Yes, acoustics will make a huge difference to qualities of the sound. And people who are very sensitive to those aspects will react strongly to those elements which reduce intelligibility, or add confusion. But that is not what I'm looking for, it's the quality of Pano's 'aliveness' that I'm chasing - which remains, is consistent, largely irrespective of the acoustics. A system playing in an anechoic chamber, which irritates with sibilance distortion, will also be picked up as being 'faulty', in the same way, in a concrete walled box ...
I phrased the earlier post poorly ... the "bad" replay will not reveal the lower level details properly no matter how well the listener 'knows' the recording - as an intellectual exercise, one can dissect the sound using concentration and focus, like dealing with a crossword. But that's not the reason I listen to music ...
Personally, I find that nearly all recordings come "alive" when the system works well enough - little idiosyncrasies and subtle touches that musicians can't stop themselves making are revealed, and one can 'see' the creative process in action. Perversely, the worst offenders I find are the 'audiophile' recordings - they have an air of sterility about them, as if they were done in a germ-free environment ...
I phrased the earlier post poorly ... the "bad" replay will not reveal the lower level details properly no matter how well the listener 'knows' the recording - as an intellectual exercise, one can dissect the sound using concentration and focus, like dealing with a crossword. But that's not the reason I listen to music ...
Personally, I find that nearly all recordings come "alive" when the system works well enough - little idiosyncrasies and subtle touches that musicians can't stop themselves making are revealed, and one can 'see' the creative process in action. Perversely, the worst offenders I find are the 'audiophile' recordings - they have an air of sterility about them, as if they were done in a germ-free environment ...
Again, it's arguable that the listening room acoustics are the weakest link in many systems, and they can be worked with and improved in most cases. A good speaker designer will anticipate potential problems, and design accordingly. A good stereo salesman will know when a certain type of speaker won't work well in the customers listening room, and advise accordingly.
If you run pink noise through your speakers and move a calibrated mic around the room to different locations, you'll notice that room acoustics devastate the frequency response of a very accurate speaker in a typical listening room, especially smaller rooms. To some extent our brains can compensate for gradual anomalies. That's one issue. Another is the psycho-acoustic effects of the different time delays of the reflections. Those vary quite a bit depending on the delay. For example, according to David Griesinger of Lexicon, delays between 50mS and 150mS will be particularly detrimental to intelligibility. Open baffle speakers have to be out from the wall at least 3 feet (for > 6mS delay of the reflected wave) or the psycho-acoustic effect is negative, rather than positive. There's plenty more to know about the psycho-acoustic effects of different delays. The listening room brings all of this and more into play. If your room sounds good to you, that's great. Many rooms are not so good.
If you run pink noise through your speakers and move a calibrated mic around the room to different locations, you'll notice that room acoustics devastate the frequency response of a very accurate speaker in a typical listening room, especially smaller rooms. To some extent our brains can compensate for gradual anomalies. That's one issue. Another is the psycho-acoustic effects of the different time delays of the reflections. Those vary quite a bit depending on the delay. For example, according to David Griesinger of Lexicon, delays between 50mS and 150mS will be particularly detrimental to intelligibility. Open baffle speakers have to be out from the wall at least 3 feet (for > 6mS delay of the reflected wave) or the psycho-acoustic effect is negative, rather than positive. There's plenty more to know about the psycho-acoustic effects of different delays. The listening room brings all of this and more into play. If your room sounds good to you, that's great. Many rooms are not so good.
I haven't yet seen it mentioned in this thread, but I think it is important for everyone to know about the passing of Jean-Michel Le Cléac’h yesterday (see post 1673). Jean-Michel has provided so much technical assistance and inspiration to so many of us in the audio community. I am deeply saddened and will miss seeing his contributions. May he rest in peace.
Last edited:
Jean-Michel was and is a huge influence and inspiration to me. With his blessing and support I made JMLC horns for people round the world for 14 yrs. I feel very sad. Yesterday I played Sonny Rollins on my new big160Hz JMLC horns 1.2m long, 950mm mouth, 18mm throat, T=1 (LM555 drivers), as pure and as loud as Sonny played it. Thank you Jean-Michel.
martin
martin
Yes,
It is true that the acoustics are a very weak link.
However, they are in the hands of the individual and not readily designed for except in rare circumstances.
Also, they are still open to much debate.
I, for example, would prefer 10 mS of ITD gap.
Disagree
Really? You wish to add reflections in order to degrade intelligibility ?
Over the past few years I have learned [that] audiophiles differ greatly in what they (each) consider natural playback. For me, personally, I do not like any reflections at all, or at least I minimize them as much as possible.
For this very reason, open baffles just aren't for me. As far as "spaciousness"
if it is there in the recording, that's all I need. Again though, I must reiterate, to each their own. Happy listening.
Really? You wish to add reflections in order to degrade intelligibility ?
Over the past few years I have learned [that] audiophiles differ greatly in what they (each) consider natural playback. For me, personally, I do not like any reflections at all, or at least I minimize them as much as possible.
For this very reason, open baffles just aren't for me. As far as "spaciousness"
if it is there in the recording, that's all I need. Again though, I must reiterate, to each their own. Happy listening.
I see this 50-150 delay affecting intelligibility, actually almost on a daily basis. Between our Samsung LCD in the living room which is digitally processed which adds delay in this range and our sons old Sony 27"CRT which is analog with an external tuner and no processing and no long delays. Becomes ever more so difficult to understand dialog the closer you approach his room down the hall. If outside his room nothing can be understood, like if your in the bathroom across the hall while trying to listen to the news. One or the other must be turned way down or off (my preference)
In the living room as the other TV's volume increases it corrupts dialog. From the master bedroom it adds a lot of spaciousness (too much IMHO) with less corruption of the dialog, but still negatively affected.
In the living room as the other TV's volume increases it corrupts dialog. From the master bedroom it adds a lot of spaciousness (too much IMHO) with less corruption of the dialog, but still negatively affected.
So you like listening in an anechoic chamber? That's generally not believed to be a good listening environment. Use headphones.
Most researchers would agree that all reflections after 20 ms are good. People like Toole believe that they are all good. The only grey area IMO is the 0-20 ms range and if these are good things or not. There are widely differing opinions on that.
But I would like to state again that I see no reason to lump "intelligibility" (which is a clearly defined psychoacoustic measure) with "sound quality". There is no scientific relationship between the two (its likely inverse if it exists at all.) Great auditoriums do not strive for great intelligibility - that's for a classroom. Dual purpose rooms strive for a compromise between these two opposing things and often have measures to enhance and degrade the early reflections on demand for just this purpose.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's the problem with beliefs, they might be wrong
A headphone based binaural loudspeaker renderer would be really helpful. We could listen within any room acoustics, even eliminate speaker crosstalk. Would help in finding out which beliefs should be kept and which to trash.
according to David Griesinger of Lexicon, delays between 50mS and 150mS will be particularly detrimental to intelligibility.
Griesinger was, and may still be the top engineer at Lexicon when it comes to reverb design. He's also done a huge amount of recording in various halls all over the world, using every imaginable technique. He is one of the most knowledgable engineers in the world on this stuff. Google his name and check out his many papers. If intelligability is blurred, why wouldn't you think the music would be blurred also?
I completely agree with this. 100%
When I was building my room over ten years ago I emailed several people that had built a listening room and some we're listening in near Anechoic conditions..
Reducing all reflections sound best to me..
It is possible that "live sound" for home audio simply became popular without justification and many followed that idea without trying the opposite..
My experiences for live sound has changed as well.. I attended several shows at the Sony Center and the hall acoustics creates a direct focused sound with minimal reflections and sounds wonderful..Massey hall with all the reflections sounds ridiculous..
Wireless world had an article that explored this back in the 80s. A friend and I had a discussion about how the body cavity plays a part in our experience, not just the ears. I had been considering an audio chair, and a series of discussions just gave me an idea.Yeah, that's the problem with beliefs, they might be wrong
Going back through my memory of various rooms, it seems to me the reason why anechoic rooms may not be preferred for normal listening is that low frequency extension at the right SPL is insufficient, the room generally resonates enough to stimulate our body cavities, but if the lower frequencies are not produced well enough, we do not feel the total natural experience under anechoic conditions. Additionally, in an anechoic chamber, we normally do not feel the delayed sound we are accustomed to when we speak, so we feel very insecure with lack of surrounding queues which also influences our perception. However, if we get calmed down, eyes closed so that we do not see the room, like in meditation, then we can listen more carefully and appreciate a good experience.
Speakers are designed to make use of the room. No speakers are designed for anechoic chamber. Bring your speaker to 2mx2m room and it will be boomy. Bring the speaker to the yard (or anechoic chamber) and there will be no bass.
Congratulation!
In less than perfect system we often have too much compromises.
We all have a different view on this it seems
For me the visual impression of an acoustic environment must at least fairly well match the actual acoustics. My take on why is that the visual information is used by the brain when interpreting what is actually heard. A bedroom sounding like cathedral makes as little sense as the opposite! This does not mean that there aren't good and bad rooms, or rather room integrations. I usually try to get rid of early reflections and work with placement etc to avoid the worst resonances in the low end, ie, work with the room, not against it. In small rooms I many times prefer not to have too much low end extension, 20-20k can sound weird in a room that can hardly fit a 100Hz wavelength. And btw, I'm not a big fan of earphones
BR,
Anders
For me the visual impression of an acoustic environment must at least fairly well match the actual acoustics. My take on why is that the visual information is used by the brain when interpreting what is actually heard. A bedroom sounding like cathedral makes as little sense as the opposite! This does not mean that there aren't good and bad rooms, or rather room integrations. I usually try to get rid of early reflections and work with placement etc to avoid the worst resonances in the low end, ie, work with the room, not against it. In small rooms I many times prefer not to have too much low end extension, 20-20k can sound weird in a room that can hardly fit a 100Hz wavelength. And btw, I'm not a big fan of earphones
BR,
Anders