OK, for the third time, it is coming from the extremely reverberant field at and behind the listener. An ETC will not tell you "where" it is coming from.
Markus is a perfectionist. If it is not perfect then its not done and in general incomplete and not an answer. There is no grey area or "good start".
See, its not perfect so it is "rather limited". Markus we are clearly using different scale here. I don't see how one can read Blauerts book (one of the many I might add, or try Brian Moore) and come away saying that "our knowledge in that field is rather limited".
It would tell me "when" which is of value (for me). We could investigate the "where" later
I live (and listen) with "grey" and "good start" every day but I don't need to stop there, do I? You say "perfect is the enemy of good", I say "good is the enemy of great".
Let me set out by complimenting Soundtrackmixer with his ideas on this issue. What we really need is a standard room for mixing music. Too many variations between albums to do without some sort of tone control, certainly on the low end. And I can understand how frustrating it must be to carefully calibrate a room, just to find out that you need tone control because recording studios have such widely differing standards.
What I like to add to this is that it should become forbidden by broadcasters to modify in any way the music they are putting into the air. Digital radio in the Netherlands is pretty good, but some stations easily bump the bass with what must be well over 3dB. And some compress to sound the loudest. This is a violation of artistic integrity as well as an annoyance to the listeners, so it should be stopped.
Then on the quote of Earl and on his earlier posts on rooms. The problem I think is not a lack of understanding of psychoacoustics. Try to wrap your brain around Blauerts 'Spacial Hearing', and you know what I mean. The real problem for loudspeaker builders and installers is: how to integrate this knowledge into what they do? The best ones know it, although there are still many roads that lead to Rome.
An example of this is the speakers Earl designs and the room treatment that works best. I think his approach is valid and although I have never heard one of his speakers, I have heard of them in a positive way. With this approach, it is possible to have a horizontal and vertical window within which the FR remains fairly constant. However, what eminates from the rest of the enclosure should be considered garbage; it is not part of the design criteria to get this right. You don't want all this hash reflected into the room, hence the beneficial effect of placing them on the dead end.
For speakers that are designed to be omni's, it is a design criterium that the sound emanating from all sides of the speaker should be of the same quality. This means that reflections from a reflective surface behind the speakers is similar to the direct sound field, and this is where the Haas effect will take over. It just disappears because your ear-brain system cannot register it.
My own prototype loudspeakers are at 90 degrees off axis still flat up till 10K, and at 180 degrees, so from behind, they are still excellent. I play them about 1 meter off a hard wall without any ill effects. Super-imaging.
Last edited:
This is really at the heart of my "pragmatic" approach. What we know we should do is far enough from what we are able to do that hypothesizing on the "ideal" looses interest for me. Use the psychoacoustics as much to tell you what not to bother doing as trying to get it all perfect. Go for the "bang for the buck" (sorry Markus, not your ideal, I know.
)
The chase after perfection can often lead to paralysis. Been there, done that.
Hi,
In December 2012 issue of JAES, Volume 60, No12, there is an article titled: “The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments”, R. King, B. Leonard and G. Sikora.
A pool of 26 professional recording and mixing engineers from Montreal area, editors, producers, educators and students of graduate program were asked to do a basic mixing of solo soprano and background pre-recorded orchestra in three environments: (1) laterally diffused, (2) with lateral absorption and (3) with lateral reflections.
In a follow-up comments, the subjects were asked: which acoustic treatment created the best listening conditions for mixing.
Eight subjects decided, that was Diffusion.
Seven subjects decided, that is was Absorption.
Eleven subjects decided, that it was Reflection.
Three roads lead to Rome?.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
In December 2012 issue of JAES, Volume 60, No12, there is an article titled: “The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments”, R. King, B. Leonard and G. Sikora.
A pool of 26 professional recording and mixing engineers from Montreal area, editors, producers, educators and students of graduate program were asked to do a basic mixing of solo soprano and background pre-recorded orchestra in three environments: (1) laterally diffused, (2) with lateral absorption and (3) with lateral reflections.
In a follow-up comments, the subjects were asked: which acoustic treatment created the best listening conditions for mixing.
Eight subjects decided, that was Diffusion.
Seven subjects decided, that is was Absorption.
Eleven subjects decided, that it was Reflection.
Three roads lead to Rome?.
Best Regards,
Bohdan
It is really hard to know if I am upset, or just stunned at some of the statements you have made.
There are Engineers in SMPTE that have a very good understanding of psychoacoustics, that I can assure.
High resolution room analysis. Room treatments(not foam), and a high performance room correction system like Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 pro.
Going back a bit (sorry, I've been on the road and busy)
I've noticed here and in some other threads people complaining about the dismal sound at the local cinemas. That's really too bad.
I've certainly worked in and sat in some pretty dire cinemas - usually a lack of maintenance and calibration. Luckily for me, there are several decent sounding cinemas here in town, and one big, fancy new multiplex that is superb. They don't even run it too loud, a common problem.The sound and image in the new pace are so darn good I can go and get my money's worth just with that, the movie is almost secondary.
Just shows what you can do if you want to. Alas they have built in a not so great part of town, so it may not last. I'll take it while I can.
The newest thing I am seeing in the theaters now are shakers under the seats to give a low frequency effect without having to actually get that low. In the multiplexes it is a real drag when you can hear the low frequencies bleeding in from the next screen over or even multiple screens over. Some of the surround speakers just don't have the fidelity of the systems behind the screen, it is a real mixed bag from one theater to another even in the same chain of theaters.
Deward, Scott. Thanks for the thoughfull replies. It helps me understand the issue a bit better.
Easy, I know what I've heard and I know what I prefer. How hard is that?
So I have to deny what I've heard with my own hears, and the opinions of people I know and trust, just because you or Floyd say so? No, that doesn't work for me. I certainly take it into consideration, but I don't agree with it.
It's an old and unresolved debate dating back to what? The 70s, 80s? It may simply depend on personal taste, or types of speakers, or both. It's not a hard and fast rule or a law.
Pano,
It all is what we like and enjoy that is all that is important when the music comes on. I go back to most studio control rooms I have been in and the speakers are in the soffit around and above the window looking into the studio, the live end for sure and the back wall is very well damped.
It reminds me of the looks I first got from people when I put my sound system in one of my cars. It was all in the back deck, nothing else in the front or the sides. Two 10" cones, two 6 1/2" cones in horns and 2 1" domes with waveguides all firing at the rear window. It didn't take long to get use to the sound that way, much more coherent than speakers all over the place, like in the doors by your knees and highs many feet away in the dash, that never sounded great to me. We all seem to find our own way to what gives us the sound we like.
It all is what we like and enjoy that is all that is important when the music comes on. I go back to most studio control rooms I have been in and the speakers are in the soffit around and above the window looking into the studio, the live end for sure and the back wall is very well damped.
It reminds me of the looks I first got from people when I put my sound system in one of my cars. It was all in the back deck, nothing else in the front or the sides. Two 10" cones, two 6 1/2" cones in horns and 2 1" domes with waveguides all firing at the rear window. It didn't take long to get use to the sound that way, much more coherent than speakers all over the place, like in the doors by your knees and highs many feet away in the dash, that never sounded great to me. We all seem to find our own way to what gives us the sound we like.
You've said "I can tell you how consistent the results are from room to room". I guess you are talking about MultEQ. Just because the measured in-room response is consistent from room to room, this doesn't mean the audible results are. Our hearing isn't a FFT. MultEQ is a minimum phase based solution but room responses aren't minimum phase (they tend to be at lower frequencies though). Or better said, a room's acoustic behavior isn't a linear, time-invariant system.
Here's a good read from Dirac that tries to explain the problem in layman's terms:
http://www.dirac.se/media/12044/on_room_correction.pdf
P.S. Nobody knows how Audyssey derives the inversion filters, it's their IP. What we know is that they ignore speaker directivity and that can be problematic.
Last edited:
I didn't read Dirac paper but they software doesn't work. Subjective opinion of course. The main problem is blurring of phantom images. For reference i have big in-wall system with controlled directivity to ca 450hz. I didnt find yet a way to eq /i try both minimum and linear phase approach/ in-room response without negative side effect - not even in deepest bass.
Its quite complex problematic
Its quite complex problematic
