Pano is entitled to his "preference", of course, but the implication that the majority of people agree with it was a little bit too much.
Perhaps both Pano and I overstepped what we meant to say.
Last edited:
Its difficult to agree on facts, it is impossible to agree on opinions. I'll stick with the facts and pass on the opinions.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I meant the subjectivism and personal opinions/experiences are what makes the discussions difficult. There's such a need to defend own decisions.
I loose interest when that happens.
Gedlee,
I guess what I am getting at is that with different speakers we may in fact want to absorb some of the side wall reflections and even a floor bounce if the directivity of the particular speaker demands this. It is just something that seems to need individual attention to the polar response of the device in question. Now if you know intimately a speaker system such as your own you have an understanding of their in room response and directivity and as you said you don't do anything for the floor or ceiling reflections, nor the side walls. In that case I think it would be wise for someone to take your advice. it is a known entity that you can make a recommendation based on facts known to you. Now if it was one of the round waveguides that others have I may disagree with that same setup as I would probably be bothered with the strong floor reflection and could use a rug to damp that. It is very dependent on the room and speaker interaction what may be necessary to get the quality of sound that we are after. The dimensions of the room and the placement of the speakers will change many factors and what we want to do to that room to minimize particular problems like a to close rear wall to the listening position.
I guess what I am getting at is that with different speakers we may in fact want to absorb some of the side wall reflections and even a floor bounce if the directivity of the particular speaker demands this. It is just something that seems to need individual attention to the polar response of the device in question. Now if you know intimately a speaker system such as your own you have an understanding of their in room response and directivity and as you said you don't do anything for the floor or ceiling reflections, nor the side walls. In that case I think it would be wise for someone to take your advice. it is a known entity that you can make a recommendation based on facts known to you. Now if it was one of the round waveguides that others have I may disagree with that same setup as I would probably be bothered with the strong floor reflection and could use a rug to damp that. It is very dependent on the room and speaker interaction what may be necessary to get the quality of sound that we are after. The dimensions of the room and the placement of the speakers will change many factors and what we want to do to that room to minimize particular problems like a to close rear wall to the listening position.
Please read these again:
..and his immediate follow-up post:
I can't find an implication that "the majority of people" agree with his preference.
In context with Omholt's quote - he isn't making a statement of "this is it".
Instead he arguing that Omholt's argument is contrary to his own findings.
..and that's just in his first post!
-the second post just goes on to further explain his own findings.
There is nothing there to suggest any "over-stepping" on his part, OTHER than perhaps saying that: "Both are better than no treatment at all" - but that wasn't what you objected to.
Moreover it doesn't excuse the wide-sweeping "under-cutting" comment even if you had been correct.
A few things in this game I've learnt so far: the key one is that is that the ear/brain is incredibly forgiving of, tolerant of, technically "bad things" if you give it half a chance. In over 25 years I never fiddled with bits of the room to make my audio system sound better, because it's dead obvious to me whether the sound emerging from the speakers, the direct sound, is in decent shape or not. And if it's not then all this room treatment palaver is just band-aiding after the fact; the horse has already bolted.
So, very simple: get the direct sound right ... listen to that as exclusively as you can ... if it sounds not quite right, not "natural", then IME you will just go round and round in circles trying to "fix" it, the SQ, using the room ...
Frank
So, very simple: get the direct sound right ... listen to that as exclusively as you can ... if it sounds not quite right, not "natural", then IME you will just go round and round in circles trying to "fix" it, the SQ, using the room ...
Frank
Frank,
The saying would be you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. The same goes for a poor sounding speaker, the room isn't going to make it sound good if it sounds bad anywhere.
The saying would be you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. The same goes for a poor sounding speaker, the room isn't going to make it sound good if it sounds bad anywhere.
I think IMP and such speakers under the same category sound much better in a room than without it 😉
That is how I read "By whom? Not by me or many people I know."
Maybe thats just my "perception"!
Last edited:
Except that I never said this, because I do null out the floor and ceiling bounce. There is nothing positive that comes from reflections in the verticle plane. They don;t add spaciousness or anything else that could be argued as positive. They need to be removed.
The issue is that science takes precidence over opinion - and I know not many here will agree with that, but that is my position. Let opinions rule the designs and things are sure to run amuck. Stick with design parameters that are based in the science and the design will be a success. I don't see that in conflict with anything that you are saying. There are scientific reasons for all you state.
much agreed, but I think theres a time, once your totally satisfied with the sound you have, to start treating the room, but not the other way around. If you are not satisfied with the sound of your ssytem, I doubt that the room treatment will change anything to a degree where you can then determine that the problem was the room, and not the speakers? I think that would be pushing it...
How can a necessarily small cluster of friends, relatives, etc.. equal "the majority of people"?
.. never-mind, I think you are starting to understand the problem.
-as an on-topic comment I can understand an actual *objective* objection - potentially depending on a number of factors.
Ex..I am not getting enough bass?
(..oddly though I object to genelec's objection as seen in their "avoid" graph. 😀 )
Gedlee,
I thought that you said your floor and ceiling was a hard surface, so I guess I misinterpreted that to mean that they were not treated. I guess we all read things into statements that aren't there, assumptions.
I thought that you said your floor and ceiling was a hard surface, so I guess I misinterpreted that to mean that they were not treated. I guess we all read things into statements that aren't there, assumptions.
"In other words, you cannot "EQ a room" " I would think that was obvious to anyone with a grounding in the very basics of signal processing.
There's better understanding here; in another forum the concept of getting good sound without treating the room was considered as being in the same realm as walking on water ... 🙂
I have been in some heavily treated listening rooms, and very bizarre places they are too, acoustically ... can't wait to get back to normality ... I'll take the good sound, hold the treatment, waiter ...
Frank
Funny that for many people the claim "we have invested millions of dollars into research" seems to equate to "Audyssey is the best room correction system".