Why? Because acoustical treatments presented are in virtually empty rooms. Unrealistic.
my rooms have furniture and clutter. These rooms don’t really have a need for treatment. It’s snake oil, voodoo science. So why is accoustical panels gonna help? No one can answer this, most have no clue.
I don’t know that I have enough data to agree or disagree with the assertion of ’most rooms’, but my roughly hexagonal shaped room even with a bed in the room needed one acoustic panel on the 1st reflection point on the left to balance out the sound from the left and right speakers.
Know what, that one acoustic panel transformed my room into one of the best sounding rooms I’ve heard anywhere.
@jumia For apps that can evaluate room acoustics, your own ears are pretty good. Once you hear a good sounding room it's easier to hear when a room doesn't sound right.
Know what, that one acoustic panel transformed my room into one of the best sounding rooms I’ve heard anywhere.
i understood you perfectly, a room could be transformed by ONE single straw...
For uneducated mind it is magic or snake oil...
For Helmholtz and me now, pure acoustic science, a science far more important for audio experience than electronic engineereing and in the worst case on par with electronic engineering....
For sure Helmholtz results are integrated in electronic design itself now, but i speak for those who could use his results like me at low cost in acoustic of room, like his famous sets of bottles....This experiment i go on with to reach new suprizing result for my speakers, cost me NOTHING... This is the gist of the journey i started....
Others will prefer to buy a costly equalizer without even knowing the limitations of this gear in acoustic settings....
I dont have the money to buy plug sit and boast.... 😁
But for you i offer my deepest respect and thanks for your observation useful for all.... 😊
Correction...the full quote from the Dynaudio website is:
“the DSP engineer does not know the problem but has the solution. The acoustician knows the problem but can’t imagine the solution, so he doesn’t ask the DSP engineer.”
"Room treatment can be tricky. Unless one can determine what and where specific (!) problems are occurring and apply treatments to treat those specific problems at those specific locations, one might make things worse."
Yes, to the point.
Just what are these problems that have been occurring?
I've never heard an obvious problem with any of the rooms (outside of a too small a hotel room during a show) that I've ever listened in.
Ok, some rooms seem to be more lively than others but I tend to prefer that. I'm more worried about a room being too dead and lifeless.
Since soft furnishings have always been recommended for too lively, so maybe less furniture would work with rooms too dead?
As for bass issues, I've never experienced any either, none that couldn't be cured by moving the speakers a little closer from the front wall (I've never liked the use of bungs for ported speakers because of what they do to the sound).
On the other hand I've never had any speakers that could reach down to subwoofer depths either.
If many room problems happen mainly at high volumes, then that won't really apply to me either. My system gets a little too noisy at those sort of volumes.
The only mystery for me is whether some room treatment might dramatically improve imaging.
The stuff I've read so far sounds awfully complicated though.
The only mystery for me is whether some room treatment might dramatically improve imaging.
The stuff I've read so far sounds awfully complicated though.
This is simple acoustic law...
Yes it seems complicated... But it is not complicated at all with some basic principle in acoustic...
The only thing which was difficult but also it was all the fun, was the time it take me to did it right.... 2 years at turtle pace in the beginning, but a high speed in the last 3 months...
My room is now very good ... Peanuts cost and only fun.... But it is a dedicated room, it will cost me much more to install "esthetic " solutions, and efficient one in a common room...I dont even know if i could do it.....
The greatest asset for sound quality is not the costly gear, it is a room acoustically well set only for music....
dont insult my audio room because this is a "laboratory" for me not a living room
That's the problem, most people use a living room for their listening pleasure, so it can't look like a laboratory. I'm not trying to say all your ideas are bad, some are quite good, just seems like you have every tweak known to mankind in there. I don't know how every tweek you use can add up to a sonic benefit.
That's the problem, most people use a living room for their listening pleasure, so it can't look like a laboratory. I'm not trying to say all your ideas are bad, some are quite good, just seems like you have every tweak known to mankind in there. I don't know how every tweek you use can add up to a sonic benefit.
Thanks for your observation...
You seems a fine soul then i apologize for my rude and direct asnwer...
I perfectly understand that people cannot transform their living room like mine...
In the other hand we cannot erase the fact that an audio room is the best asset...
if only one of my suggestion is helpful i will be pleased thats all...
The balance between absorbers and diffusers, scattering vs avoidance of coliding sound waves. And then the focus should be an understanding of which frequencies are handled by each panel.
What amazes me with these treads on acoustics on this forum is the dogma handed out.
The endless bragging that: "I have a rug and some drapes and my system sounds fine" just means you have never heard a properly treated room.
Stating that: "I use DSP and it's fantastic" just means that it is an improvement on what you had before, also means you have a very narrow listening area. Improvement from attenuating peaks works BUT what caused those peaks also caused nulls and no matter how much power you pump into the missing frequencies just cancels with the same power!
Yes, it's the BASS frequencies causing this problem which you did not know you had because instead of educating yourself on the most important area of achieving good sound, you waste your time and other poster's time who try and help. Those guilty know who you are.
All rooms need treatment, end of story.
@jumia ??? With your dogmatic stance don't expect much help, certainly not from me. Get a life man.
Treatments are more important for Maggie owners IMHO. Planars radiate in both directions. It is important to have a diffuser behind the speakers. It makes a world of difference. I cannot cannot comment on box speakers as I have not owned one in the last 20 years.
I purchased 2 bass traps for the front wall behind my speakers. The difference was revelatory. Today the FedEx truck brought 5 more panels, and I spent the morning experimenting. Again, revelatory!
"These rooms don’t really have a need for treatment. It’s snake oil, voodoo science."
You are kidding us right?.. Trolling... The SCIENCE of Acoustics... voodoo.........
Skeater says, "Aunt Millie, she ain't right in the head."
You are listening to two rooms. The room where the sound was recorded, and your listening room. You have a choice. Listen to one, or both.
Your room is the more powerful one, when disapearing itself she can let emerge the acoustic atmosphere of the original recorded event, and more importantly when she compensate for what has been lost in the recording event in his own way AND increase the positive aspects of the original acoustical event...
This is how powerful your room acoustic controls could be....I know it first hand....Passive materials treatment by the way are only HALF of the story, unbeknownst to most... Activation of the room/speakers relation with Helmholtz science is the missing half....
Acoustic sellers of bass traps dont inform us about that part...A right balance between,reflection,absorption and diffusion is not enough... It is half the story especially in small room irregular geometry, or complicated topology and acoustic content....We must recreate a depth imaging space encompassing the listener in spite of the irregular obstacle in the small room and we must refine the speakers/room timing frequencies wavefront for that.......Helmholtz science here help a lot..
I use a homemade simple "mechanical equaliser" only made of tubes, pipes and straws with capacity to modulate the neck at will.... The location is crux of matter... I will explain my method in my thread "miracles in audio" in the week to come...I called my device "Helmholtz pipe meeting the first wave front"...An electronic equalizer is NOT a mechanical equalizer... One work with a microphone, mine with ears, one work with very narrow frequencies responses,mine with large dyssimetrical modified frequencies response different fom each speakers without modyifying the drivers responses of each speakers but instead their first wave front relation with one another in the room...I am not a scientist only a creative mind who gave to myself the right tool... It work even if my knowledge of acoustic is elementary ....Peanuts cost by the way...
A room is NOT a passive sets of walls only , it is an organized sets of different pressure zones...
All seems good when you think that upgrading electronic is enough, save for those ignoring acoustic which pay the price, unwilling it or not...
By the way i only used discarded materials and homemade devices THEN setting a room could cost nothing... Listening time is the price....
The greatest asset in audio is NOT a 100,000 speakers and amplifier but a room you can control....It is not a turntable or a dac either, nor a tube amplifier instead of a solid state one; it is a room you can learn how to control sound....
This is the myths and useless wars between audiophiles in all threads.... Simple acoustic is always the main player....All the others players are secondary choices with their positives or negatives...
Acoustic reign supreme, uncontested queen of musical and sound perception for millenia.... Not your dac or your vinyl so good they are....
But no, i read a paper once, now my knowledge is superior to everyone else.
You only know how to bash and attack...
NEVER here i mention myself being superior, on the contrary i discuss with all friends here about many simple devices to help each other S.Q. improving method...
The ONLY ONE here bashing all audiophiles and being sperior is yourself...
You bash, a real pro musician explaining TIMBRE, another engineer discussing with you about imaging and drivers, all turntables lovers, and anyone who dare to try a "tweaks" or any device out of your narrow perspective window...
I created my last device trying to understand something you NEVER explain here, the " depth imaging" creation in audio, i read some article trying to improve my IGNORANCE, and that inspired me a new device, which i use at the time where i typed these words on my computer....
Call that the name you want, i never pretend to be knowleadgeable like you to all here all the time, i am creative tough, know how to read when someone has nothing for arguments, except all the logical fallacies in his bag like strawman argument and appeal to authority and all fallacies in between .... I could deconstruct all your posts if it was not for a waste of time....
You never read the article suggested by me to you, and you have never figure out how work my "mechanical Helmholtz equalizer"...Anyway i dont think that you even know that you dont understrand epistemology, and real acoustic out of the recording engineering window... Sorry.... I am ignorant too but i proved for myself that i tried to learn, my device is my exam....I dont need your superior knowledge, it is not useful to improve my S.Q. ....
But i know already that myself.... All my life i tried to learn a bit more out of my window...
You are right but not the way intended... Some idiot are more reformable and recoverable it seems...
By the way read the best book on stupidity by Carlo Cipolla free on the net.... a masterpiece...
He define stupidity being someone who bash others without gaining anything for himself in the process even at the price of losing his own credibility ...Except the pleasure to do it.....
Who knows perhaps i suffer the Kruger-Dunning syndrome like you observe perhaps even rightfully ? But i prefer to be an idiot than being stupid in the Cipolla sense... I dont like despising group of people and any people...
Then the difference between being an idiot and being stupid is the idiot dont bash others, the stupid did it all the times.... I definitely prefer to be a reformable idiot....Even with this Dunner-Kruger syndrome....
Creativity is a great thing to have. It becomes trickier when we get carried away by our creativity and do not notice that we have gone too far into some not-so-healthy state of mind. Others usually notice, though.
Figuring where the line between two is may sometimes be harder than pretending.
"He define stupidity bash others without gaining anything for himself in the process even at the price of losing his own credibility ...Except the pleasure to do it....."
I have not read that book, but assuming that above description is correct, Carlo lost all the credibility. One could even say that he lost credibility by bashing those who are seeking pleasure.
"Without gaining anything for himself...except the pleasure to do it..." Carlo arrogantly decided that one’s pleasure is worthless "nothing". He has never heard of hobbies, passion, love, dedication, or a few more like that?
The pleasure to bash others is not worth anything at all indeed...
The book of Cipolla you never read is universally reviewed for being humorous and right on the spot... Then you could criticize my use of the book but the book itself is very good and free...
Here i proposed ideas of my own and i am open to discuss without bashing others nor any group of people.... That was my point...I correct myself when i am wrong....I am not perfect ....
I am open to criticism...About any concept....I am here to communicate and learn... Creativity is not a defect by the way, even when wrong...To date all my experiments give me pleasure and also to some others who repeat them successfully... If someone is not interested by my ideas it is not necessary for him to read my posts...
But if someone out of the sky come and trash all others audiophiles ideas, devices, or suggestions, from the start because of his superior knowledge i dont go with that without discussing with ARGUMENTS, if you had read me you already know that...... Bashing audiophiles for being audiophile that seems not too healthy to me...
Perhaps my enthusiasm innerve you then i am sorry....Dont read my posts....And dont add that all "pleasure" are equal.... It is ridiculous and wrong....All pleasures are not right nor equal to each others...I defend myself but i dont take any pleasure to bash anybody, but i am able to defend myself if someone attack me without any sound arguments...Blind test is not an argument nor a reason to reject from the start any unorthodox means to play with sound...And not a reason to accuse all audiophiles to be stupid.... Then i reacted with arguments and experiments to prove my point....
Is it not enough? you said it is too much.... but for whom?
If i cannot be of interest for others here i will quit...It seems some others like my contribution.....Then i go on...
"The pleasure to bash others is not worth anything at all indeed..."
It would be true only if the person stating it (let's say it is you this time) is someone whose statements are not allowed to be scrutinized. Dogma, religion, whatever absolute power one may call it. At the same time, most of the world does not care what your, or mine, opinion is. That does not mean they are wrong. That means that thinking that someone's way of obtaining pleasure is not worth anything is nothing but an arrogant statement bashing other people. That is why Carlo lost credibility. Even if one gets pleasure of bashing others, it is worth it. Not to you or me, but to the person getting that pleasure. In fact, it has been a while since I have read a statement quoted that was so wrong as this one you mentioned.
I notice you read a lot, but I also notice you do not read critically that much. I may be wrong, but that is how it looks from the side. Just because someone wrote something, does not make it correct. In this example, Carlo is actually not worth considering reading. In my opinion, not in universal opinion.
Creativity is really a great thing to have and you might have not understood my point completely. Creativity that gets self-indulgent ocassionally ends up being recognized as a psychosis, bipolar disorder, or what not. Moderation is the key.
Of course room treatments don't matter. Neither does the room size or shape, nor the surface materials, nor the type, size and placement of furniture, nor where you sit nor even which direction your speakers are facing.
Even if one gets pleasure of bashing others, it is worth it. Not to you or me, but to the person getting that pleasure.
glupson i accepted your advice about moderation... Because it is wise advice...and i accept all wise advices...
For the rest if i can accept a friendly advice about moderation, i cannot permit you to judge me accusing me of bipolar disorder or psychosis... This is insulting... Am i insulting you?
i respected you, why not also respecting me?
My pleasure HERE is communicating friendly with those who partake passion for the sound improvement....
For my critical faculty it is not necessary to say anything....
I am not accusing you of anything. Even less of psychosis.
Never said it, never meant it.
And even then, it could not be accusation. Short of taking some hallucinogenic drugs, people do not get psychotic by intent. Why you found yourself in my general observation is not known to me.
As you, as everyone else, frequently strays from strictly audio-related topic I responded to that Carlo quote which hardly has anything to do with betterment of any sound anywhere. I also stand behind my worry that too much creativity may be a sign of other issues. Art history is full of very creative people who did not do well in the long run.
I am not accusing you of anything. Even less of psychosis. Never said it, never meant it. And even then, it could not be accusation. Short of taking some hallucinogenic drugs, people do not get psychotic by intent. Why you found yourself in my general observation is not known to me.
As you, as everyone else, frequently strays from strictly audio-related topic I responded to that Carlo quote which hardly has anything to do with betterment of any sound anywhere.
If you dont means any harm it is Ok with me...
But discussing with someone who bash others and treat me with the saying that i am an idiot from the beginning , i only answered by a quote from a book you dont know, in a discussion you did not participate to for the last week, then refrain yourself to comment the author of the book out of the context of this discussion...
It is free to read this book on the net anyway and the general meaning is in 5 lines on wiki by the way....
I only answered and discussed with arguments, but when to my arguments someone reply by authority affirmation and attack me and others i answer accordingly....
It was or would have been simple for you to read the context of this discussion in ONLY the few last posts to UNDERSTAND that i spoke about audio related matter : a japanese scientific article first about the acoustic concept of "depth imaging", and second a new device i created after reading this article which make me able to refine greatly depth imaging in my system...These 2 contents were my unreplied answers to audio2design who dare not to give any argument but authoritative rejection and call all audiophiles, me included idiots...
Instead of answering to this article and the possibility and usefulness and modalities of this new device of mine, audio2design then bashed my posts with no arguments, save blind test claim ...
Then who discuss audio related matter with a content here ? Me...
Who do resolve to pure authority and bashing without giving ANY arguments to the article and to my claim about my new device? Audio2design...
You are a grown man you know that speaking like you just did, "insinuating" psychosis and borderline personality trouble is NOT AUDIO RELATED....but insulting, even if you did it not "openly", especially if you are a stranger or a newcomer in this precise discussion between me and someone else ...
Have you read the japanese article yourself? are you interested by my new device? I dont think so.... If i am wrong if you are interested, i am here to discuss audio related matters...
Am i clear?
I respected you, never insinuated anything about you if you revise ALL my post here TO YOU for months, respect me accordingly , in audio related matters and in friendly term...
I will do the same...
I am direct and frank and an open mind easy to read, and i always spoke my mind.... Sorry for this clarification post but i dont like to be manipulated....Things are better said between grown men....Life is too short to hate.... I prefer to be creative at risk of being like you said "borderline"....Or worst....
Miller Carbon’s words are an excellent explanation of why cables can sound so different even if we can’t identify exactly why. “But you might want to keep in mind that just because we cannot explain why something works, does not mean it does not in fact work. Happens all the time. Can you explain how your car works? Yet it does.”
What a bass trap does is act like a shock absorber that dampens resonance. Any normal room the bass waves hit a wall, or ceiling, floor, bounce back, and then basically bounce back and forth until gradually the sound fades out. This takes a big fraction of a second or longer during which time the bass is reverberating in the room adding to the volume of bass you hear, and also the reflections make the sound of the original bass note less distinct and clear. What people call muddy or bloated bass.
Bass traps are designed to absorb some of this pressure wave. So yes you hear less bass. But they affect mostly the later reflected resonant bass not the initial bass coming off the speaker. So the bass you are left with is less but more clear.
This is exactly the same as when you put a small panel on a wall that absorbs midrange or treble. You hear a little less mid and top end, but what you do hear is more clear and distinct.
The lower the frequency the longer the wavelength and so therefore the larger the treatment must be. Low bass waves are 50 ft and more so bass traps are relatively large. I had one in my room, tried it all over the place, it is now hanging from the ceiling where it does a great job absorbing the high volume output from my Delta Unisaw. Yeah my shop has some old discarded acoustic panels too. Would call it a dedicated sawing room but that would be a groaner, it does have quite good acoustics though, for a shop.
So in my room one was too much. There's more than one way of doing this. Townshend Podiums cleaned up my bass a huge amount, without any of the problems of the bass traps. I'm not the only one to notice this either. So watch out, a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction that it must be the room. Sometimes they may even be right.
How many of those who set up audio in a cluttered room care about room treatment? I think room treatment is for those who set up audio in a dedicated room with nothing but components and speakers in the listening room except maybe CD or Vinyl racks.
Are their many speakers built with bass traps? My Gershman Grand Avant Garde sits on top of bass trap. The bass is very tight and clean, and also deep.
I've got my system set up in our master bedroom with a big queen bed on one side of the room and nightstands on both sides. No, the room is not cluttered at all, but it also doesn't look like a typical listening room with monoblock speakers on the floor and industrial looking audio racks. WAF as well as my own visual acceptance factor were major considerations in the audio furniture that I put into this room.
I added one 2" acoustic panel on the one 1st order reflection in the hexagonal shaped room which balanced out the sound reflection time from the left and right speakers. With that one panel, my room is one of the best sounding rooms I've heard anywhere. The other sound absorbing furniture in the room helps, but doesn't necessarily address specific acoustic problems.
I think if people understood basics of what happens to a sound wave and what reverb means, the accoustical trade profession would collapse.
It aint that complex. Heres what you need to know.
dont want reflected sound interfering with fist waves from a speaker. They collide and muddy sound. Solution, buy an absorp panel.
buy a diffuser panel to also improve clarity without deadening all the sound. Why does it work? It scatters sound better to room. Less collisions. Makes room seem bigger.
there it is, most of what i wished i knew alot earler.
I think if people understood basics of what happens to a sound wave and what reverb means, the accoustical trade profession would collapse.
It aint that complex. Heres what you need to know.
dont want reflected sound interfering with fist waves from a speaker. They collide and muddy sound. Solution, buy an absorp panel.
The first part is correct the simplification part is too simple and wrong...
It is a precise timing of early and late reflections, that will create the essential wavefront that will produce imaging,and soundstage...The interference from reflected sounds are not a problem and could be a solution if the timing is right....In fact reflection coming from the back can contribute greatly to the listener envelopment (LEV)... Then nothing can be simple before understanding it...I tried myself to figure it out, being ignorant in acoustic, in the last week when designing my "machanical equalizer" i just finish to refine it after a week of fine tuning...
My audio system sound right for the first time really,unbeknownst to me before... I refined my Helmholtz equalizer in listening choral music, orchestra, and very complex instrumental timbre like some harpsichord... But you know that all elements falls into place ONLY when the human voices are distinctly perceived each one in his space with his natural timbre...50 hours of listening experiments to adjust all pieces...Nothing is simple... 😁😊 Human ears are designed by evolution and history to perceive accurately timbre tonal speech in all circonstances...Music come ONLY from this fact save for the rythmic body movement accompanying language...
What is simple is buying a costly acoustic materials or gear....But it is not my way....I prefer peanuts costs.... But we cannot spare the use of a room nor spare the great amount of time for listenings experiments tough....The room may or may not cost peanuts....It is a WAF..... 😁
«One is an auditory source width (ASW) which is defined as the width of the sound image fused temporally and spatially with a direct sound’s image and the other is listener envelopment (LEV) which is the degree of the fullness of sound images around the listener, excluding the sound image composing ASW.»Internet
I moved from a 5500 cu.ft. listening room of good but not great construction (windows to the side and front walls, 5/8" drywall & 5/8" acoustic wall material) which reflected too much sound despite my 2 pairs of Hallographs and full array of SR HFTs. My new home has a near SOTA listening room with built-in bass traps (16" thick multi-material acoustic walls w/4 chambered activated charcoal filters, 12" - 15" 3000 psi steel bar reinforced slab, etc). No windows, doors the same construction. I still require those Hallographs and SR products for the mids and highs with side and ceiling acoustic foam treatment. My audio system is wonderful now, getting the most out of 30 year old Legacy Focus speakers. Not needing to change electronics (other than DAC) for 15+ years. Cabling upgrades when manufacturer has made a breakthrough. This is not the typical audiophile or listener setup. However, my living room has silk and cotton battened wall treatment on front and rear walls which alleviate one open side and one side with full french doors. (Oh yes, 90 oz carpet in each room). The sound of the $5K audio system is also excellent. Going to audio shows is a crapshoot due to the awful acoustics. If a system can sound great there, something in the that system must be great (or most of the components). Only 4 rooms competed in my last audio show in L.A. 2017.
There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection. Acoustics panels are usually absorbers sucking up sound, some are diffusers (add more reflections). Most home listening acoustic problems are related to too many similar reflections off large surfaces like walls and floors and windows. All of these emphasize particular frequency bands. Bass problems are different, usually related to the room dimensions of the room our speakers are in. Few rooms can accommodate a 32Hz note (that wave length is well over 30 feet long so you'd need a minimum 30 foot room dimension) but the energy of that too long wave is still in your room and causes all kinds of issues at harmonics (64 Hz, 128Hz etc). We use bass traps to absorb these "extra" low frequency waves so the original flat response from the speaker is not covered up with room modes and standing waves.
Because the materials used to address our two basics (absorption and reflection ) are effective only in select portions of the audio band and to a different degree depending on materials used, we need to know "where" in frequency our absorber works in and how much does it absorb? That's why its quite complicated and we all have varied results because we usually don't know how much absorption or reflection to use and where? That's why there is such a mix of results when we compare notes.
The Dynaudio quote earlier in then thread is ridiculous, written by a marketing person no doubt. DSP solves absolutely nothing in the acoustic realm. You cannot fix acoustics with an electrical solution any more than you can fix electrical problems acoustically. What DSP "room correction" does is sum all the direct + reflected audio at your [measurement mic] location and then apply an opposite signal to the original. When this opposite or corrective signal is added back to the original direct+ reflected sound [based only on that one mic location or an average of multiple locations] this new sum looks better in linear frequency response terms. Sort of the noise cancelling headphone idea: add the unwanted noise back in at 180 degrees and its magically gone! . It cannot address delays, or echoes or long reflection times, phase linearity of the speaker, source issues, etc. These DSP fixes are band aids on wound that never heals, but they can still be helpful. It can take a system from unlistenable to listenable. It cannot take a listenable system and make it great. Basically you are changing what's theoretically right (the direct sound from good sounding speakers) based on "what's wrong" (the reflections of these speakers in the room). Now everything is changed and undergoes the same room/reflection based changes it always did.
Since we rarely hear direct sound, most of us are unfamiliar with what our speakers actually sound like. We can find out by taking our speakers to a boundary free environment like outside in our back yard and pointing the speaker up at the sky: boundary free playback. This is why speakers usually sound better in a larger room- the boundaries are further away. So we are always stuck listening to a sum in our room of direct + reflected energy. This is why I find speaker demos so useless, for if you buy "what sounds good in my room" you are buying a speaker with the opposite problems of your room! Unless you have a great sounding room. The "home demo" is more about your room than the speaker, nearly 100% of the time. Its really more about what your room will do to the speakers than the other way around.
Room correction DSP banks on the idea that the NEW sum (direct +reflected+ corrective DSP audio signal ) sounds better than the direct + reflected signal alone. Sometimes it does. But your ear/brain is way more sophisticated than this simple new sum of injecting a "fixer" signal into what already sounded good but was messed up by your room. Sit closer to the speakers, reduce the level of reflected energy at your ear vs the direct sound. (This is exactly the idea of nearfield monitors: sitting closer to speakers reduces the amount of "room sound" at your ear compared to direct sound.) Fix your room so it sounds good. But most importantly, find the places in your room that sound better than others. I often find people shocked when i walk in, move the speakers one inch and everything is better. They look at me like is magic or something. People rarely move speakers around in a room to experiment how different it can sound.
So while DSP can help, it can make a really awful situation better. But it's a major compromise. No DSP is as good as not having the acoustics problem to begin with! Solving acoustic problems with acoustic solutions is the unavoidable answer and we all hate the idea but its true. Now if we could just know the target it would help, right? Brad Lone Mountain Audio -ATC USA.
There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection.
Yes. And timing. Three basic issues. And the relationship of direct to indirect sound. Okay four basic issues. Well, and the timing and relative volume of reflected sounds. Dang alright five basic... what? Aww come on, you got to be kidding me! Construction of ceiling, walls, and floor. But that's the last basic issue! No kidding! I am drawing the line at 6! Noise? What do you mean, noise coming in? Or noise going out?! Crap! No freaking way. Plug up the outlets, seal up the door, whatever you do make believe we didn't just go to 7 basic issues.....
There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection.
A room is not a passive set of walls where we put reflecting or absorbing surfaces sorry... Save for sellers of acoustics panels publicity...You even forgot the diffusive surfaces...
A room is a living animal resembling to a violin when a musician plays it...Any room speak his own language translated for human ears in a universal meaning by acoustic....
I cannot go further because i will type too much words.... Some people hate me already for my long posts and too numerous posts.... 😁
My metaphor is so right and good i will stay with it at the risk of being completely not understood...
Setting up a system in a nearly empty room, once you have studied and obtained a theoretical grasp of acoustics, is a great way to learn the science and the art. And you don't need to spend a lot of money to experiment ..... piles of boxes, wool and cotton blankets, large pieces of foam can all be used for the experimentation. Once you've figured out how to optimize to that three-dimensional image we all strive for along with natural ambiance, if the room is to be a listening room, then make the dollar committment. And you won't waste any, so you'll know exactly what you need.
Once you've got those experiences under your belt, in my experience, it is fairly easy to arrange a living room or family room so that it works acoustically. If you've moved a couple of times, you can even get to the point of visualizing the acoustics as you lay out the room patterns, and won't have to change much once you have things in place. Setting up in multiple rooms over time also has the advantage of teaching you what imperfections you can tolerate and which you can't. Ah, it's good to be an old geezer! :-)
Tooo damn complicated. Brilliance is the ability to paint complex things in simple terms. Very few succeed. And then enter all the variations of recording qualities that endlessly frustrate. If only 60s and 70s music were produced presently. So we fall back and listen to just a few names that bring us comfort over and over again.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
