Well put, same here. I get frustrated though with the subjectivists that have no interest in the why, and seem even to take a perverse pleasure in muddying the waters, as if holding the magical secret, implying that only the select few can hear the difference/superiority of their approach.
Hahaha, I do share that same allergy 
.
However I'm equally frustrated by the pure objectivist that is rusted solid in his beliefs like it was demonstrated on the thread Pano and I talked about.
I like to keep an open mind, even if I fail at that miserably a lot of the times. I do try.
.However I'm equally frustrated by the pure objectivist that is rusted solid in his beliefs like it was demonstrated on the thread Pano and I talked about.
I like to keep an open mind, even if I fail at that miserably a lot of the times. I do try
.
Last edited:
Ahh yes , but I get equally frustrated over the group of so called objectivists, claiming that if you cannot measure a difference between item A and item B, there cannot be a sonic difference .Well put, same here. I get frustrated though with the subjectivists that have no interest in the why, and seem even to take a perverse pleasure in muddying the waters, as if holding the magical secret, implying that only the select few can hear the difference/superiority of their approach.
They tend to forget that you are not able to measure everything the ear/brain uses to qualify the perceived sound. Of course we have to struggle to be able to measure as many parameters as possible, but my guess is that we will never reach to a point where we can measure everything the ear/brain uses..
I guess wesayso have to agree with me on this after the amp session last year. It was not the amplifier that measured best , that sounded best. Actually the amp that measures worst, came in on a nice second place..
Hahaha, I do share that same allergy
However I'm equally frustrated by the pure objectivist that is rusted solid in his beliefs like it was demonstrated on the thread Pano and I talked about.
I like to keep an open mind, even if I fail at that miserably a lot of the times. I do try
LOL. You were faster than I was in responding
I'm still surprised at what room sound can do even when it's down by about -30 dB level from the main sound! That's as low as can be found in Studio Control Rooms, like this one, Blackbird Studio C:
(Source: The SOS Guide To Control Room Design |. It does look a bit like Pano's cave)
Now I certainly can't get all reflected levels down that far in my living room, but when using a reverb that actually is down that low in level, it still has a large effect on how the image presents itself (to me)!
I'm basically still hiding a lot of my (real) room that way. I have absorbed many early reflections (but not nearly all of em are down to -30 dB or more), however inserting this reverb (without delay or with added delay) still makes the overall balance more equal and makes the sound a little smoother.
It wasn't the answer I was looking for, but i found it interesting non the less.
So that's a big hint that the room effects, even when they are down by a substantial amount, still have quite the effect on how we perceive that space of ours / combine with the one that may be present in the recording. In my case it sure did (add) something (or feel different), just not what I wanted it to do.
Not a bad effect by itself, mind you...
It makes me wonder about those big WE horns...
Will that one have a reflected wave travelling back down the horn to resurface (in this case much) later (though substantially down in level) to create part of it's undefined magic?
It's already creating a direct wave front that's way up in level compared to the indirect room effects due to it's directional design, playing over a really wide frequency range, no doubt it's quite true in timing (I'd bet pretty flat phase) with no crossovers present in a very important part of the FR spectrum to our ears (say ~200 to 6K).
If we remember the measurements shown from several different type of horns, done by JMLC (may he rest in peace), PDF file here... we see most of these horns do have a substantial reflection back down the horn that gets back to us over a wide bandwidth. (most of them arrive around the ~3ms mark, however with the WE, due to it's sheer size, it would have/show that reflection much later. I'll leave the separate diffraction effects out of this example for now.
Something tells me that these little things just have to determine or be part of the entire package of how something like that sounds to us.
It has been one of the reasons for me to try this reverb trickery. Any little detail will count, so even the small stuff in our measurements needs attention if we want to know what's happening.
Yeah, we do largely hear the direct wave front and the abnormalities added by our rooms where we don't even notice that as much, due to the fact that they undergo heavily filtering by our brain (making it much better sounding than it should), unless we actually go listen for it(*). But experiments like I just did (and will continue to do), tells me that even the little stuff does play it's role to change our perception of that big stuff. No wonder amps don't sound the same either.
The fun part is, I can listen to the ambient sounds by itself, change every parameter of it and turn back on the mains to check the effect. Try that by changing the room itself!
Just try things like this for yourselves. It can be very enlightening. It probably works best if you already have low reflection levels to begin with... Get those mattresses out and experiment! (lol)
(one can always move closer to the speakers to get a better direct/reflected ratio, unless you have monster size speakers like me)
(*)= record it and play it back over headphones. Now you're bound to notice way more room than sitting in that favorite chair.
(Source: The SOS Guide To Control Room Design |. It does look a bit like Pano's cave
)Now I certainly can't get all reflected levels down that far in my living room, but when using a reverb that actually is down that low in level, it still has a large effect on how the image presents itself (to me)!
I'm basically still hiding a lot of my (real) room that way. I have absorbed many early reflections (but not nearly all of em are down to -30 dB or more), however inserting this reverb (without delay or with added delay) still makes the overall balance more equal and makes the sound a little smoother.
It wasn't the answer I was looking for, but i found it interesting non the less.
So that's a big hint that the room effects, even when they are down by a substantial amount, still have quite the effect on how we perceive that space of ours / combine with the one that may be present in the recording. In my case it sure did (add) something (or feel different), just not what I wanted it to do.
Not a bad effect by itself, mind you...
It makes me wonder about those big WE horns...
Will that one have a reflected wave travelling back down the horn to resurface (in this case much) later (though substantially down in level) to create part of it's undefined magic?
It's already creating a direct wave front that's way up in level compared to the indirect room effects due to it's directional design, playing over a really wide frequency range, no doubt it's quite true in timing (I'd bet pretty flat phase) with no crossovers present in a very important part of the FR spectrum to our ears (say ~200 to 6K).
If we remember the measurements shown from several different type of horns, done by JMLC (may he rest in peace), PDF file here... we see most of these horns do have a substantial reflection back down the horn that gets back to us over a wide bandwidth. (most of them arrive around the ~3ms mark, however with the WE, due to it's sheer size, it would have/show that reflection much later. I'll leave the separate diffraction effects out of this example for now.
Something tells me that these little things just have to determine or be part of the entire package of how something like that sounds to us.
It has been one of the reasons for me to try this reverb trickery. Any little detail will count, so even the small stuff in our measurements needs attention if we want to know what's happening.
Yeah, we do largely hear the direct wave front and the abnormalities added by our rooms where we don't even notice that as much, due to the fact that they undergo heavily filtering by our brain (making it much better sounding than it should), unless we actually go listen for it(*). But experiments like I just did (and will continue to do), tells me that even the little stuff does play it's role to change our perception of that big stuff. No wonder amps don't sound the same either.
The fun part is, I can listen to the ambient sounds by itself, change every parameter of it and turn back on the mains to check the effect. Try that by changing the room itself!
Just try things like this for yourselves. It can be very enlightening. It probably works best if you already have low reflection levels to begin with... Get those mattresses out and experiment! (lol)
(one can always move closer to the speakers to get a better direct/reflected ratio, unless you have monster size speakers like me)
(*)= record it and play it back over headphones. Now you're bound to notice way more room than sitting in that favorite chair.
Attachments
Last edited:
This is a little OT but I thought I could get some thoughtful comments to the following in here:
Last night I was lying awake, thinking about this controversy between “subjectivists” and “objectivists” when it comes to sound reproductions and I thought this anecdote (self-made) could help:
A group of scientists decided to make the ultimate Planetarium and inside the dome they placed all the stars exactly where they are in the real universe, with correct size, colour and everything.
They opened it for the public and everyone was amazed by the accuracy and correctness of the view.
Except for a few observers who said that something was not quite right to their eyes.
“What” said the scientists “Everything is correct in size colour and placement!”
The Observers: “Well maybe, but if you change the placement of some of the stars just a little, it looks much more convincing”
Scientists: “But that would be a distortion of the whole presentation! Have you been drinking or smoking weed?”
The Observers: “Nevertheless, it looks more right that way”
Scientists: “You are wrong --- or drunk!”
The explanation for this divergence is that the light, from some of the stars, on its way to earth, passes close to a strong gravity field (a black hole) and therefore its trajectory is bend (well actually it is the time-space continuum that is bend, but that is another story) so seen from the earth these stars looks like they are placed a little different from where they actually are.
So both the scientists and the observers were right..
Of course I know that the optical placement can also be measured, but that is not the point.
The discovery of the bending of the space-time came from AFAIK the divergence between the two observations, placement of stars from all other measurements than optical, and the optical observations.
Maybe, in the process of recreating an acoustical event, there is some sort of bending not discovered yet necessary in order to be convincing to the ears? So if we use both measurements and listening experience, we might come closer to make a recreation that convinces the ear/brain.
Last night I was lying awake, thinking about this controversy between “subjectivists” and “objectivists” when it comes to sound reproductions and I thought this anecdote (self-made) could help:
A group of scientists decided to make the ultimate Planetarium and inside the dome they placed all the stars exactly where they are in the real universe, with correct size, colour and everything.
They opened it for the public and everyone was amazed by the accuracy and correctness of the view.
Except for a few observers who said that something was not quite right to their eyes.
“What” said the scientists “Everything is correct in size colour and placement!”
The Observers: “Well maybe, but if you change the placement of some of the stars just a little, it looks much more convincing”
Scientists: “But that would be a distortion of the whole presentation! Have you been drinking or smoking weed?”
The Observers: “Nevertheless, it looks more right that way”
Scientists: “You are wrong --- or drunk!”
The explanation for this divergence is that the light, from some of the stars, on its way to earth, passes close to a strong gravity field (a black hole) and therefore its trajectory is bend (well actually it is the time-space continuum that is bend, but that is another story) so seen from the earth these stars looks like they are placed a little different from where they actually are.
So both the scientists and the observers were right..
Of course I know that the optical placement can also be measured, but that is not the point.
The discovery of the bending of the space-time came from AFAIK the divergence between the two observations, placement of stars from all other measurements than optical, and the optical observations.
Maybe, in the process of recreating an acoustical event, there is some sort of bending not discovered yet necessary in order to be convincing to the ears? So if we use both measurements and listening experience, we might come closer to make a recreation that convinces the ear/brain.
No surprise there, it depends what you're measuring, it's a well know fact, to some "high-end" advocates at least, that high amounts of the right sort of harmonic distortion sounds "better"It was not the amplifier that measured best , that sounded best. Actually the amp that measures worst, came in on a nice second place..
Nice post, interesting, reminds me of what I've been reading of Toole's experiments lately. I listen nearfield, it makes a huge difference for me, I have no room treatment, it's all been about positioning for me (some EQ for the subs) If you have the luxury of being able to position yourself and the speakers almost anywhere much can be achieved, and you know when it's "right"
Yes, a strange effect that has always fascinated me. Why do we hear so much more room tone with a mic than with our ears?
Try a super or hypercardioid - much more like the balance we hear with the ears. The Schoeps MK41 is a noted example.
@koldby, I see your point there, once we find out where the theory does not match the reality with science, we often hunt down the why, don't we.
I have tried to write down a thoughtful answer, but I can't find any. I was bothered by the view on the WE thread that the objective crew seemed to be convinced we have booked a lot of progress trough the years. I can't always see it like that. Living here in Europe I still prefer a building or house that was made in the ~ 30's to the way it is made today. We can do it faster and cheaper today, but will it last as long?
Is that even real progress? The market has miniaturized our audio equipment, at least the main stream commercial crap shows us that trend. Well, that simply doesn't sound the same to my ears.
For a few years I was actually worried mp3 would take over as the main stream media. The 'fast food' equivalent of the music industry, instant gratification guaranteed. Who needs dynamic range anyway.
Throw away those big old recording studios while you're at it, you can do the same with a simple laptop in your home!
See why I shouldn't respond today?
I think that as long as we don't forget to keep listening, really listen to music and still get enjoyment from that we'll probably be alright.
It doesn't matter what your personal preference is, as long as you find something enjoyable in it. For me it's the hunt for that illusion that sends shivers down my spine. The one that brings tears to my eyes from pure emotion.
(that has happened, more than once, over the past few years)
As long as I still get that, from time to time, I'll be continuing this hunt.
I have tried to write down a thoughtful answer, but I can't find any. I was bothered by the view on the WE thread that the objective crew seemed to be convinced we have booked a lot of progress trough the years. I can't always see it like that. Living here in Europe I still prefer a building or house that was made in the ~ 30's to the way it is made today. We can do it faster and cheaper today, but will it last as long?
Is that even real progress? The market has miniaturized our audio equipment, at least the main stream commercial crap shows us that trend. Well, that simply doesn't sound the same to my ears.
For a few years I was actually worried mp3 would take over as the main stream media. The 'fast food' equivalent of the music industry, instant gratification guaranteed. Who needs dynamic range anyway.
Throw away those big old recording studios while you're at it, you can do the same with a simple laptop in your home!
See why I shouldn't respond today?
I think that as long as we don't forget to keep listening, really listen to music and still get enjoyment from that we'll probably be alright.
It doesn't matter what your personal preference is, as long as you find something enjoyable in it. For me it's the hunt for that illusion that sends shivers down my spine. The one that brings tears to my eyes from pure emotion.
(that has happened, more than once, over the past few years)
As long as I still get that, from time to time, I'll be continuing this hunt.
Last edited:
I've noted the same, and I think part of it may be that the off axis frequency response of most cardioid or wide cardioid mics is nowhere near linear yet this non-linear signal contributes a lot to what the mic picks up, so represents a large part of what you hear from that mic. The on-axis, linear response is not a great percentage of the total signal the mic sends down the line. Since 'the room' is largely off axis, it is very noticeable because it is very coloured.
The first thing I noticed about my Speiden and Royer SF12 stereo ribbon mics—which have response very similar to on axis through an arc of about 140º (about 20º off the side nulls, which still isn't bad, though 25 dB down)—was that the room tone was pretty much as I heard it in the room. My engineer friend noticed exactly the same thing.
Figure of eight mics like the SF12 and SF24 have ribbons only about 3mm wide which aids flatness of off-axis response, because the lateral dimension is such a small percentage of the wavelengths of interest in contrast to, especially, LDCs (large diaphragm condensors) with their ±30mm diameter diaphragms. Picture a wavetrain travelling at an angle across the surface of a diaphragm which is trying to trace it. When the diameter of the diaphragm approaches a large percentage of the wavelength being traced, of course the result is inaccurate.
As a result the combined response iof a stereo ribbon mic like the SF12 is pretty much flat ithrough a full 360º horizontally. If you imagine a torus around the mic—that is the 'hi-fi' zone. Vertical deviations are more like a large diaphragm mic because the vertical dimension of the ribbon is similar to them. There are nulls at the top and bottom, so little room sound is picked up in those roughly conical zones.
Anyway, that's my guess.
Excerpts from some of my recordings with the SF12 which illustrate the room acpture can be found here: SF-12 - Royer Labs
I am the engineer referred to in the fourth para, although the details of the recording are inaccurate in a number of significant respects, including the mic positioning and the conductor's reluctance.
The orchestra was recorded in an optimal recording room in Kiev, the piano/sax were in a cathedral, the womens choral group were in a small-ish dead room and the solo piano was in a recital hall. Reverb is natural on all but the singers. Proper results are obtained only if the speakers are positioned ±45º, not the standard ±30º: these are Blumlein recordings.
There's two schools of thought here. I have both systems where one is a large horn (22" x 22") that does wide bandwidth from 180Hz-18kHz and provides pattern control down to 400Hz. If you move to the side of the speaker it's down at least 40dB from 400Hz upwards. The other system is very wide coverage in a room treated for diffusion only. There are very little absorption for room treatment.
The large horn presents a wall of sound that is ultra transparent. Almost like a window 10' x 10' of sound, but there is little soundstage depth.
The other system is a narrow three-way with a smaller JMLC horn for 2kHz and up, and provides a very broad coverage pattern. This speaker activates the room acoustics and the soundstage extends beyond the physical dimensions of the room (12' x 12') and the has more envelopment around you. So my subjective preference is for the later. But there are a few caveats I've found.
1)The room has to be free of flutter echos,
2)There needs to be substantial diffusion treatment on the early side wall reflections.
3)The speaker needs to have a balanced consistent off-axis response with minimal edge diffraction off the baffle or horn mouth.
4) Do not over dampen the room acoustics, especially early side wall reflections.
Once I did this things really came into place. YMMV. The large horn sounds fantastic, but the tipping point is in the subjective aspect, I simply enjoy the sound of the smaller horn speaker that that has the wider coverage pattern.
No I don't think the diffusion contributed at all to increasing the width of the soundstage. I think the diffusion increased the pleasantness of the type sound coming from the early room reflections...and this is as purely subjective as it can get. I normally focus very heavily on acoustical measurement, but I've recently come to rely on Floyd Toole's work on small room acoustics which does give a heavy emphasis on the subjective evaluation that lies outside of what microphones can tell you, and focuses more on the psychoacoustical human aspect of what we find 'pleasant'. This is where I've been able to take my system up another notch. I have a friend who relied too heavily on room measurement and his room ended up over damped. Somebody gave him Floyd's book and he's now seen the light.
I guess that's where my project differs from the more main stream solutions. My room is small, no way around that. However I want to get the "you are there" type of sound, as much as I can.
Due to having floor to (almost) ceiling arrays I don't have a measurable floor (or ceiling) reflection. The design of the arrays is done with low diffraction in mind.
All first reflection points have received damping panels, as I don't have a symmetrical room where I could play around with diffusion.
The next part is making a correction for the array, at the listening position. This last time I took an average around the left ear of 3 positions to correct the left array and around the right ear for the right array, also 3 positions. The middle most measurement position of the left and right spots is the exact sweet spot.
That's where they are corrected with a FIR filter (with a sliding frequency window of my liking) to a pré-defined target.
There is mid/side EQ active to enhance intelligibility in the phantom center.
There are 2 ambient speakers that diffract off of nearby surfaces that are used as a Haas kicker, arriving at the listening position from behind/sides.
The mix that these get is a combination of delayed, band passed and attenuated (L-R) on one side and (R-L) on the other side. There is also a slight (L+R) center mixed back into these ambient speakers.
What this all accomplishes is a virtually bigger room than I really have. The stage is big and wide for orchestral work, small for a singer plus guitar. It can be shaped at will by changing parameters. Look in the first post for reviews how this sounds, as written by some members here as well as a friend of mine.
What I'm doing is playing around with virtually created queues instead of relying on my room to provide these. My asymmetrical room can't give the proper queues and my girlfriend does not allow me to place diffusion panels in what is our living room.
The sound is clear, enveloping and dynamic. I'm just always looking for more. But I can't do that by changing the room and will not change the speakers to do so either. The speakers show remarkably clean measurements at the listening spot after correction. The correction is targeting the first wave front only with a frequency dependent window.
This allows me to hide much of my real room (by deliberately overdamping) and bring back queues from a larger, more even space in virtual ways.
Any and every part of this is fully adjustable to taste. This allows a lot of freedom to do all kind of fun experiments without changing the speakers or the room.
The speakers without the ambient system active sound pretty good by themselves. The virtually created "room" just aids in getting a smoother sound, more 3D definition of the staging and a better tonal balance overall.
Robbing the early reflections trough absorption has the side effect of hearing the flaws of the Stereo principle. That's what the mid/side EQ and all other helper tricks are hiding. Of course one could do that with the right combination of speakers plus room treatment. I just took a very different route to be able to still get good results in my compromised room with limited means.
Due to having floor to (almost) ceiling arrays I don't have a measurable floor (or ceiling) reflection. The design of the arrays is done with low diffraction in mind.
All first reflection points have received damping panels, as I don't have a symmetrical room where I could play around with diffusion.
The next part is making a correction for the array, at the listening position. This last time I took an average around the left ear of 3 positions to correct the left array and around the right ear for the right array, also 3 positions. The middle most measurement position of the left and right spots is the exact sweet spot.
That's where they are corrected with a FIR filter (with a sliding frequency window of my liking) to a pré-defined target.
There is mid/side EQ active to enhance intelligibility in the phantom center.
There are 2 ambient speakers that diffract off of nearby surfaces that are used as a Haas kicker, arriving at the listening position from behind/sides.
The mix that these get is a combination of delayed, band passed and attenuated (L-R) on one side and (R-L) on the other side. There is also a slight (L+R) center mixed back into these ambient speakers.
What this all accomplishes is a virtually bigger room than I really have. The stage is big and wide for orchestral work, small for a singer plus guitar. It can be shaped at will by changing parameters. Look in the first post for reviews how this sounds, as written by some members here as well as a friend of mine.
What I'm doing is playing around with virtually created queues instead of relying on my room to provide these. My asymmetrical room can't give the proper queues and my girlfriend does not allow me to place diffusion panels in what is our living room.
The sound is clear, enveloping and dynamic. I'm just always looking for more. But I can't do that by changing the room and will not change the speakers to do so either. The speakers show remarkably clean measurements at the listening spot after correction. The correction is targeting the first wave front only with a frequency dependent window.
This allows me to hide much of my real room (by deliberately overdamping) and bring back queues from a larger, more even space in virtual ways.
Any and every part of this is fully adjustable to taste. This allows a lot of freedom to do all kind of fun experiments without changing the speakers or the room.
The speakers without the ambient system active sound pretty good by themselves. The virtually created "room" just aids in getting a smoother sound, more 3D definition of the staging and a better tonal balance overall.
Robbing the early reflections trough absorption has the side effect of hearing the flaws of the Stereo principle. That's what the mid/side EQ and all other helper tricks are hiding. Of course one could do that with the right combination of speakers plus room treatment. I just took a very different route to be able to still get good results in my compromised room with limited means.
Well done! Your doing exactly what I had intended on doing right before I moved into what is now our new home. Somehow I had forgot about wanting to experiment with adding midrange speakers at strategic locations to replicate a larger venue. It actually hasn't been until now that I can even attempt this type of experimenting. Last week I hooked up my MiniDSP OpenDRC-DA8 into my smaller upstairs listening room. And as late as yesterday I just received x4 TPA-3116 amplfiers to fully utilize the 8 outputs of the miniDSP. I also use FIR filtering using rephase. Floyd's book is what got me contemplating adding such speakers after I fully understood the limitations of small room acoustics.
The only thing that jumps out at me with your room is that there are objects close to your speakers. My personal rule of thumb is that you should keep objects at least 12" away from the speakers so that the reflected sound is at least 1ms delayed. This ensures the reflected sound will fall within the precedence effect region. This is the region of the brain that is able to process the reflection and improve the direct sound clarity. If under 1ms (12") my findings are that this will smear the sound since this also lies within the impulse response of the speaker itself. Try keeping the curtains and other objects at least 12" away and see if you notice a difference. It should also show up as a reduced impulse response time and improved spectrogram decay or waterfall plot.
The only thing that jumps out at me with your room is that there are objects close to your speakers. My personal rule of thumb is that you should keep objects at least 12" away from the speakers so that the reflected sound is at least 1ms delayed. This ensures the reflected sound will fall within the precedence effect region. This is the region of the brain that is able to process the reflection and improve the direct sound clarity. If under 1ms (12") my findings are that this will smear the sound since this also lies within the impulse response of the speaker itself. Try keeping the curtains and other objects at least 12" away and see if you notice a difference. It should also show up as a reduced impulse response time and improved spectrogram decay or waterfall plot.
There isn't much to complain about as measured at the listening position (example here of a "live measurement" with APL_TDA):
Behind the curtain is a huge (really huge) damping panel. The black feet benches beside the arrays are soon to be replaced with a pair of subwoofers. Due to having an array of drivers, each has its own positional reflections and it averages out quite well.
Behind the curtain is a huge (really huge) damping panel. The black feet benches beside the arrays are soon to be replaced with a pair of subwoofers. Due to having an array of drivers, each has its own positional reflections and it averages out quite well.
Ok...now I'm going to have to do a test myself. I'm sure a curtain right beside the speaker is going to show up in a time domain measurement.