Room matters


Hi team, I'd like to propose an intriguing question to the community.
What's the difference between Proac D28 and D38? Ovator S-600 and S-400? Neat MF5 and MF7? Avalon Ascendant and Indra? Gamut L5 and L7? Pioneer S1-EX and S3-EX?
The answer to all of the above questions is "none"!
It depends on the room size. Assuming to have a well balanced and top of the art electronic system, if someone wants to improve from a loudspeaker point of view there is no way in doing it unless with a bigger room, hence a bigger loudspeaker. (changing brand because of personal taste and budget is not to be cosidered).
Am I too much provocative?

Thanks for sharing your ideas.
wafer

Showing 6 responses by kr4

Such notions of "purity" are grounded in analog considerations. With today's digital media, a more coherent reconsideration of the principle is necessary. ;-)

Kal
That's not exactly what I was suggesting but an Anthem D2v or Denon AVP-A1HDCI or Meridian 861 (all of which have analog outputs much superior to the Integra) might be competitive with digital sources and not encumber any "purism" issues when using EQ. Just a thought.

Kal
Don't let the prices scare you but do keep an open mind. Times (and technology) do change.

Kal
Shadorne wrote: ".......... in theory there is no "purity" reason that DRC cannot be used throughout, however, from an acoustics perspective the ultra LF frequencies (below about 100 Hz) is the only area where DRC can effectively correct specific frequency related room modal effects. "
Agreed except for the frequency. From measurements, the upper limit of useful correction of standing waves and modes was defined by Schroeder as the point where still higher frequencies began to interact on a purely statistical basis. Above this threshold, one can best use a wider band "tone" control if room acoustics are poor. Of course, it is in this upper band that room treatments are practical, both physically and economically, for all serious listeners.

This creates a problem for us since applying correction only to the subwoofer (usually crossed over in the sub-100Hz range) leaves the bottom 2-3 octaves of the main speakers uncorrected and, imho, the problems here are more audible than those in the subwoofer range. Meridian's use of correction in the sub-300Hz range on all channels (optional and modifiable) is a great solution and one that should be an option on all other room EQ systems.

Kal
"My choice of 100 Hz may be a bit low and as you correctly point out - a lot of problems occur between 100 Hz and 300 Hz and, I might add, even further on up as far as about 600 Hz, as the sound goes from omnidirectional (bass) to directional (Lower midrange) and during this transistion the sound is affected at various frequencies by floor and ceiling and side walls until the sound becomes mostly of a forward direction (and the room becomes much less of a problem). "

I do not think this is true as stated. As the frequencies rise and pass through multiple reflections, their interaction becomes evenly distributed in space and their latency allows the listener to distinguish them from the direct sound. However, they still affect the soundfield and the decay of sounds but, fortunately, they are relatively easy to deal with. Acoustical treatments, absorption and diffusion, will do.

It is only below the critical frequency that spatial issues dominate.

Kal
These recent posts raise an interesting question: To those with experience measuring in-room FR, where do you find the most significant anomalies? I have experience with 4 rooms, and in all cases the issues below about 150hz to 175hz just dwarfed those above that frequency in my "normal", passively treated rooms. I've usually found significant elevation somewhere in the octave above 75ish cycles and a few severe suckouts scattered below app. 100hz. In any given room, these low end deviations have typically been 3 to 5 times as severe as anything I've encountered above 150hz to 175hz.
Sure but our sensitivity to sounds below 100Hz is progressively and markedly reduced. Also, there are fewer sounds down there.

Kal notes that passive room treatments are effective for issues higher up in frequency.
I wouldn't say 'effective." (If I did, it was a slip.) I would say efficient or practical. Passive room treatments can be effective although cumbersome way down into the bass.

If you extend "passive" to include Hemholtz devices, I have found that these treatments can be effective in addressing that octave below 150hz. Below that, DRC (or possibly distributed bass generation with multiple subs...or maybe both) seems to be the best answer.
Agreed.

Even allowing for the ear's increased sensitivity to deviations in/near the mid-band, I find the deep bass issues much more vexing than those higher up.

Has your experience been different?
Yes but this is subjective and depends on one's predelictions.

Kal