbie at this by a long shot. Some rooms are just fine as is with furnishings, the particular speakers used and how they are placed. My examples are more than one off situations that did not work because the installers were not good at their craft. They are examples supporting the fact that room treatments are not a universal cure all or improvement.
|
I created my own room, it takes me 2 years of experiments...
A serious acoustician cannot make it without a month of work ...
Paying a company to do it is not serious ...
They will not seat there and listening ; they will run a program , put many panels on the walls and called it job done ...
I am not surprized by your post ...
But concluding about this that room acoustics dont matter so much is completely wrong ..
Acoustics ask for experiments time , company sell panels and dont have time nor ears ...A room /system is specific in his needs...No easy formula is optimal....
I and several fellow audiophiles with good listening skills and systems have spent good money on treating our rooms with all manner of acoustic treatments. In two specific cases folks paid big money for a room acoustics company to come in and professionally treat the rooms. In the end, the rooms sounded better with all the “stuff “ taken out. I experienced the same thing about 13 years ago.
|
I would have expressed that in a more cautious way myself even if i agree with the post ...
Most dealers are like audiophiles here with 40 amplifiers behind them and 50 dac and as much speakers experience , they know the gear , but they dont know much about the importance of acoustics ( i dont spoke about a few panels here ) and about electrical noise floor controls or mechanical vibration/resonance problems ... r : tThey they advise ANYWAY the customers as the customers ask for : the gear attention is focussed on the gear piece it is not focussed on the way to embed acoustically , mechanically and electrically anything, because price tag and the piece matter no more here ...Anything at any price must b3e well embedded to work optimally ...And the diffrence is always huge for any piece at any price ...This dont means that my low price active speakers even modified will rival Revel Salon well embedded ...
As said mike lavigne in his own way in another priceless post , HIGh-END is more a state of the creative mind than a price tags race ....
The "dealer" would rarely tell you that...he may be all about "matching" expensive crap with other expensive crap and constantly capitalizing on the poor dude’s constant disgruntlement.
@deep_333 i have a hard time believing this. I’m sure there are unscrupulous dealers out there but anyone reputable who is trying to build a business should be considering the clients room and anything else the client is looking for. Happy clients mean repeat business and all. I’ve worked for an unscrupulous boss before and it made it hard to make sales (was in the arborist trade for a while). Maybe I’m projecting how I would approach sales, although, I hope most dealers have more probity
|
You are completely right ...
Synergy matter first and last for sure...
Nobody will build an acoustic room around non synergetical components...
It takes to much time to do acoustic without first owning a relatively well done synergy...
Synergy is so basic that it appear evidently even in a non controlled room , and even when the other faqctors electrical and mechanical had been adressed...
But it is so evident i mention almost never synergy when i spoke about the three main embeddings controls : acoustical,electrical and mechanical...We must own a system BEFORE optimizing it ...Then we ask for a minimal synergy and embeddings controls optimization begin after that ...
evon when they spec compatibly, some components sound better together than others.
some components that sound great together are just ok otherwise. ive heard beautiful sounds from entry level rega components working together. the same entry level rega components are so-so individally. not sure what to make of it, but i sure heard it. i believe thats synergy.
i have 2 systems, and theyre both a mix. the pieces work together some awys much better than others.
|
By the way milhorn you are right about the waveguide redesign impact... I redesigned mine and not only my rear porthole geometry then the tweeter waveguide matter a lot...( the impact on timbre and soundstage is evident as is evident the redesigning impact of the rear porthole redesign geometry as is evident the role of reflected waves done right even in near listening field ...
But the room acoustics is not replaced by any waveguide either ...It contribute in a way the waveguide could not , and the wave guide contribute in a way the room could not ...
I want optimal results not only room acoustic or wave guide alone ...I did the two and more ...My low cost system is very good now ...
That’s why the sound must sent to the listener rather than send to walls, floor and the ceiling. **80% left side of my room is the glass doors. Alewx/WTA
|
Thanks for the clarification...
I appreciate all opinions which are given without attacking anyone even if the discussion could be "hot" ...
My best wishes to you and all people here for the new year....
@mahgister your posts are well thought out and reasonable
|
Exactly right in my book ...
There is a false marketing tactic on the rise from the dealers these days. Dealer sez, "Hey, unsatisfied/disgruntled audiophile, I'll take the guesswork out of everything for ya. I will create the synergy of components for ya. You go plop it down in your room and magic just starts to flow like the Niagra. Just remember, that's the greatest perk of going to the knowledgeable dealer!!"
Really?? Let us explore that lie for a minute...How the flip did he create that "synergy" for ya again?? He put together a mix of components for a specific "synergy" that worked in his room! You take that synergistic wonder and plop it down in your room and it sounds nothing like what he heard in his room. His tastes are very different from yours. So ...even if he genuinely tried to build a synergistic rig for you, it will be way off in your room for your ears.
Most often, his "synergistic build" is a list of sht that he either finds very hard to move (rarely sells) or some other sweet saucy deal he's got going with specific vendors. It is just business most of the time. Even if he forgot about maximizing his wallet for a minute and made a genuine effort to build a rig for you, he will be way off (in execution).
|
I never called anyone idiots because of cables by the way ...
But must i said the opposite of truth because most of us cannot afford a dedicated room ? then cannot understand the acoustic impact... And anyway a dedicated room is not even enough to understand acoustics impact... It takes me hundred of experiments 2 years with one year full time ...
I cannot either no more...I sold my past big house and the room ... But i LEARNED something ...
My actual acoustic room is an acoustic corner in my basement with no real wall separation .. I composed with it ...
By the way i never said that cables dont matter ...
but i said that cables comes way after the three main working embeddings controls :
acoustical first, and second almost ex aequo in importance : electrical noise flooor of all components and of the room as well as of the house... Mechanical controls over vibrations AND resonance especially of speakers ...
Put cables importance in fourth rank ...Perhaps fifth rank only if i count the necessary modifications over many speakers and many headphones which are hugely more impactful than most cabler changing ...( headphone shell mods and speakers porthole redesign and wave guide redesign etc ) ....
How many people modify their "precious" highly costly gear ? Not many because it will loose all value , then they MUST think falsely that their gear is "perfect"... It is not perfect half of the time sorry for the news... Most people dont have mile lavigne high tech costlier system in a completely designed room for them ...Most own under 20,000 bucks systems ...I spoke for the crowd here not for TOP of the world design in TOP acoustic room, my rules dont apply for 500,000 bucks system where a cable can matter more than in my system level , but even with a TOP system Acoustic beat cables with no comparison at all ...... ...Nobody modify a 6,000 headphone or a 10,000 bucks speakers anyway ... I will not do it myself even if i guess many of this design could be improved by mods ..
Then cables came at the fifth rank of importance in the scale of the impactful levels of importance...This i repeat does not means that cables matter not , but too much emphasis is put on cables by audio threads ... This is ignorance sorry ...
You cannot solve any acoustical, most electrical noise floor problems and no mechanical problems with a change of low cost cables for higher cost one ... Saying that is inducing beginners is the wrong road ...
But for someone who doesn’t know me talking.a bunch of babble calling the rest of us idiots because we believe in cabling and certain gear can say whatever they want but in my opinion can kick rocks.
|
erik -squires is absolutely right ...
Nothing will replace room acoustic power of transformation for the worst or the better ...
No wave guide or near listening field will cancel room acoustics power potential , i do the two i am in near listening field and i redesign my active speakers tweeter wave guide and porthole by the way ...😊
Knowing the speed of sound and room dimensions it is preposterous to claim that reflected waves will be discounted because of near field listening in a small room ...
I hear modifications in my small room even through nearfield listening ...And my directed wave guide tweeter are at 3 feet or few inches less from my ear ...
Acoustic passive treatment and active controls of the room are the most important factor ...
After that electrical noise floor of all components and of the room and of the house together ...
Vibrations controls of the speakers and resonance control in third...
Cables come way after that ...( save if your cable are horrible and even with horrible cable , it is certainly and probably fouth factors so much impactful are the others )
i know for a fact that most people had never go through extensive room acoustic modifications than they think acoustics controls is a cherry on their gear choice cake ...
Completely false...
The gear choices matter less than the acoustics.... The only exception would be comparing my low cost active speakers, so good they are modified with a Revel or top Tannoy speakers...Here the extreme choice between low cost and higher cost speakers matter AS MUCH as the room controls... But only in this case , for most people average speakers mid-fi choices , even upgrading the speakers will be in many case way more astounding than redesigning the room acoustic...But most people cannot even had a dedicated room , this is why they are forgetful of the acoustic huge impact , they never experie4nced it anyway ...
Room acoustic for me is way more than buying few panels by the way ...
Anyway i know that most dont know and will never know...A dedicated room cost too much, even me now i am in a smaller one i could no more design at the le4vel of my past one ...Near listening field ask for room acoustic but not at the level far listening field asked for to be optimal for sure ...
Because i could not imagine it BEFORE doing my many years room experiments with resonators and others devices i understand why most people can think that other factors matter more ...But truth must be told...
Acoustics rule everything in audio...Not the reverse so important it could be ...And acoustics concepts exceed room acoustic design ... I modified my porthole design with acoustics concepts ...
Nothing is as important in getting to done as the room and it’s treatment. You can go round and round with speakers, and cables but when you get the room sorted, you are on the express train to done.
As for cables, after a lot of playing and listening I’ve settled on pure silver interconnects and Mogami speaker cables. Everything else I’ve heard has been subtractive.
|
