ShinOBIWAN, DRC can help to some extent. But only getting your room right will help you in hearing the original undistorted signal.
You get a much better result by retaining the right order of necessary measures. Top priority is a uniform indirect soundfield. And that starts by applying absorption for low frequencies and not for mid and high frequencies. When you're now starting to apply a foil to your construction it will become more reflective to higher frequencies but then you would have been better off in using the fiberglass for bass absorption in the rooms corners right from the start.
Best, Markus
You get a much better result by retaining the right order of necessary measures. Top priority is a uniform indirect soundfield. And that starts by applying absorption for low frequencies and not for mid and high frequencies. When you're now starting to apply a foil to your construction it will become more reflective to higher frequencies but then you would have been better off in using the fiberglass for bass absorption in the rooms corners right from the start.
Best, Markus
ShinOBIWAN , don't get tricked by Ethan Winers comb filtering demo! Humans still have two ears instead of one microphone. Our hearing is highly specialised in processing multiple reflections in time. Otherwise a human speaker would sound highly colored when walking around in a room. But there's no coloration at all. And this is why DRC has strong limitation because we can distinguish the direct sound from indirect sound whereas a microphone or a DRC system can't. So Ethans demo only shows the importance of eliminating reflections when recording a sound source. Nothing more.
I strongly believe that coloration in stereophony is only a problem if the frequency response of the speaker (because of poor design or DRC) and the indirect sound is distorted (e.g. absorbers that are not linear) or room reflections give the wrong spatial cues. There's a lot of evidence to that in the current literature.
Best, Markus
I strongly believe that coloration in stereophony is only a problem if the frequency response of the speaker (because of poor design or DRC) and the indirect sound is distorted (e.g. absorbers that are not linear) or room reflections give the wrong spatial cues. There's a lot of evidence to that in the current literature.
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
Markus,
The demonstration serves its purpose even if exaggerated. Comb filtering exists and is audible. Our brains aren't quite the magical thing you make out. The harder our brains have to work the less believeable the experience which is already a big ask given that its already extending a lot of faith to believe the sounds from a loudspeaker are real.
To illustrate take a look at these raw unsmoothed measurements I made with the speakers setup in exactly the same positions as shown in the new design but without any treatments.
For reference and to give an idea of how much the room influences the loudspeaker here the loudspeakers measured, on axis and from 200hz up in semi anechoic conditions(measured outside). Both left and right loudspeakers measure within 0.5dB of each other under these testing conditions. Note that 1/24th octave smoothing is applied.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is in room from the listening position with no correction. Note the tilted high end response and comb filtering from 1Khz up.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is the same as the above but with DRC. Note it does nothing to fix the comb filtering whatsoever. This is how correct DRC should be done, very gently and not brute force trying to correct every detail.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here is an overlay of the two graphs. Note that the overall shapes are shapes correspond but the peaks and dips on the bottom end have been smoothed subtly for the DRC. The top end is largely unchanged except that the boost from sidewall reflections is now calmed.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have no doubt that once the treatments are in place that you'll see the comb filtering reduced. If you think only the microphone picks up on this stuff and, should our brains be able to visably plot what we're hearing, it would be largely irrelevant then here's a test for you.
Take a recording along with some editing package such Waves, Sonar or whatever and add a series of very high Q deep notches spread closely throughout the 1Khz+ range in much the same way as the plots show above. Then playback, through headphones, the edited vs. unedited. No contest and its completely audible in a direct A/B. Our brains didn't magically make the edited version sound like the unedited.
If you provide your email I'd be happy to mail you two 30mb FLAC files illustrating this.
People say its not audible but that's simply false. I can move my ear closer to the wall whilst music is playing and very clearly hear comb filtering increase. Anyone with a small room will be hearing what I'm showing here. You just don't realise how much influence it has until its lessened.
We can't distinguish between reflected and direct sound when the time interval is too short, Alton Everest suggests <20ms. Hence why speakers placed close to sidewalls suffer poor imaging. Same goes for us at the listening position too. Relatively broadband treatment is essential here.
BTW some 'current literature' dates back to the 60's or earlier where nobody had even heard of treatments let alone DRC of the standard we're at today. The hifi industry needs a good kick up the backside, there's so much looking back to the glory days of the past and usually through rose tinted glasses. People say digital is killing audio, I say the resistance to digital is killing it.
I remember hifi in the 80's it was largely disappointing and guess what? 20+ years on and its still the same. Why? Because its the same old idea's.
Its sad for me to say this but the home theater market is far more interesting than 2 channel these days. I largely believe that this is because the types of folks interested in HT are very open to new idea's and technologies. The manufacturer's move with this and are generally more forward thinking for it too. And so the high end HT packs some impressive technology leading to great sound and continues to provide audible improvements through R&D. In comparison 2 channel hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, I see the same old conversations, idea's, resistance to idea's and pretty much the same sound too.
That's simply not true. We learned to ignore those reflections. Babies for example aren't able to localize correctly in closed spaces. There have been a lot of studies especially in Germany. Look up "precedence effect" (and it's not only the Haas effect as Everests book or the english Wikipedia might suggest). But there are virtually no studies on the effect that room reflections have on summing localization. So I'm cautious with generalized statements regarding first reflections.
Best, Markus
I thought we were talking about the audibility of comb filtering? But if you want to say that first reflections, when the loudspeakers are placed close to a wall, aren't to the detriment of sound and our brains can interpret two closely interleaved signals as distinct sources then I disagree.
What your saying flies in the face of practical experience with image and detail degradation due to side wall placement and reflections. If the case was otherwise, then those wouldn't suffer. You don't need to be empirical to come to the conclusion that brain can no longer distinguish between direct and reflected sound.
What your saying flies in the face of practical experience with image and detail degradation due to side wall placement and reflections. If the case was otherwise, then those wouldn't suffer. You don't need to be empirical to come to the conclusion that brain can no longer distinguish between direct and reflected sound.
ShinOBIWAN, what I said is that there are no studies what the effect on imaging is. On the other hand there's scientific proof that lateral reflections enhance speech intelligibility. So I'm just asking for the facts. And if there were hard facts then there wouldn't be all those competing concepts like LEDE, DEDE and more.
Comb filtering is of interest when recording but it's not a helpful observation when examining what happens when listening in close spaces.
Best, Markus
Comb filtering is of interest when recording but it's not a helpful observation when examining what happens when listening in close spaces.
Best, Markus
If its proof you want then you'll have to find that yourself. Though I doubt you'd believe measurements since this has already been done and you've made clear you prefer to place faith in our brain's own ability to divine calm from chaos. But I can suggest a subjective test that's more in keeping with your stance on this. Sit down in your listening position and have someone move your loudspeakers, whilst playing, away and towards the walls. Or even easier than that, play music and stand close to the rear or side wall then move into the room. No cookie for guessing which sounds best and the reasons for this.
As for LEDE etc. Properly executed Live end dead end or dead all around are both tackling reflections in situations where speakers or the listener is localised towards room boundaries so I fail to see your point? Other than that they're just a way of tuning a room. Each room deserves individual consideration but the aim is always the same - treat first reflections, lessen ringing and resonance. LEDE or whatever uses these same guidelines. In other words, don't treat first reflections and your accepting the rooms influence.
Regardless, throughout this chat I've been voicing concerns about my(key point there) small room acoustics, how to most effectively treat such a room within my constraints and, more recently, the effects of direct and reflected sound arriving within a short interval of each other to the detriment of imaging, detail and general fidelity.
To be succinct; There's no doubt in my mind that the brain absolutely cannot effectively filter nor distinguish multiple sounds sources arriving at our ear within a very short period of time. We already know that a common situation that causes this problem is when the listener and/or loudspeaker are near a boundary or wall. So I have to ask again, why on earth wouldn't you treat those area's in such a situation as mine. No really, I'd love to know because it just doesn't make sense to me.
Let's ignore the topic of comb filtering and DRC because this discussion has already got confused and diluted enough.
As for LEDE etc. Properly executed Live end dead end or dead all around are both tackling reflections in situations where speakers or the listener is localised towards room boundaries so I fail to see your point? Other than that they're just a way of tuning a room. Each room deserves individual consideration but the aim is always the same - treat first reflections, lessen ringing and resonance. LEDE or whatever uses these same guidelines. In other words, don't treat first reflections and your accepting the rooms influence.
Regardless, throughout this chat I've been voicing concerns about my(key point there) small room acoustics, how to most effectively treat such a room within my constraints and, more recently, the effects of direct and reflected sound arriving within a short interval of each other to the detriment of imaging, detail and general fidelity.
To be succinct; There's no doubt in my mind that the brain absolutely cannot effectively filter nor distinguish multiple sounds sources arriving at our ear within a very short period of time. We already know that a common situation that causes this problem is when the listener and/or loudspeaker are near a boundary or wall. So I have to ask again, why on earth wouldn't you treat those area's in such a situation as mine. No really, I'd love to know because it just doesn't make sense to me.
Let's ignore the topic of comb filtering and DRC because this discussion has already got confused and diluted enough.
I was talking about the precedence effect and not summing localization as I made already a statement about that in post #1729.
For the records: Summing localization occurs in a timeframe up to 1 ms (see Blauert). That means that all coherent sound signals arriving at the listeners position within that timeframe are perceived as one single sound event. We don't want summing localization distracted by having more than the intended signals from the speakers. Distracting signals can be very early reflections when the speakers or the listener are near to a wall (< 30 cm) or the speaker enclosure itself produces too much diffraction.
Best, Markus
For the records: Summing localization occurs in a timeframe up to 1 ms (see Blauert). That means that all coherent sound signals arriving at the listeners position within that timeframe are perceived as one single sound event. We don't want summing localization distracted by having more than the intended signals from the speakers. Distracting signals can be very early reflections when the speakers or the listener are near to a wall (< 30 cm) or the speaker enclosure itself produces too much diffraction.
Best, Markus
I never did advise to ignore absorption at first reflection points. What I said was that there are no studies that support this common believe, i.e. no objective data is available. But there are studies that proof the contrary (at least for lateral reflections) when it comes to speech intelligebility.
Another point was that absorption like the one on the side walls in your room will have a negative effect on the frequency response of the indirect sound because it dampens the mids and highs and not the low frequencies that need to be dampened in the first place in any room.
So I would concentrate to execute the list of necessary room treatment from the top. For example you'll have early diffraction artefacts (< 1 ms) from the cabinet between the speakers. That should be eliminated too to not disturb imaging. My personal opinion is that reflections from the side walls is the least critical acoustic problem in your room.
Best, Markus
Another point was that absorption like the one on the side walls in your room will have a negative effect on the frequency response of the indirect sound because it dampens the mids and highs and not the low frequencies that need to be dampened in the first place in any room.
So I would concentrate to execute the list of necessary room treatment from the top. For example you'll have early diffraction artefacts (< 1 ms) from the cabinet between the speakers. That should be eliminated too to not disturb imaging. My personal opinion is that reflections from the side walls is the least critical acoustic problem in your room.
Best, Markus
Got the framing completed this evening. Eventually the 75mm RW5 will sit in these and the fabric will be pulled around and then stuck in place with double sided sticky foam and staples.
Still not sure what to do with the rear of the room, there's a projector going on the wall there but other than that I think a 5" bass trap would make the most sense rather than a large diffuser.
So the framing on the rear wall is the next then after that will be painting the ceiling, walls and skirting boards and then the cabinet at the front of the room.
I've tried to get a decent shot of the Alcantara fabric but its not really doing it justice. Its a very soft material like suede but with a finer texture. Feels like mole skin if you've ever touched that. This is the lighter of the two colours I'll be using.
It should be reflective in the high frequencies since its not particularly open. You can blow through it but not as easily as say speaker grill fabric.
Still not sure what to do with the rear of the room, there's a projector going on the wall there but other than that I think a 5" bass trap would make the most sense rather than a large diffuser.
So the framing on the rear wall is the next then after that will be painting the ceiling, walls and skirting boards and then the cabinet at the front of the room.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I've tried to get a decent shot of the Alcantara fabric but its not really doing it justice. Its a very soft material like suede but with a finer texture. Feels like mole skin if you've ever touched that. This is the lighter of the two colours I'll be using.
It should be reflective in the high frequencies since its not particularly open. You can blow through it but not as easily as say speaker grill fabric.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
small rooms are always problematic no?, and what we get (in a lot of cases) in the old blighty are small rooms.
Soo, you need to emigrate! to, gee dunno, Aus? (we have bigger rooms over here)...and that way I can hear them heh heh.
Can I make a small suggestion? (esp given the photos and more importantly the reasoning behind the strategy)
How about splitting the thread and make it obvious that it is a room treatment and construction thread? I very nearly did not tune back into this thread (once the construction of the speakers is done there is only so many 'wows' and 'ooh ahhs' you can read) so I didn't realize a new round of info was appearing. The sheer volume of new posts however gave some sort of clue!
I think it vitally important that this type of data is considered by more people. I mean for gods sake the biggest contributor to the sound we get is speakers and speaker/room interaction.
And even here on a diy speaker forum all too often too many people forget about the room.
I no longer care about 'trying to change peoples opinion' but I find even here (at times in this thread) resistance to things like digital manipulation in the signal path interesting. I mean I don't really have a problem with someone electing to go that way, but all I usually see is someone 'concentrating' on the problems associated with that (either real or imagined) yet coupled with an unwillingness to look at any potential benefits it may bring, then applying a simple mathematical construct to determine whether you are more steps forward or more steps backward in the end.
"I investigated how much of a hit the extra adc had in the signal chain so I simply inserted it in the chain''....and observed that it was a hit of whatever magnitude. Really? OMG whoda thunk it? Didn't DO anything with it mind, just stuck an extra and unneeded converter in there and did nothing with it.
Why?, whats the point. The only reason (in this case) for the adc is so to be able to manipulate the signal to do something that could not otherwise be done. But no, we don't ever investigate the potential benefits that could bring, instead come to a conclusion that an extra stage in the chain (doing nothing) has a drawback. Gee, whoda thunk it.
So in reality it's all about the mindset..on the one hand we have the guys who investigate and weigh up the pros and cons (by listening mind) and decide if it's worth it for their system, and on the other the guys who only ever look at the negatives (real or imagined) and never check out what it ACTUALLY can or can't do. Usually done in the 'ivory tower' of their limited understanding.
Me? For me and my system and ears I'm in with shin.
Shin you are so right (IMO) when this stuff is looked at from a 'industry approved and pushed' perspective in 2 ch. You think there is some resistance to this stuff on this forum? Boy, try checking out a standard stereo forum!!! You know, where the tweaks and improvements are gotten from fifteen sets of ($100) isolators, or using the correct wood (canadian rock maple evidently
) for your stereo equipment rack to maximise the sound of your system.
I used to want to scream, now I just cry.
Anyway, rant over. I do think however that a seperate thread wpould allow this stuff the exposure it deserves.
Love your work shin, keep trailblazing for us eh?
Soo, you need to emigrate! to, gee dunno, Aus? (we have bigger rooms over here)...and that way I can hear them heh heh.
Can I make a small suggestion? (esp given the photos and more importantly the reasoning behind the strategy)
How about splitting the thread and make it obvious that it is a room treatment and construction thread? I very nearly did not tune back into this thread (once the construction of the speakers is done there is only so many 'wows' and 'ooh ahhs' you can read) so I didn't realize a new round of info was appearing. The sheer volume of new posts however gave some sort of clue!
I think it vitally important that this type of data is considered by more people. I mean for gods sake the biggest contributor to the sound we get is speakers and speaker/room interaction.
And even here on a diy speaker forum all too often too many people forget about the room.
I no longer care about 'trying to change peoples opinion' but I find even here (at times in this thread) resistance to things like digital manipulation in the signal path interesting. I mean I don't really have a problem with someone electing to go that way, but all I usually see is someone 'concentrating' on the problems associated with that (either real or imagined) yet coupled with an unwillingness to look at any potential benefits it may bring, then applying a simple mathematical construct to determine whether you are more steps forward or more steps backward in the end.
"I investigated how much of a hit the extra adc had in the signal chain so I simply inserted it in the chain''....and observed that it was a hit of whatever magnitude. Really? OMG whoda thunk it? Didn't DO anything with it mind, just stuck an extra and unneeded converter in there and did nothing with it.
Why?, whats the point. The only reason (in this case) for the adc is so to be able to manipulate the signal to do something that could not otherwise be done. But no, we don't ever investigate the potential benefits that could bring, instead come to a conclusion that an extra stage in the chain (doing nothing) has a drawback. Gee, whoda thunk it.
So in reality it's all about the mindset..on the one hand we have the guys who investigate and weigh up the pros and cons (by listening mind) and decide if it's worth it for their system, and on the other the guys who only ever look at the negatives (real or imagined) and never check out what it ACTUALLY can or can't do. Usually done in the 'ivory tower' of their limited understanding.
Me? For me and my system and ears I'm in with shin.
Shin you are so right (IMO) when this stuff is looked at from a 'industry approved and pushed' perspective in 2 ch. You think there is some resistance to this stuff on this forum? Boy, try checking out a standard stereo forum!!! You know, where the tweaks and improvements are gotten from fifteen sets of ($100) isolators, or using the correct wood (canadian rock maple evidently
) for your stereo equipment rack to maximise the sound of your system.I used to want to scream, now I just cry.
Anyway, rant over. I do think however that a seperate thread wpould allow this stuff the exposure it deserves.
Love your work shin, keep trailblazing for us eh?
Hi Terry,
I enjoyed reading your post and not just because we agree
Its amazes me just how detached some audio enthusiasts are. I'm talking about the ones you mentioned such as those into the very 'out there' tweaks that have little to no evidence of improvement other than in the minds eye. The only area in audio where I can relate to these people is our love of music, the rest is painful. Seeing folks swap out cables in order to improve a bass resonance or tame a harsh top end is an example. Its easy to see that these are very likely room related problem but yet they still trash around like a fish out of water trying to fix the problem with tweaks that offer an extremely marginal envelope of capability to bring improvement. I can only put this down to a lack of understanding of the real issues surround audio when viewed within the context of loudspeaker playing within a room.
On the flip side there's some very forward thinking people, much smarter than us, that completely ignore or dismiss DRC based on semantics and labcoat theory. Dig a little deeper and you generally find the dismissal is ultimately stemming from a lack first hand experience and, as you said, the fact that they're probably too smart for their own good ie. considering all negatives in purely theoretical manner and never practically investigating these negatives to see how they relate to their system, room and indeed, real life.
Then there are people who try DRC but find it to be worse than without. Its these people who I really want to chat with. You can try to discuss DRC with the "cables and shakti stone" audiophiles or the labcoat naysayer but they've either got far too big of a stake in anti-DRC to ever let it go(a case of cutting their nose off to spite their face if ever there was one) or they've already made their minds up really and your wasting breath for a large part of it. But the folks who've tried and had misfortune with DRC understand the reasoning behind it and often will give it another go providing you outline a different and better method. After all, if you don't like the sound of particular speaker, do you stop buying loudspeakers? No, you try another. Same goes with the various methods for DRC because they're not all created equal and its a fast moving field - what didn't work last year might this year.
I'll ask a mod to move the room related stuff to a new home to save mixing it up and diluting with the speaker info.
Ant
I enjoyed reading your post and not just because we agree
Its amazes me just how detached some audio enthusiasts are. I'm talking about the ones you mentioned such as those into the very 'out there' tweaks that have little to no evidence of improvement other than in the minds eye. The only area in audio where I can relate to these people is our love of music, the rest is painful. Seeing folks swap out cables in order to improve a bass resonance or tame a harsh top end is an example. Its easy to see that these are very likely room related problem but yet they still trash around like a fish out of water trying to fix the problem with tweaks that offer an extremely marginal envelope of capability to bring improvement. I can only put this down to a lack of understanding of the real issues surround audio when viewed within the context of loudspeaker playing within a room.
On the flip side there's some very forward thinking people, much smarter than us, that completely ignore or dismiss DRC based on semantics and labcoat theory. Dig a little deeper and you generally find the dismissal is ultimately stemming from a lack first hand experience and, as you said, the fact that they're probably too smart for their own good ie. considering all negatives in purely theoretical manner and never practically investigating these negatives to see how they relate to their system, room and indeed, real life.
Then there are people who try DRC but find it to be worse than without. Its these people who I really want to chat with. You can try to discuss DRC with the "cables and shakti stone" audiophiles or the labcoat naysayer but they've either got far too big of a stake in anti-DRC to ever let it go(a case of cutting their nose off to spite their face if ever there was one) or they've already made their minds up really and your wasting breath for a large part of it. But the folks who've tried and had misfortune with DRC understand the reasoning behind it and often will give it another go providing you outline a different and better method. After all, if you don't like the sound of particular speaker, do you stop buying loudspeakers? No, you try another. Same goes with the various methods for DRC because they're not all created equal and its a fast moving field - what didn't work last year might this year.
I'll ask a mod to move the room related stuff to a new home to save mixing it up and diluting with the speaker info.
Ant
thanks shin, tho you may agree I spose there would be a fair few who don't. And that's actually fine, I really don't have a prob with that. We all elect paths which we want to go down, from full range single drivers to huge multi channel monstrosities heh heh. Each to their own.
It really only bugs me when someone forms an a priori opinion and then sticks with that come heaven or hell.
You know what? I sense a great many of these people do not really have a love of music per se, they have a love of systems. My definition of an audiophile? Someone who has ten tracks that sound great on their system, change a cable (or whatnot) and then listen to the same ten tracks again hahaha.
OK, bit of a dig and bit of an exaggeration...but not by much sad to say. And if they play the eleventh track and it sounds rubbish, well then we get the mantra about those appalling professionals who couldn't ever mix an album properly......(as if they could do better of course)
I have mentioned this in the past so will not particularly repeat it here, but ever since I had my system tweaked with proper measurements etc the thing that has continually amazed me is that by far the great majority of recordings are so very much better actually than most systems can do justice to. OK, there are (read 'must by definition be') some bad recordings out there but no way as many as the moaning audiophiles would have a disinterested bystander believe. On basically any album I play now the soundstage is easily 120 degrees, with sounds coming from everywhere (don't need to play 'amused to death' to get that phenomenon)..and it's not an artificially wide soundstage either, vocals rock solid and dead centre etc etc.
So when I hear the whine of poor recordings (excluding the few that are truly bad) you can well imagine my thoughts.
That is so true. Again, each to their own (and I can understand a non-willingness on the part of someone) but DRC etc etc are not 'plug and play', it takes time and dedication to extract the best from it. Even the 'automated' ones can always be improved upon with experience and knowledge (within their own software I mean).
But when I hear stuff like 'I tried (insert own favorite here) it on my speakers and it couldn't even improve a twenty year old mid fi speakers' I think it fair enough to start by questioning their methods...apparently not according to some audiophiles. sigh. But still, having said that it's fair enough that some simply have zero interest in getting into it to that degree citing it's all too complicated (yet are able to hook up the rear of some of these HT AVRs...have you seen the back of some of them?? I go into a daze just looking at it!)
Yet these same blokes who take the 'first' (and only) attempt as justification in writing it off will proudly point out the complexity of their (insert high price name brand) speaker's x-over etc. Yeah, as if these dudes just cobbled together the perfect x-over on their first attempt based on a single set of measurements.
Just shows an unwillingness to think I reckon.
I mean I'm no whiz at all, so completely understand it. I'm having a heck of a lot of trouble getting an ambiophonic plug in into winamp!! It's driving me mad heh heh, so completely understand someone not feeling able to give it a whirl. (BTW, any tips on getting it into winamp much appreciated..got it in and running once, turned off the computer and it no longer comes up (still see it in the preferences mind...but that's for another thread. Hmm, maybe I should start one)
Good, hopefully it will stay in this section of the forums, else we who only visit the loudspeaker section will lose it. I vaguely recall a post or two of yours (ahh, remember where now) were your wish to speak your mind clashed with perceived conflicts as a role of a moderator....well I for one would rather your honest thoughts and opinions. The mods do a good job, but I'm glad you personally no longer have that restriction on your thoughts.
It really only bugs me when someone forms an a priori opinion and then sticks with that come heaven or hell.
ShinOBIWAN said:
You know what? I sense a great many of these people do not really have a love of music per se, they have a love of systems. My definition of an audiophile? Someone who has ten tracks that sound great on their system, change a cable (or whatnot) and then listen to the same ten tracks again hahaha.
OK, bit of a dig and bit of an exaggeration...but not by much sad to say. And if they play the eleventh track and it sounds rubbish, well then we get the mantra about those appalling professionals who couldn't ever mix an album properly......(as if they could do better of course)
I have mentioned this in the past so will not particularly repeat it here, but ever since I had my system tweaked with proper measurements etc the thing that has continually amazed me is that by far the great majority of recordings are so very much better actually than most systems can do justice to. OK, there are (read 'must by definition be') some bad recordings out there but no way as many as the moaning audiophiles would have a disinterested bystander believe. On basically any album I play now the soundstage is easily 120 degrees, with sounds coming from everywhere (don't need to play 'amused to death' to get that phenomenon)..and it's not an artificially wide soundstage either, vocals rock solid and dead centre etc etc.
So when I hear the whine of poor recordings (excluding the few that are truly bad) you can well imagine my thoughts.
That is so true. Again, each to their own (and I can understand a non-willingness on the part of someone) but DRC etc etc are not 'plug and play', it takes time and dedication to extract the best from it. Even the 'automated' ones can always be improved upon with experience and knowledge (within their own software I mean).
But when I hear stuff like 'I tried (insert own favorite here) it on my speakers and it couldn't even improve a twenty year old mid fi speakers' I think it fair enough to start by questioning their methods...apparently not according to some audiophiles. sigh. But still, having said that it's fair enough that some simply have zero interest in getting into it to that degree citing it's all too complicated (yet are able to hook up the rear of some of these HT AVRs...have you seen the back of some of them??
I go into a daze just looking at it!)Yet these same blokes who take the 'first' (and only) attempt as justification in writing it off will proudly point out the complexity of their (insert high price name brand) speaker's x-over etc. Yeah, as if these dudes just cobbled together the perfect x-over on their first attempt based on a single set of measurements.
Just shows an unwillingness to think I reckon.
I mean I'm no whiz at all, so completely understand it. I'm having a heck of a lot of trouble getting an ambiophonic plug in into winamp!! It's driving me mad heh heh, so completely understand someone not feeling able to give it a whirl. (BTW, any tips on getting it into winamp much appreciated..got it in and running once, turned off the computer and it no longer comes up (still see it in the preferences mind...but that's for another thread. Hmm, maybe I should start one)
Good, hopefully it will stay in this section of the forums, else we who only visit the loudspeaker section will lose it. I vaguely recall a post or two of yours (ahh, remember where now) were your wish to speak your mind clashed with perceived conflicts as a role of a moderator....well I for one would rather your honest thoughts and opinions. The mods do a good job, but I'm glad you personally no longer have that restriction on your thoughts.
If the speakers had zero distance to the side wall, no comb filtering would occur - or at least alot higher in frequency, since you cant have the acoustic centers directly at the wall so that a little distance allways remains. Maybe one could use wood to build a fake wall extension, that connects the real sidewall with the speaker sides, looking like a triangle from above. You could even cover it with absorber material for more effect.
Opinions are changing veeery slowly but I think as new generations of enthusiasts come in that will sift out the entrenched. A cycle of renewal if you like.
I've played around with ambiophonics. Interesting sound but you need to keep it confined to recordings of large acoustic spaces such as classic for best results. I tried it with some electronic dance and it was very weird.
Take a look at the page for instructions, I used method A to try it out
http://www.ambiophonics.org/Ambiofiles.htm
Its pretty easy to get going that way and all you have to do is configure where the sound is taken from and where its output. After that you can play with the settings to get different effects. I toned it down for a more subtle effect.
Thanks and your right, the mods do a great job around. That's why I bowed out because I couldn't keep up!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.