outing
When I moved to a new empty home, '988, music was inascoltable. I began to full the room whit adsorbers, a lot of adsorbers panels, to listen only what recorded. Bad listening.
Probably excellent sound engineers create audio for typical systems, in typical rooms, for typical listening.
So I left panels only for first reflections and it was really a better solution.
In 2013 I tried a diffractor 4 m ^ 2 large, and I'm excited about it. At the moment I am preparing a listening room in my daughter's house, hoping to use my experiences (and yours
).
When I moved to a new empty home, '988, music was inascoltable. I began to full the room whit adsorbers, a lot of adsorbers panels, to listen only what recorded. Bad listening.
Probably excellent sound engineers create audio for typical systems, in typical rooms, for typical listening.
So I left panels only for first reflections and it was really a better solution.
In 2013 I tried a diffractor 4 m ^ 2 large, and I'm excited about it. At the moment I am preparing a listening room in my daughter's house, hoping to use my experiences (and yours
).
Oh, thank you, that may explain why the 2nd is available as a download, no excuse for anyone not to read it
It’s an indispensable book but I share Earl Geddes’ criticism that Toole is - like too many audiophiles - biased against studio work. I can’t imagine this bias has lessened any in a 3rd edition.
I find it very interesting that portable, high bitrate digital recorders are readily available and in-ear binaural mics can be had rather inexpensively, yet when it comes down to it, very few symphonic re-creationists seem all that enthusiastic about the most pragmatic approach to that which is their stated goal.
I find it very interesting that portable, high bitrate digital recorders are readily available and in-ear binaural mics can be had rather inexpensively, yet when it comes down to it, very few symphonic re-creationists seem all that enthusiastic about the most pragmatic approach to that which is their stated goal.
I think so as well, but I was in a bit of a mood last night, and was concerned I might have been less than tactful if I'd gone much further. He obviously didn't learn any geometry in school.
It's often prudent to use a little self reflection and consider that maybe there is something one does not yet understand. Engineering demands such self reflection on a regular basis even after being a practitioner of the same discipline for many decades. That's why I enjoy RF/microwave and audio/acoustic engineering so much, there's something new to learn around every corner.
Everyone is biased I think, I'm more interested in the psychoacoustics that are common to us all and that can be shown to exist through tests. Preferences are personal, it's interesting how much they vary though.
Do you have a link? I have V2 in hardcopy but having a digital copy would be handy too. Cheers.Oh, thank you, that may explain why the 2nd is available as a download, no excuse for anyone not to read it
Just listened to klipsch heresy 3 at $2000. Not my cup of tea...well the midrange sounds Honky horny and the high frequency sounds bright on a some audio tracks. I'd rather spend my money on a $2000 pair of 3 way kefs before actually spending money on a low end horn system. The only horn like system I've heard are those eleiptical wave guides that allow tweeters to blend into the midrange down to 1000 hz. Maybe a reasonable wave guide like system but definitely not a cheap horn system.
For me the advantage of this method is the opportunity to make the room sound better than it is in reality...
That is certainly true. They want to sell records. Audiophile record engineers probably target systems that tend toward better quality though they'd go broke if only people with well treated rooms and very directive speakers were their entire market. Any recording is produced using judgement of someone's ears in some room, these aren't complete objectively stored acoustic events, they are artistic product.
Thanks Scott. For personal reasons I won't use gooooooogle and it didn't show in the other search engine I use.
No, I got it thanks. It's just that I won't use it as a first preference, but if a resource I need is available, I'll use it. Sorry I wasn't clear.
I made 2 quick mp3 files to highlight the difference. Both started with an open source piano recording. Both have the same amount of artificial reverb added. One (longitudinal) has the reverb hitting both ears at the same time and level, as if the reverb came from a point along the center line of the performance (front wall, for example). The other (lateral) has the reverb hitting the ears with differing intensities (but the same total intensity as the longitudinal file), mimicking sidewall reflections.
This isn't really for determining a preference. This is just to show which is interpreted by our brains as adding more spaciousness.
-you can use a metasearch engine, and then just have it search g00gle.
ex. (scroll down to my preference):
eTools.ch - Preferences
I think it still does geo-location (current setting as "world"), so it's not going to be the same for certain things as a local setting, but whey I did Scott's search it was pretty much the same (..with everything but g00gle disabled).
Yes, the good producers know the audiophile market's preferences. I'm surprised to know that many of audiophile accepted reference recordings tend to have more reverb in general. Well, that why I recommended to add digital reverb if one thinks his records are too dry. I know it is against typical audiophile ethics, but it works.