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 5 responses by martykl

Shauns,

Yes!

Marty

PS The biggest problem with Tact/Lyngdorf/Audyssey etc digital room correction is that is philosphically incompatible with the audiophile notion of "purity". However, every one of these systems that I have auditioned works wonders, particularly in the bass. To reconcile the conflict, I use DRC only for subwoofers - where it makes the biggest improvement - and run a (mostly) "purist" main signal path.
Kal,

The head says "Yessir! Couldn't agree more!", but it's the soul -or possibly nether regions- that begs to disagree. Since this hobby is (purportedly) for fun, I use an approach that tries to satisfy both pleasure centers. I know that "splitting the baby in half" is not necessarily the wisest approach to solving every dilemna, but in this case, it works for me.

Granted, I'm pretty sure that substituting an Integra pre-pro with full range Audyssey for my ARC preamp, NHT x-over and Velodyne PEq would reduce the cost, simplify the operation, and improve the accuracy of my current set-up. I'd only add that this incremental improvement would likely not be dispositive in determining my enjoyment of listening to my system and that it would be at the cost of a certain "right brain" sense of satisfaction.

This argument may not be entirely rational, but at least I'm no Party-Pooper!

Marty
Kal,

Yikes! I just googled the MSRPs of the models you mentioned.

Just to be clear - Over the past couple of years I have found your posts to these threads invaluable. Along with Drew E., Bob Reynolds and Shadorne, these comments have completely changed the way I configure my system which now reflects a lot of things I picked up from you guys (i.e. DRC, albeit in the bass region only). I suspect that, going forward, you will drag me (possibly kicking and screaming) completely over to your side (AKA the dark side).

Thanks again. If this has wandered a bit OT, I'll bring it back full circle for the OP:

You would be well advised to heed Kal's comments re: room issues as I (mostly) did.

Marty
More clarification:

If you wander through these threads, you will find a fair bit of evidence that the purist signal path to which I referred in my post is a "primary point" of the hobby for a fair number of 'philes. I understand the rewards of that philosophy, too, even if optimal in-room FR performance isn't among them.

My reference to the "purists" was all by way of responding to the post which posed the question (cynically?) "So room correction technology from TacT/Lyngdorf technology will improve...?"

Note that I answered "Yes!" and then attributed DRC's lack of popularity with the A'gon crowd to the "purist" conflict. I do believe that this is the commercial reality behind (judging by the virtual systems listed here) the low acceptance of DRC among 'gon members. High tech solutions just don't seem to be entirely satisfying to many 'goners.

My current "mix 'n match" approach allows me to put one foot in each camp. I enjoy the benefits of high tech DRC where I find it critical to my enjoyment of music (i.e. the bass range) and use a more typical 'phile approach where I find that those tech solutions are less important. My trend line, however, has been one of (grudging) incremental adaptation. Dark side, here I come...

Whew! Hope that 'splains my position.

Marty

B:
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.

Kal notes that passive room treatments are effective for issues higher up in frequency. 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.

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?

Marty

As an aside, I also stuck a bassbuster in the corner behind the piano in my living room and that now sounds a lot better, too. However, the piano sound would be most dramatically improved by advances in my operation of that exasperating user interface :<(