Whatever magic @mahgister has conjured up through optimum embedding of his system could only be more wondrous through better speakers than his Missions.
I dont know why people dont understand my point.... FIRST: i own Tannoy dual gold speakers for a long time and they are better than my actual Mission... SECOND: how can someone argue against a common place fact like: some speakers are better than others ? Third: my claim is instead of going with the urge to upgrade their speakers, why not listening what they are able to do with acoustic basic laws... Fourth: There is no " magic" in science based controls of mechanical vibrations, electrical noise floor, and acoustic... Instead of buying costly speakers i recommend to people to buy a book about acoustic.... 😁😁 The urge for upgrade is most of the times waste of money because many dont understand the basic of embeddings controls in the 3 working dimensions of any audio system.... Is it not clear and simple ? Then opposing to my affirmation the meaningless fact that some Tannoy speakers are better than Mission is a commom place fact not an argument.... |
this is why I feel the speakers are the most important step in audio nervana.
I know very well that my Mission Cyrus speakers are only "relatively" good speakers....In their price bracket even if they punch over... Then why i dont want to upgrade my speakers ? even if i could.... Is this because my speakers branded name is the most important link ? Not at all.... Total acoustic mechanical controls after a well done passive material treatment... A Helmholtz mechanical equalizer and diffusers... And some others tools i will not mention here.... Room acoustic rule ESPECIALLY in small room under 20 feet.... Room acoustic is the sleeping princess, anything else are only the seven working dwarves.... It is very important to know that science could overpower any marketing claim... No speaker beat the room where they work... But a controlled room can throw "relatively" any good speakers on the audiophile moon... This is my experience resulting from my experiments.... Not from my "no limit" purchasing power and ability to boast about my branded name product of choice... I paid 50 bucks my speakers used....😁😊 I can boast about that luck.... They will ashame most owner of better speakers here that dont know how to use acoustic.... They will not perhaps beat them but the margin of S.Q. between mine and some others relatively to price will awake some from market publicity to science: Acoustic..... For sure anybody must buy some "relatively good" speakers first.... But it is of no avail in an average uncontrolled room... You will only live without ever knowing what your speakers are able to do in optimal environment... Forget upgrade money, buy an acoustic book.... Or a biography of Helmholtz.... 😊 |
East is East, and West is West, as the saying goes, and never the twain shall meet, and so it is with equipment lovers and music lovers. Why not trying something more sophisticated than left and right or black and white? Why not trying to look for music lovers who cherish the equipment also, or to some music lovers who without money succeed to reach real audiophile sound experience with low cost means and science? And after discovering that there exist 4 categories why not exploring the rest of the audio world? In the music lover side, by the way, do you goes on distinguishing rock lovers and classical music lovers? If you do, remember that there exist group of people who like the 2 kind of music and this is a third category to add also.... i am myself in my own unique category with only one member.... I dont give a dam about equipment, i prefer to control my environment and the acoustica of the room at NO COST... I like very peculiar musicians and composers and not so much all the others.... I listen to gong music.... I refuse membership.... I also try to keep the world out of the binary traps categories game..... I apologize if my post may seems rude.... I dont like much binary thinking...... |
Resonators tackle specific FR bands. every room will need wideband absorption at early reflection points. I use resonators in my own way to guide and change asymmetrically the driver and the tweeter direct wavefront of each of my speaker then differently for each ear and i use reflection to guide these waves to my ears in time...This help me to create this listener envelopment impression.... The 32 resonators distributed in particular locations with variable and orientable necks help me to control the timbre perception and imaging....I even use 3 cylinders without neck.... Like i said general rule are only that general rule...I dont go with a general rule, it is useless for optimization i did LISTENING EXPERIMENTS.... And the extraordinary results are only reach by some optimization of the resonators and of the reflection/absorbtion timing ratio...I cannot give a rule always the same for each room sorry.... Optimization ask for timing threshold coordination with reflection not only absorbtion...I used reflection at early reflection What i do anyway is not for a living room by the way.... My audio room is ONLY for audio .... But the most important luxury in audio is not the cost of the gear but a dedicated room.... |
I dont want to argue but like i said EACH room is different... And what is important save the optimal ratio between reflection and absorbtion and diffusion related to EACH specific room is the TIMING THRESHOLDS Optimization... Then i use contrary to general rule some reflection at early reflection points this is NOT AN ADVICE i give to all.... This is MY SITUATION in my room.... General rule in audio thread are only that general rule, i prefer my listening experiments and optimization for my room and for my ears and scientific research to help me....😁 Read that to have some idea of what i speak about: «An essential point is that an auditory temporal window does not have a rectangular shape, but it has a slope at each end. Therefore, the conventional rectangular division of reflections into an early and late part in time is overly simplistic. As suggested by the definitions of ASW and LEV mentioned before, the perception of them relates strongly to the law of the first wavefront [17]. Namely, as Bradley and Soulodre describe in their paper [4], sound arriving shortly after the direct sound is integrated or temporally and spatially fused with the direct sound. Thus, increasing levels of early lateral reflections increase the apparent level of the direct sound and cause a slight ambiguity in its perceived location. These two effects contribute to the resulting increase in ASW. Later arriving sound is not integrated or temporally and spatially fused with the direct sound, and leads to more spatially distributed effects that appear to envelop the listener. This description well explains the relation between the perception of spatial impression and the law. However, it is insufficient for a deep understanding of the relation, because it is qualitative but not quantitative. Here, to facilitate understanding of the relation, let us suppose a simple sound field consisted of a direct sound and a single lateral reflection of constant level. According to the law, when the delay time of the reflection does not exceed a critical value, which depends on the kind of source signal, only one sound image is perceived in the direction of the direct sound. Then, ASW is perceived, but LEV is not as explained above. That is, the reflection contributes only to ASW. On the other hand, when the delay time exceeds the critical value, two sound images are perceived separately in the directions of the direct sound and the reflection [18]. This phenomenon is called ‘‘image-splitting.’’ Then, LEV is perceived as explained above. Furthermore, only LEV is perceived, based on the conventional physical measures which divide reflections into an early and late part. However, some questions arise from this case. Should not ASW also be perceived simultaneously? If ASW is also perceived, how much does the reflection contribute to create each of ASW and LEV? » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223804282_The_relation_between_spatial_impression_and_the_law_of_the_first_wavefront |
I am totally convinced that people throw their money because they dont know how to control vibrations/resonance, and decresing the electrical noise floor and controls the acoustic at low cost...
All audio thread are about the gear electronical design , never mainly about how to install it rightfully... And the irony is that all in all electronic design is mature for decades now... It is not difficult to afford a relatively good pieces of gear now...
Then people throw themselves in an upgrading chase ignoring simple fact hypnotized by the weight of money which is for most the only way to reach a very good S.Q.
It is false...
If not, am i deaf?
With my 500 bucks system...
Perhaps....
who knows ? 😁
Nobody with a costly system will accept what i said easily .... but i never pretended that my systen rival costly one i only said that the ratio price/S.Q. of my system is very high.... And enough for me....
I spoke for those who dont have money to create sonic heaven... It is possible....
Ok i spoke too much...I hope it will help and made people think....
My best to all..... |
what do you mean? The golden rule in PASSIVE treatment is simple: BALANCING the relation between absorbing and reflecting and diffusive surface...We need the three in some ratio according to each room specificities... I did it by listening experiments... For the first reflection point all is relative to other factors in the room: geometry, topology, size, acoustic content of furniture, walls, ceilings floors etc. Then NO RULE is valid for ALL room save a balance that must be created by the tuning experiments by our own ears... For the reflections point coming from front and back meditate this short abstract of a scientific paper: «A new physical measure for psychologicalevaluation of a soundfield: Front/back energy ratio as a measurefor envelopment.M. Morimoto (Environmental Acoust.Lab.,Facultyof Eng.,KobeUniv., Rokko,Nada,Kobe,657Japan)and K. Iida (Kobe Univ., Kobe,657 Japan andMatsushita Commun.IndustrialCo., Ltd., Japan) Broadening is one of the important characteristics for the psychological evaluation of a soundfield.Several investigations indicated that broadening was comprised of two elemental senses, i.e.,auditory source width(spaciousness) and envelopment [M. Morimoto et al., Proc. 13th ICA, Belgrade2, 215-218 (1989); J. AcoustSoc.Jpn.46, 449-457 (1990); and Hidaka et al., J. Acoust.Soc.Am. 92, 2469 (A) (1992)]. They inferred that the degree of interaural cross correlation of late reflections correlated with envelopment. This paper,however, shows the results of psychological experiments that envelopment is affected by theenergy ratio of reflections coming from the front of the listener to those coming from the back of the listener,even if the degree of interaural cross correlation of the late reflections are equal.Namely,envelopment grows as the energy of the reflection coming from the back of the listener increases. This result suggests the need to measure the ratio which has never been measured.» This is only an example of one of the paper that inspire me... The ACTIVE mechanical controls of the room has 2 aspects: control of "timing" of early and late reflections complementing the passive treatment but control of the relation between each speaker direct wave with the location of different resonators near the speakers and around the room, this use of each speaker will make easier for each ear the recreation of distance then of "imaging"....It is possible to modify the timbre perception and the listener envelopment at will...The goal is the more natural is the best.... I am not a scientist only someone who listen by experiments....But i discover my idea reading some papers in psychoacoustic research... |
- Active treatment with DSP/EQ colours the sound, that cannot be avoided. that is undebatable.
- Passive Tuned helmholtz resonator will work just as well as active subs cancellation methods or active helmholtz resonator and will avoid all this EQ nonsense. exactly... Tuning a room is like tuning a piano.... The geometry/topology of the room is like the geometry/topology of the piano case... The Helmholtz resonators are like the strings of the piano for the piano tuner... It takes me a month to reach optimal results... Each of my resonator is segmented and mechanically tunable... No cost at all... Audiophile experience may cost peanuts.... It is not perfect but i will never dream to buy anything more.... Is it not something? I wrote that because i am the only one claiming that and i want to help those who dont have money to fulfill their dream like me 7 years ago... Thats all....i learn how to make it.... Nobody here ever say that simple truth.... I never bought "tweaks" i replicated them at no cost or create new one.... I sell nothing save creativity .... |
lets list the top 10 arguably best studio in the world or you know, some very well respected studio.
Abbey road 1 and 2
Conway Recording Studio
Village Recording Studio
Sound Factory
Sunset sound
Chicago Recording Company Studio 4
Circle Studios, Birmingham
East West
Manifold
NONE use active treatment. Why? Cause Passive treatment works perfectly, without any drawbacks (apart from visually)
Why do you think i advocate active controls for SMALL ROOM? Because they are difficult to deal with.... my room is 13 feet... But if someone know what to do it is easy to control one... I did.... |
but your 50$ vintage speakers doesnt come close to the best 15000$ speakers out there. Only a stupid person will claim that used vintage speakers are better than very costly new one... But only ignorant person will doubt that acoustic transform completely the sound of a pair of speakers for their optimal working ... There is no relation between my speakers S.Q. before and after my active room control... It is not the best nor perfect but the S.Q. is so good i listen music and NEVER will think to upgrade... Music filling the room is here and it is enough... |
"20 feet" do you have any data to back this up? Your throwing numbers out there and imo you exagerate. You are not wrong here in your remark..... I have not calculated the exact size where controls of the timing early and late reflections will be more difficult.... And less rewarding and easy... A great hall is not a 13 feet room.... My room is 13 feet square and it is easy to use reverberation from the back for example to create a listener envelopment experience... And easy to use reflection from the first reflection points for the better ... And for the skeptic my sound is not unnatural at all.....I say that because the general saying to always absorb reflections in general is simplistic... We must use our ears to know what to do in a specific room.... I did that by listenings experiments... 20 feet seems to me a good approximation separating big room and small one....But i had not calculated this scientifically with the many variables involved... In a small room using all acoustical passive and active controls is rewarding at no cost.... I read somewhere that my 13 feet room is supposed to de difficult.... I experience the opposite... It is because people usually use only passive material treatment ( balance between reflections,diffusions,and absorbing surfaces) I used also a grid of resonators to control not only bass nodes but all the way up and control the timing and differentiate each wavefront of each speaker differently for each ear ...This give me a 3-d filling the room if the recording make it possible...Most classic recording are good... My results are more amazing than anything i could dream of and no upgrade is on my future... It is why i wrote this: « acoustic is the sleeping princess and the future queen, the gear is the 7 working dwarves» Most people here claim the opposite...The upgrading frustration confirm to me that i am right....people dont know how to install or embed their audio system... They read specs sheet thinking that only electronic compatibility is enough... Perhaps the gear over some amount of money play a more important role, for those who can afford 100,000 bucks system perhaps and even in this case i listened harsh unnatural sound quality coming from many costly system in youtube ... Then acoustic for me is the key..... My 500 bucks system is enough to make me smile... Audiophile experience is linked to basic common sense and science especially psychoacoustic... |
Mahgister, you really needed to just say this:
FIVE this fact that some speaker sound already good in some room contradict absolutely not what i speak about...
Sounding already good and working at their peak S.Q. potential is not the same thing...... I am very pleased to say that you are right when you are... Then in this case i am with you... Enjoy your tea.... And had a good day.... 😊 |
@mahghiter you are an intelligent and articulate individual. However my ATC SCM11‘s sound absolutely wonderful in. my bedroom system without any room treatments. FIRST I am sure what you said is true.... SECOND some speakers in some room sound "good" without any acoustic control... THIRD of these fact you cannot deduce that this is a rule...It is an exception... FOUR you cannot know and you are not interested by the way they could sound even better with some acoustic passive treatment and some active controls.... It seems not necessary because they sound already good and i understand you... Who want to introduce acoustic control in a bedroom? FIVE this fact that some speaker sound already good in some room contradict absolutely not what i speak about... Sounding already good and working at their peak S.Q. potential is not the same thing...... Regards and best wishes..... P.S. they seems very good speakers indeed.... |
Decent speakers can be found at a very modest price. What you put into a system can never be regained. You are right for sure but nowadays it is perhaps not so easy to buy a good dac like buying a good speaker but anyway it is relatively easy too... The technology is coming to maturity... What is difficult, underestimated, and most of the times simply not known is the transforming power of psychoacoustic and acoustc basic facts.... In a small room with a limited amount of money nothing can replace the S.Q, improvement linked to acoustic controls....It is my experience and experiments... my best to you.... |
If I want to change up the sound, the source remains the same, but amplification changes with the choice of speakers I’m listening to. Same thing than for amplifier and speakers ,it is very easy to buy a "relatively good source" nowadays... Creating passive material treatment for a room and especially active mechanical controls to complement and enhance it is way more difficult... People are hypnotized by pricing gear product, less so by acoustic and psychoacoustic fact.... Under 20 feet room space only acoustic matter to reach heaven with almost any " relatively good for basic gear "... Why 20 feet? Because it is easy to control TIMING under some acoustic treshold and use it for your benefit... A very big room is more costly to control.... My room control 13 feet square cost me nothing to be controlled... |
Have to disagree that the speaker is the most important. The room is the most important followed by system synergy. I am glad to be with another audiophile with common sense.... Almost no existing design with the usual technology could nullify or exceed the acoustic control of the room... Someone not knowing that is the victim of marketing hypnosis or delude itself with a product which is related to what most people called their "taste"...Speakers design is always TRADE_OFF not a miracle cures of all problem... By the way a natural sounding instrument timbre is a fact not a "taste" ....Imaging and listener envelopment are acoustical factors not "taste".... Yes room treatments affect this also. Any speaker need room acoustic control to reach his peak working possibility.... And no passive material treatment can do it only by itself in a room under 20 feet....Sorry.... Reverberation time is useful if we know how to use it with the timing of early and late reflections using also ACTIVE mechanical control to adapt the speakers limitations and ENHANCE them with the room controls (Helmholtz resonators grid)..... Ignoring acoustic put you in the arm of speakers publicity designers market.... Give me any speaker for a small room i will adapt the room to it and he will sound next to a very costlier speakers... |
I do think however that the device turning the AC current into audible bliss is the foundation upon which the rest of the system relies, and the qualities it voices. Affirming a common sense fact does not erase another common sense fact...Ordering the 2 facts ask only for some logical reasoning... It is relatively easy to find relatively good speakers...( relatively to your purse but this does not invalidate my point at all). Then without negating the impact of the choice of speakers, my point was to indicate a deep underestimated fact: psychoacoustic phenomena... Like you just said it is important to adapt the room to the speakers... If not, the speakers will never give their optimal S.Q. (Anyway at the speed of sound the waves crossed my room many times before my brain analyse all this, i listen in a small room to the multiples reflected frontwaves even in near listening...) Give me any good speakers i could make it sound great....i know howto do it now at no cost... Take any good speaker put it in a bad room... listen...This will seems "good" only because people will have no idea at all the way they would have sound in a good room... Then it is easy to buy relatively good speakers but the most important piece of the job is acoustic... The only reason people dont understand that is simple.... They never lived through it.... I did...Like i said passive material treatment is only half of the job, we need also unbeknownst to most active mechanical room controls...Especially if our speakers are not very costly one in more costly acoustic room.... active acoustic controls may cost peanuts it is the good news ...It cost me peanuts... There is no comparison at all between a pair of speaker in a good room compared to the same pair in a bad room....Even the increase in S.Q. by an upgrade will not do the job most of the times save if you go over the roof in price perhaps...Most people think that imaging, timbre perception, soundstage are ONLY attributes of the gear, but they are only partially right, most of these factors depend heavily on room controls not only on passive materials treatment... A simple example...Why most very rich audiophiles invest more in the room sometimes than in the gear, mike lavigne for example ? do they think that their speakers are so great they can put them in an ordinary room? By the way i installed springs under and over my speakers with my own method... This give a big difference in S.Q. But this difference is very small compared to the huge transformation of the room....It is the same thing for the decresing of the electrical noise floor...It is an audible difference when we decrese the noise floor but this does not compared to the room acoustic either.... For sure none of these changes is replaceable by the others but the more impactful audibly is the room controls on ALL aspect of sound in a more than audible way....Transformative completely.... If i did not insist on that who will? My deepest salutations to you my friend.... And appropriate respect for sure.... |
Although, without ever seeing it, I have to wonder what an interior decorator would say about your room. you are not here to judge my room... It is not a living room it is an audio room first... Second i created my passive treatment homemade and my active controls myself at no cost... Then spare me another insult under the guise of an apology... I dont insult people here.... It seems you do it on a regular basis...Third insults in three posts... You proved to everyone here what you are .... Enjoy it.....without me... Goodbye..... |
I’m not too sure about the room accoustics guy, either. He’s at least scraping up against the side of the guardrails. Dont insult me please... The room "acoustic guy" like you said NEVER spoke or RAVE about ANY audio consumers products here... I created my own devices... And acoustic and psychoacoustic had what we called " laws"...Nobody can ignore these laws... Thats all... If i speak POLITELY about my experience and i sell nothing save creativity and simple facts that means certainly that "i dont scrape up against the guardrails" It is NOT your case insulting me... is it clear? Speak TO ME directly next time....Not about me to others.... And dont assimilate me to anything you judged being a "nutcase".... i dont trust your judgement seeing it at work in this post.... |
It is easy to understand that any relatively good piece of gear can be replaced by any other relatively better piece of gear, be it a dac or amplifier or speakers...
And this replacement is called an upgrade...
It is easy to understand that if any piece of gear can be replaced by any other, psychoacoustic law, vibrations/resonance controls, noise floor control, are not piece of gear waiting for improvement but question that must be adressed...
Then the most important for most of us is not the source or the speakers urge to upgrade, it is the psychoacoutical necessary control of the room, of the electrical grid of the house and of the vibrations plaguing speakers...
There is NO miraculous component.... Only relatively better one for most of us.... But the general rule in my experience is that any upgrade is lesser increase in S.Q. than controls of the room most of the times if not always...
The only exception perhaps is to change 500 bucks speakers for example to a 15,000 bucks pair.... And even this is not always true....
My 50 vintage bucks speakers sound like SOME not so good 15,000 bucks one thanks to my room control....
I dont need any upgrade why?
Am i deaf?
No...
I studied elementary acoustic....
Try it....
Then perpetual arguing about branded name gear is deceptive and never adress the essential....
Embeddings controls, especially acoustic....
|
There is no perfect gear for all people and all need and relatively to all other pieces of gear which could be potentially linked to it....
Engineering art is trade-off...
Selling perfection is an illusion.... Or a deception...
The most important part of a system is not the visible gear at all, it is the invisible psychoacoustical law, among other basic elementary facts whithout which there is no optimal working audio system at ANY price...
|
to minimise echoes and room reflections of sound waves. The goal of active psychoacoustic control is using direct waves and early and late reflections in a positive way and timing them to create at will the adequate imaging, soundstage, and a ratio for the listener envelopment (LEV) and source relative width (ASW) factors that will be optimal... Then thinking about minimising reflections or neutralizing them is not enough and not very powerful in a small room.... The positive use of reverberation is key.... But it takes more than just a balance between absorbtion,reflection and diffusion... This is elementary passive material treatment.... Complementing it and more powerful is the systematic use of Helmholtz resonators in a grid beginning near the speakers and around the room.... I use 32 pipes and tubes fine tuned... Results: spectacular control at will of the many acoustical factors... I called that "a mechanical equalizer"...No upgrade rival this save a very costly one... My system value is 500 bucks but does not sound at all like 500 bucks system ... Regards... |
Box speakers? Heck no, I’ve listened to electrostatics for 40 years! All is relative to the installation, vibration/resonance control and acoustic.... My box speakers ( 50 dollars used) sound better in my good room than my friend in principle "better" magnepan in a bad room .... They are so good any upgrade is useless....Dont ask me the branded name ask me how is it possible? any relatively good speaker could deliver miraculous sound....Any..... Anyway all qualities coming from any type of speakers is a balanced trade-off with ALWAYS positive and negative.... Especially for speakers under some money treshold....The room acoustic can help greatly to compensate some aspect of this trade off....My mechanical equaliser is PART of my speakers and PART of the room....Then for me speaking of speakers on the shelf of the manufacturer for their design advantages is not the way to go through the essential .... They most work in a specific room to reveal their potential.... Like i said acoustic is the sleeping princess and everyone pay attention to only the 7 working dwarves.... |
I think acoustic panels can be considered components, and they add to a room. Two well placed $200 panels will impact a system more than $20,000 of cables. I am glad to concur with this advice....Save for the fact that i know for sure that you dont give much credit to cables upgrade in pure S.Q. improvement like myself to a point ... Then i must take your post with a pinch of salt.... Anyway i concur with you for their usefulness... i will only add that sometimes adding panels is better than a new costly amplifier upgrade..... 😊 Now i try to calculate what we must pay for a benefit in upgrade on par with my active room tuner the mechanical Helmholtz equalizer? In all audio thread acoustic is the sleeping princess.... But all people bet on the working dwarves.... |
Mahgister has been relentless in his posts about his room and I appreciate his passion, but optimizing the room does not fit with the idea above about picking the most critical component because most of us don’t have the luxury of picking our room. We do pick our speakers. So I’m fine with the idea that the room is critically important when optimizing your system, but it does not fit with the idea of picking the most critical component because again, most don’t pick their room. You are completely right... I will only add that i speak about "transforming" a dedicated room which is available... No need to own an ideal room at all...You can pick anyone...A living room would not did for me save a very high cost for the esthetical devices.... In my experience ANY room can be transformed at low cost but we must have a room ONLY for audio... If not then yes speakers matter the most.... My deepest respect and regards.... |
@mahgisterdo you have links or papers about this active treatment?
did you ever compared active vs passive treatment?
I mean, 95% of top level studios still use simple passive treatment. when well made, its very good... Paper?😁 I am not a scientist in any way... My idea come from an article in acoustic research from japan in 2008...When i was arguing with an engineer about imaging... I used homemade tuning set of pipes and tubes orientable and tunable...The idea is first in Helmholtz... Any room being a distribution of pressure zones i used my tubes and pipes grid or mechanical equalizer and tuned them like someone tune a piano... Better than a mic : your 2 ears... My sound is good for my nearfield listenin(3feet) and very good also for my regular position (8 feet) i have a dedicated 13 feet square room height: 8 1/2 feet.... The response frequency from a mic adjust the sound for a position of listening in millimeter.... It is a partial helping tool that do not replace a passive acoustical treatment...But complement it for some people ... I dont have one...Instead i used my own device... I called my mechanical equalizer activation of the room because the tool is an active part of the room....Unlike an electronic equalizer and without his limitations... the passive treatment is useful and the active after that is powerful... read that to begins with my idea comes from these concepts: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223804282_The_relation_between_spatial_impression_and_the_law_of_the_first_wavefront The creation of this device cost me nothing... I use orientable straws of different size and diameter, plumber copper pipes and pvc tube in my basement... I tune 32 of them of different size between 8 feet and 12 inches around my room and near my speakers... you will understand why reading the article.... The location is important and the orientation of the neck also in the room.... It takes me hours to created them on an evening whim but few weeks for the best tuning... 😊😉 You must use ONLY acoustical timbre perception of voice or instrument to tune the sound...No electric or amplified or electronical music.... The reference point is human timbre... my 500 bucks system is one of the best in relation to the ratio S.Q/price.... Upgrading it appear useless to me.... I know that a relatively good audiophile experience is related mostly about acoustical settings if we supposed relatively good basic gear to begins with... People dont know acoustic power they bet their money on very costly gear.... this is simply ignorance... For sure many system are better than mine but i can assure you that they dont cost 500 bucks.....Anyway when the piano filled my room 3-d i dont think about the limitations of my system .... there is none that put me in the urge to invest money .... It takes me 2 years to figure out how to controls: vibrations, decease the electrical noise floor but the most hard part was the acoustic... My goal is the best possible at NO COST.... i succeeded... |
as for the discussion about room acoustic being king, i disagree. and my room is fully treated. a well treated room wont make a P3ESR sound like a harbeth 40.1. room acoustic is extremely critical for good sq and one cannot get best SQ without proper early reflection treatment and bass traps ect, but speakers are the most important tool You speak about passive room treatment... There exist also Active room treatment that use tubes and pipes resonators in a precise distribution to complement powerfully the passive treatment...They work by conveying the timing wavefronts of sounds coming from each speaker to each ear... And nobody can contradict the fact that speakers is important and everybody know that ... acoustic on the contrary is completely underestimated.... especially with people owning very costly speakers... And acoustic can transform good average speaker in a better experience... with my mechanical equalizer made of resonators i control imaging, timbre, soundstage, listener envelopment etc... |
Well designed SS amplifiers are just as capable as tube amplifiers in ANY application. You are right Sansui proved it with a comparison many decades ago between his best S.S. design and his own Best Tubes design.... Impossible to distinguish the two by listening... Ok my deep respect and i vanish now.... |
How to compare anything in a bad room non controlled acoustically ?
This is ridiculous...
A single straw location in a room in my experience can destroy the S.Q. of any product...Or enhance it...
Boasting about design choices is ridiculous, any electronic design is the results of a complex chain of TRADE-off...With his own advantages or inconvenients corresponding to a palette of possibilities all useful on some time, location, or with other piece of gear... No absolute here... IDEALS?
The real question when our choices are made is how i could install my gear in an optimal controlled room and environment ?...
Is it not simple?
I dont think that any designed kind of speakers is absolutely superior on all counts and for all location and for all use....
But we can argue about the respective values of these trade off design for sure, like it is the case here.... Then i apologize for my intrusion....But sometimes some thing must be said also....
«The critical component is the location of our brain in the room»- Acoustic made simple by Groucho Marx 🤓
|
First i dont promote the buying of costly tweaks... We can replace most of them or replicate them at no cost... I did it myself... The results are complete transformation of my average system....I speak about a conplete transformation after a hundred of small modifications in the 3 working embeddings dimensions here, not about a borderline audible effect needing blindtest to be confirmed like in a cable swapping marketing operation.... 😁 My own acoustical controls cost me nothing... 😊 This thread is weird isn’t it. I don’t think anyone discounts the importance of fixing acoustics if you are not listening near field, 🙄 Second, relatively to the room size and the particular speakers, nearfield listening is not immune at all to the acoustical settings of the room...It is a pretext in audio thread which falsely rassure those who think that no acoustic settings is necessary when nearfield..... It is not the case in samall room but for sure many distance lenght factors and particularities of the speakers specs. enter in consideration.... BUT in my own 13 feet small room ANY change in the acoustic settings reflect in my near listening ( 3 feet from the 2 speakers....) ANY change are audible..... Not at the same level nor in the same way that in regular listening (8 feet) but any acoustical change like introducing a new pressure zone will be audible nearfield... It is easy to figure out with the speed of sound and the size of the room, and the relation between the millisecond limit treshold for the brain to treat acoustic cues and the number of times the frontwaves cross the room before the brain react... The speakers are the main "solid" component , nobody can contest that.... BUT the room acoustic in most of the case is more important .... It is simple to understand why.... What is weird is the people superstition for the "solid" product they personaly favored or owned or sells.... My system is 500 bucks value , and will never be upgraded, because i dont feel i need to, he does not sound like a 500 hundred bucks system, thanks to my embeddings controls especially the acoustic controls.... All my embeddings controls are homemade and cost almost nothing.... My system is not the best and i NEVER boast about it, i sell creativity and common sense.... Acoustic is the key to audio by the way we record and by the way we listen to music.... Is it not simple? The rest of the story is good or bad marketing practise with good or less good products... I prefer to promote homemade embeddings controls, and creativity and common sense because any system works in three dimension where it needed to be controlled; basic acoustic science is the most important factor between all those.... 😊 |
The idea that speakers is the most important part of a system is not an absolute...
There is, for most of us, ordinary owner of ordinary speakers, under 10,000 bucks, a more important factor, the room acoustic controls that can help or impede, or compensate in some degree for the limitations related to any "ordinary" speakers....
My 10,000 bucks borderline limit is arbitrary but the fact i pointed to is not...
We listened not to speakers but to a room integrated to the speakers.... the 2 are ONE organ producing the 2 different acoustically mixed frontwaves of sound which each one of our ears will process for the brain to create music body....
Imaging, listener envelopment factor or LEV are related on timing tresholds linked to these 2 frontwaves interacting coming from each speaker...There are "more" power related to acoustic than to the spec sheets of the speakers... Timbre perception will greatly be affected also by the distribution of the pressure zones in the room related to his geometry, topology but also to the timing of the frontwaves but also to their crossing of different pressure zones...
Acoustic is queen, the sleeping princess, speakers are only the biggest of the 7 dwarves...
For most of us, owning normal speakers at normal price, the room acoustical settings will determine our impression about speakers more than any other factors in play....
Average Speakers are like average headphones, they all have many problems that are linked to the shell/room controls....
The only "relative" apparent exception are some very costly headphone or speakers set that are out of reach of most average users anyway....They can sound good in spite of some acoustical property of the room or less limited by their "shell" particular design.... |
@mahgister have you any experience with time aligned speakers? Vandersteen, etc.
Thanks No not at all.... Vandersteen price are 39,000 US bucks..... 😁😁😁🙄 All my system cost 500 bucks... I dont doubt that they are extraordinary... Myself i use the timing of the sound waves in the room and i use the direct sound of each speaker but with for each speaker different resonant tube and pipes near them to gives some acoustical cues for the ears that make able my brain to create a 3-d holographic space...It is a success... At peanuts costs... |
If you calculate with the speed of sound in a room you will discover that reflected late and early waves mix in the brain with direct waves coming from the speakers under the critical treshold of 80 milliseconds...
Then nearfield listening is not immune at all from the room characteristic.... I verified this myself by many experiments listening always in the 2 positions nearfield and regular in my own room....
The scale from totally bad speakers to very top high good speakers is a LARGE scale....
The acoustical settings of a room can help and put some intermediary relatively good speakers nearer to the top S.Q. at no cost... A room must be mechanically tuned for a specific pair of speakers....I dont use electronic tuning or equalization of speakers from the room response... I prefer to use each speaker to change the room....
Acoustic is not magic but almost..... |
How do you know your system isn’t phase shifting some frequencies more than others and exaggerating these effects? It is easy to use a test to verify... https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php It is also impossible to create a 3 dimensional soundstage (sounds from behind or outside the speakers) without manipulating the signal. It is possible when someone use simple acoustic laws.. For example tresholds of timing linked to the first wavefront law https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223804282_The_relation_between_spatial_impression_and_the_law_of_the_first_wavefront I use my homemade mechanical equalizer to do it and my Schumann generators grid with the appropriate passive room treatment... But passive material room treatment is ONLY half of my acoustical settings... The more important half is the mechanical 32 tubes and pipes Helmholtz equalizer tuned for the room... I use it in a way to reinforce the first frontwave law for each speaker....And the Schumann generators grid is a complementary help to create this holographic effect... Some company sell costly device to do it with radio frequencies like the shumann generator frequencies... But i never bought any tweaks i prefer to replicate them at no cost...I called this the three controls over the working three embeddings dimension for any audio system: mechanical : ( i use an original method of my own to tune my speakers with springs) electrical: ( i use my own homemade device all along the electrical grid of my house the "golden plates") and for acoustic:( many devices but the most important being a couple of cheap ionizers, S.G. grid, and H. M. equalizer + regular passive teatment balanced between reflective,absorbing and diffusive effects).. My system value is 500 bucks and all my device controls cost me peanuts... You forget also that owning near 10,000 files if these artificial effects were only artefacts regularly used i will listen to them on many other files....(Like in some electronic music....I dont like electronic music and listen mainly jazz and especially classical....) They really walked and turned their heads singing in the studio and the final impression is like a real event... I feel this impression of 3-d with others classical very good recordings....For example i can " see" the hands of an harpsichordist on his instrument 3-d like if the instrument were in the room... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R0eCGPhXko But the sound of this youtube file is horrible....I own ALL the cd she played with his marvellous instrument very well recorded all his Bach recordings...I know this file from the time i was 20 years old to this day70 years old.... This cd was never 3-d holographic 50 years ago even coming from better speakers my Tannoy dual Gold compared to my actual Mission Cyrus 781....but acoustic is more powerful than speakers specs differences between 2 good speakers .... Now I listen all the pedals strokes and slidings,frictions, of the feet and of the mechanical inside the instrument...The instrument is spread our like a 3-d object in front of me out of the speakers not between it, but in front of it and spread it slightly behind the speakers with the keyboard where his hands walk and plays in some "diagonal" spread, the head part of the wood keyboard in front and the end tail behind the speakers... Same thing with Vladimir Feltsman well tempered Klavier where the piano is in the room completely and fill it wall to wall... Samething with Chopin piano Nocturnes recording by Ivan Moravec .... I will stop here.... Regards and best wishes... |
I listen to the singers walking on the scene in the studio and even turning their head while singing then their voice increasing or decreasing in loudness...... Any effect of depth and width of soundstage is artificially mixed into the recording so it seems to me you really can’t have any confidence what you are using as your reference is accurate or what was intended. Maybe they wanted it to sound like the singers are out in front of the orchestra? The singers voices are around me, in front of me, and many times comes from behind my head in songs number 15-16-17... In a non controlled room you will always listen to them in front of you not coming from behind your head... Here i discover on the net what someone with a bad system or a bad room says of this very good recording: « Don’t bother at this stage with the 1958 German language STEREO version with Lotte Lenya conducted by Wilhelm Brückner-Ruggeberg. It was weakly recorded, too much echo,» What he confuse with "echo" is the walking speed and changes of position while singing of the singers...They move constantly on the stage or in the studio and their head is never fixed but turn right or left singing or speaking... It is easy to hear...In a good room we SEE the singers... It is one of my best recording.... Anyway i wish you the best and your speakers by the way seems marvellous.... My deepest respect.... |
and if you hire an expert in room acoustics the room is also very easy I created my own "mechanical equalizer" which act on the room being part of it...It was not easy like buying speakers... AND you can mitigate the room by listening in the near field ... . It is not true i know it because all change in my room act on the nearfield listening... Save perhaps with big speakers in a small room but even with it then the room would not be able to help the speakers ....Speakers size must be in relation with the room.... Start at the other end... envision the perfect system. To win your point you start with a costly system, most people dont own costly system... Anyway i state my point and i dont doubt that your sound is very good your speakers also.... But all my system will be crap for you seeing it with a value of 500 bucks all in all... I can assure you that my S.Q. will surprize you thanks to acoustic control.... Try my test with Kurt Weill and listen the singers ....If they comes from your back where there is no speakers then the room is not only good BUT under controls.... If not, the sound is good but the room is not under controls... Simple.... A room under controls must recreate the original acoustic settings of the live event when recorded.... The critical component for me is the room.... And for sure for someone owning for example some speakers costing 100,000 bucks, the thing to keep is the speakers not the room.... But when we speak about critical component with speak about what is critic S.Q. wise not about money.... I listen to a system on the net youtube the owner brag about it because its value is one million dollars...Mine value is 500 bucks... Do you think he will not be angry by my observation? One thing is sure this man put his system in an undercontrolled room and the sound is unnatural....Not musical...Very detailed....Even through my own system..... Then.....People confuse details and quality, and often spectacular constrast in sound with timbre naturalness.... This one million dollars system is in a good room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7lxYAaJ_oo&t=457s This one million dollars system is in a bad room : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8O_jZhpl4What is the most critical component here? The room..... |
No , I nailed the essential point, which I stated very clearly,.... you have to pick speakers that work in the room Nobody will argue that we must choose first a relatively good speaker set...If the essential point is what we must do first, you win....😁 But for me it is NOT the essential part at all.... This is EASY to buy a relatively good pair of speakers, very easy.... BUT Controls of the room are NOT so easy to install... Second you have not understood my point: The comparative change and upgrading value of a room BEFORE and AFTER controls installation EXCEED the difference between the choice of two relatively good speakers.... Think a minute about the number of people owning already a relatively good pair of speakers versus the number of people owning a relatively rightfully controlled room... There is no COMPARISON between the 2 numbers...the first number is huge compared to the second one.... I dont speak about the number of people here who would say that their room is good.... I speak about a room REALLY under controls... But you missed my point because you cannot imagine what is a controlled room and how powerful it is.... Most people think that they own a good room already....It is an illusion... How can you know the effect of acoustical control when you never lived through it? I speak about controls of the room not only room with some bass traps and some passive materials treatment...I speak about an ACTIVATED room versus a passive room... Anyway keep your illusion... But here is a test: If you want to know if your room is under controls, listen to The Three penny opera 1958 by Kurt Weill with Lotte Lenya and if you could listen the orchestra playing in front of you, seating in front of your speakers, but the singers voices coming from your back wall where there is no speakers, your room is under acoustic controls....Acoustic is the cake and timing tresholds of the first frontwaves are the key....Anybody could buy a good pair of speakers but it is the room controls which will decide what you will hearing or not.... I bet that if you pass the test all orchestra+singers will be in front of you but who knows?....This the difference between the musicians in your room and you being in the scene "enveloped" by the sound experience.... I use this exceptional recording of Kurt Weill because the sound engineer make possible this test so good his recording tech. was.... By the way the acoustical characteristic or concept i described in this test is called the "listener envelopment" or LEV... No speakers will give you this experience of the " listener envelopment" at any price in a bad room.... Then in a word: speakers are REPLACEABLE, room are not, especially a room under controls...... And most people claim the opposite: their beloved speakers and costly one are irreplaceable, and their room is replaceable or secondary and their room is always OK anyway in their mind, so much the importance of the speakers design weight more than acoustical laws....... The truth is ANY speakers must be adapted first to the geometry and size of the room where it will work for sure, but a room without controls will not create miracles even with speakers well chosen for it .... This is the meaning of my affirmation.... |
The predominant focus on acoustics potentially fails to take into account their being relative to the speakers and their dispersive nature. That is, below the Schroeder frequency (seeing the room here as a resonator) a multitude of bass sources is the acoustic measure to at least partially alleviate the need for absorbers/bass traps/PEQ, while above the Schroeder frequency narrower dispersive characteristics from the likes of line sources, large coned drivers and horns will limit the influence of the room. You remark is sound and wise....😊 😁 BUT you forget something not me..... You forgot that the room is not ONLY AND MAINLY made of directions where the waves bounce on the 6 walls but if the room is like you said a resonator, the room is constituted by different pressure zones, and these zones are modified in my small room by a grid of 32 resonators which i used like a "mechanical equalizer"...( by the way the cost is zero because it is recycled pipes and tubes and straws) Then this tool which is not less powerful than the passive material treatment and complement it, constitute what i called an active control of the room... ---Passive material treatment: reflection-absorption-diffusion in balance.. --- Active control: distributed finely tuned resonators which work with the wavefronts coming from each speaker to each ear in a precise timing treshold that will produce not only imaging and a better soundstage but more importantly a "listener envelopment" Or LEV experience which is the sensation when timing of the frontwaves are under control to be in the room where are the musician and not the musicians being in your room...For example, in some recording the voices of the singers come from behind me and the orchestra sound come from the opposite wall where are the speakers, then i am in the midst of the opera scene....In active control i used also a grid of connected Schumann generators with success they contribute but less powerfully than my "mechanical equalizer".... Give me any relatively good speakers and i will be happy AFTER my installment of acoustic control not before .... The room is way more important than the speakers, if they are relatively good one to begins with for sure.... Like my Tannoy was or my actual Mission Cyrus....It is unbelievable but this is my experience... Because most people have never experience it and will never experience it, this will stay unbelievable... We never listen to our speakers, we listen to our room, EVEN in nearfield listening, contrary to a false belief in audio threads... The sound waves speed made them crossing my 13 square feet "bad" room 80 times in one second.... Meditate about this....And our brain work in approx. 80 millisecond treshold slices to create the sound 3-d presence impression correlating each ear first frontwaves cues with one another.... This is the meditation about this fact that inspired me to create my "mechanical equalizer" after reading some acoustical paper research about timing thresholds importance for the LEV experience... No speakers, nevermind his specs sheets, could replace by only itself the room controls for the sound recreation in all characteristic, natural timbre experience, imaging, lev, asw, soundstage etc.... Most people ignoring this speak about speakers like they speak about "tastes".... This is only ignorance of acoustic.... |
Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in.
ALL speakers are colored, have the highest levels of distortion of all components by a LARGE margin, and have the most severe limitations when it comes to integrating them into the room.... so this is actually a stupid debate. You have to find a speaker that fits your room and your tastes. What comes before is icing on the cake,, the speaker is the cake.
1. Drive a $1000 speaker with a $100,000 front end and it sounds like a $1000 speaker.
2. Drive $100,000 speakers with a $1000 front end and its not as good as it can be, but it will sound much better than #1
end of debate, you can close this thread
I like very much your first paragraph affirmation , and i concur with it totally.... All what you say after miss the essential point... The room is the cake, you must design a room with all the passive and active acoustical controls necessary to help your speakers... Ask any acoustician, the best speakers sound bad in a bad room and good in a good room.... Less pricey speakers will beat costly one if put in a good room and the pricey one in a bad room... Go on youtube et listen pricey speakers in a bad room there is plenty to listen to..... I prefer my 50 dollars used speakers in my controlled room than many very very costly one ... We never listen to speakers.... We listen to room/speakers.... Let the debate going on please....We will keep the thread .... 😊 |
So is (yet more) verbiage about "embeddings," which at this point is approaching a religion. You say the samething than me about the room/speakers, which is ok and then you insult me with a completely stupid affirmation: the working " embeddings" controls of the 3 dimensions linked to any sudio system would be a RELIGION ? Why being wrong with a false comparison and why not insulting me directly? Distinguishing some factors: electrical one, mechanical one and acoustical one with a concept or a word is not creating a religion....Especially when here this distinction has never been made clearly....My embeddings controls are not "tweaks" only...Then i needed a word linked to a clear concept... Being annoyed with someone dont EXCUSE abuse of rethoric or comparisons... Be a man and say it directly like in one of your past post you said i wrote too much.... This is fair.... But i dont like at all "dislike" of someone hidden under absurd affirmation about him....Like you jusat did... I speak directly here to people, not indirectly to anyone about some people.... Do you understand what i means? Try my method, read or not a post and forget it if you dont like it; if you spot something wrong or something with which you are not ok say it simply and directly to the person without being irrational.... An embedding controls cannot be a religion, especially if it is free of money and only a concept easy to grasp.... I hate nobody here at all, i speak to all, I SAY directly what i think with the more possible rationality....I try.... I am not perfect for sure... |
What is the most important component? Every single one of them. An integral audio system is like a piano, all parts of the piano are important....You are right about that.... But put the piano in a good room or in a bad room it will sound very different... It is better to have an average audio system in a good room than a better audio system in a bad room... And the difference if the acoustic controls are optimal is so huge than the best system in the world will not be enough to beat a less good one in this optimal room... Then focusing on cables or sources for sure is right....But secondary....Especially when advising people about good choices... BECAUSE in audio experience for almost all people with an "average audio system" nothing compared in S.Q./price ratio with the acoustical settings controls of the room... If someone own a dedicated room it may cost peanuts.... My mechanical equalizer cost me nothing for example...My passive treatment cost me nothing also....Is it the best? no... Is it extraordinary? yes... Some pychoacoustical factor are related not to the gear or the tweaks or the cables or to the speaker choices mostly, but to the relation between the speakers the room the passive materials treatment and the active controls mainly.... Why? Because for example listener envelopment or LEV is related to the timing thresholds of the wavefronts coming from each one speaker, and crossing the different pressure zones and reflecting on the walls toward EACH ears with DIFFERENT timing cues....No piece of gear by itself can give this experience of the listener envelopment or LEV in a non controlled room....Some piece of electronic gear some very costly "tweak" using RF can( like the schumann generators at low cost help a lot or the more sophisticated atmasphere of SR which is more powerful) but they will NOT give you a natural timbre experience like an acoustical treatment and active control will do and must do....Then..... Psychoacoustic is the gate to the optimal audio experience.... Upgrading the gear is not the way, save for rich people with no time to do the brain work.... |
One thing is for sure the digital, or turntable is the most critical part of any Audio system
I am not sure of that at all... Take the best digital of the world or the best turntable and put them in a bad room....I just listen to that in youtube.....My 500 bucks system is better... Even without the best digital or turntable, only with an average not too bad and relatively good gear like mine BUT in a controlled acoustic, i prefer my system to many 100 times costlier... Then.... I will repeat muself think acoustic..... Anyway who can afford the best turntable or the best dac? Anyone can afford a very good room at peanut cost .... It is my experience.... |
Give me any relatively good speakers and relatively good source and amplifier, like mine which cost me 500 bucks, i will make them sound very good.... Why and how?
Nobody listen to "signals", we listen to the speakers/room interaction with our " 2 ears, and the timing difference between the 2 frontwaves coming from each speaker will made the perceptive experience heaven or hell or all in between...
Audio is about 3 things: decreasing the electrical noise floor, controlling the vibrations/resonance problem but MAINLY passive room treatment AND more importantly active room controls....
If you want to know if your room is good, listen to The Three penny opera 1958 by Kurt Weill with Lotte Lenya and if you could listen the orchestra playing in front of you, seating in front of your speakers, but the singers voices coming from your back wall where there is no speakers, your room is under acoustic controls....If not, buying a cable AT ANY PRICE will not give you this nor buying most tweaks or a costly dac or amplifier.... Acoustic is key....
I will not speak about voice timbre or instrumental timbre which sound unnatural even in many very costly systems or very tweaked one i listen to...
Then in audio forget price, think acoustic....
And audio is not about "taste" but about acoustic....
|
