I agree. Please note that almost all commercial speakers are designed for average room conditions meaning furniture , rugs , sofas are usually assumed as well as the size and construction of the wall structure.
My hats off to people who are able to sit alone in dedicated room filled with absorbing reflecting devices and listen motionless to the music. Most often I just sit on the side of my room with glass in my hands because the spot is the most comfy . I think I'm spent by this hobby since I can spend hours listening to old Tandberg receiver playing on the side classical FM station while the main rig is getting turned on just to warm it up from time to time and it's a decent sounding rig actually.
I think that a neutral sounding loudspeaker, one that is good off axis as well, has a significantly better chance of not having issues regarding early reflections. Perhaps those loudspeakers having poor off axis response are more distracting in regards to early reflections. Maybe this has been your experience?
Nope, it is the room queues that get in the way of the recorded venue queues that bothered me. The room queues (the early reflections we are discussing) will
be timed the same for every recording played. Which made me call it: the same sauce on every recording. Imaging between songs have lots of similarities once the
early reflections are there.
In the absence of those early reflections the recording itself determines the perceived stage size and it will be different for different tracks.
This has nothing to do with the balance of those early reflections. That was in check with my trials, they had a very similar balance to the direct sound.
It's just that the reflections "cover" any hints of the space that is present in the recording. Be it a studio created space or a true "live" space.
be timed the same for every recording played. Which made me call it: the same sauce on every recording. Imaging between songs have lots of similarities once the
early reflections are there.
In the absence of those early reflections the recording itself determines the perceived stage size and it will be different for different tracks.
This has nothing to do with the balance of those early reflections. That was in check with my trials, they had a very similar balance to the direct sound.
It's just that the reflections "cover" any hints of the space that is present in the recording. Be it a studio created space or a true "live" space.
Yes I don't see how you can EQ a speakers with an off axis response that differs significantly from the on axis response. You basically alter the on axis without addressing the differences between the on axis and off axis that cannot be corrected using EQ. The overall system directivity has to be part of the design from the get go.
Rob 🙂
I don't much care for DSP.
It's messing too much with the orginal music, in a fake way.
I do prefer a more "spread" and less "focused" sound.
This is why I carefully added a rear-facing horn tweeter on my floorstanding Advent Maestro speakers.
It adds a nice subtle touch of dispersion and depth to the highs, reflects off the wall behind the speaker, and seems at times to "open up" the music.
It's messing too much with the orginal music, in a fake way.
I do prefer a more "spread" and less "focused" sound.
This is why I carefully added a rear-facing horn tweeter on my floorstanding Advent Maestro speakers.
It adds a nice subtle touch of dispersion and depth to the highs, reflects off the wall behind the speaker, and seems at times to "open up" the music.
I don't get why EQ is being mentioned here. This is a comparison between loudspeakers with and without room treatment.
The loudspeakers in question here have a good DI, slightly rising towards higher frequencies.
The loudspeakers in question here have a good DI, slightly rising towards higher frequencies.
Regarding early reflections below 11ms threshold, it is interesting that something that is statistically irrelevant, some still find bothersome.
I find that if the direct sound isn't colored by them, it doesn't bother me.
I find that if the direct sound isn't colored by them, it doesn't bother me.
But it is colored below this treshold ( depend of level of course but as delay is shorter there is less distance so less attenuation...)
, even above it is.
Here again easy enough to try with a reverb plug in.
, even above it is.
Here again easy enough to try with a reverb plug in.
I'd say it depends heavily on the testing circumstances. I decided to make up my own mind.
My home, my stereo, my preferences...
My home, my stereo, my preferences...
This is not a comparison, but general discussion and we don't have specific "loudspeakers in question" at all!
I took EQ as a sideline, but focus is on acoustics conditioning/treatment. I think EQ and FIR tricks are closely related.
Another sideline might be different loudspeaker constructions. Here are my measurements of 3 different speakers at same location. ER18DXT s a typical 2-way standmount, MR183w is 3-way with downfire woofer and a coaxial MT. AINOgradient is a 4-way with monopole downfire woofer and 3-way dipole. Another pic is of a WWMT speaker at 3 different locations in the room.
And I think that the place of this thread should be in "Room acoustics and mods" forum
Last edited:
My confusion comes from proposed treatment and/or removal of early reflections and then adding a reverb plug-in .. to put them back?
I might be mistaken believing that the early reflections are one of the elements required to establish a soundstage within the room. The other elements being the recording, a neutral (sounding) set of loudspeakers and the loudspeaker(s) placement. While the brain may not be able to differentiate early reflections from the direct sound, I believe the early reflections help to create the soundstage 3D spacial illusion. Take away one of the elements and the illusion begins to collapse.
I've had an inverse experience: i built a control room based upon a pair of ATC scm110a. As i built the room i had the chance to listen to it evolving with the treatments.
One thing is sure for me ( my own preference), 'omni' design are the one which need the most treatments of ER.
In fact now i see the design tradeoff as is: either use higher directivity design and less treatments either very wide directivity and a lot of treatments.
Of course this is for my own preference, and as i was used to the kind of rendering you have in a ( good) studio and this is what i'm after. But if possible without the oppressive feeling too much absorbers brings. And there is answers to this ( as well as not being locked in a place with 'head in vice' syndrom).
Those approach ard not well known by amateur world ( some even come from designers playing into entertaining field) but they exist and can be translated to home use imo.
I wasn't accurate enough Puppet ( sometimes i forget people can't read my mind), i was talking about an audiofile played into a DAW with a reverb plug in and listened through headphone. This is the only way to take room/loudspeaker ( did i talked about a system already?) Out of equation and have a feel of what ER brings or take.
Of course it isn't the whole story but it is enough to have an idea of what to expect from a coloration perspective.
I hope it is clearer explained that way.
Well I think that there are huge misconceptions regarding EQ popping up within this thread. To successfully EQ a speaker isn't all that easy. But those who have created
crossovers basically have done most of what it takes (if the end product was successful). But EQ won't change all speaker properties. For instance the DI
of a speaker remains the same regardless of EQ if EQ is used solely to shape the frequency curve. One cannot EQ the direct sound without influencing
the indirect sound as well etc. But that doesn't mean an EQ-ed speaker cannot sound natural. In other words, it doesn't have to sound fake.
If that were true most every recording would sound unnatural (*), as EQ is almost always involved before creating a vinyl press, CD, DVD or high-res download etc.
Even a speaker crossover is a form of EQ. Weather it be FIR, IIR or a (passive or active) crossover, every item used to shape the FR is EQ.
There are lots of ways to mess up the EQ-ing of the frequency curve of a speaker. There are way less ways to do it successfully. We could quote Toole again, as
he mentioned not to EQ speakers above the modal region. I'd rather add: if you don't know how to, because it is quite possible to do so without drawbacks.
It just takes time to learn/understand the speaker and room interaction to do so. You can't use EQ the way you can use treatment.
(*) unless it was recorded direct to disk
Don't get me wrong though. No one that does not want to use EQ has to use it. It is completely optional. It just does not have to sound fake. If one uses an all analog setup with vinyl
and a speaker with passive crossover or a full range I can understand not wanting to add any EQ whatsoever. But that's not my point here.
I just think EQ gets a lot of bad press without the EQ itself being the culprit. EQ does what we tell it to do. So be sure you make it do what you want it to do. And that isn't all that easy.
Nor is it easy to design and implement a good crossover, be it passive or active.
One does not notice them, until they are turned off.
Another quote from Toole on that specific subject:
Yes, that Lexicon Logic 7 used reverb, in fact it is where I got my inspiration from. Created by David Griesinger after his studies on rooms. The specific reverb algorithm that was used was "Random Hall" from Lexicon. Mr. Griesinger created that one too as far as I know/could find out.
crossovers basically have done most of what it takes (if the end product was successful). But EQ won't change all speaker properties. For instance the DI
of a speaker remains the same regardless of EQ if EQ is used solely to shape the frequency curve. One cannot EQ the direct sound without influencing
the indirect sound as well etc. But that doesn't mean an EQ-ed speaker cannot sound natural. In other words, it doesn't have to sound fake.
If that were true most every recording would sound unnatural (*), as EQ is almost always involved before creating a vinyl press, CD, DVD or high-res download etc.
Even a speaker crossover is a form of EQ. Weather it be FIR, IIR or a (passive or active) crossover, every item used to shape the FR is EQ.
There are lots of ways to mess up the EQ-ing of the frequency curve of a speaker. There are way less ways to do it successfully. We could quote Toole again, as
he mentioned not to EQ speakers above the modal region. I'd rather add: if you don't know how to, because it is quite possible to do so without drawbacks.
It just takes time to learn/understand the speaker and room interaction to do so. You can't use EQ the way you can use treatment.
(*) unless it was recorded direct to disk
Don't get me wrong though. No one that does not want to use EQ has to use it. It is completely optional. It just does not have to sound fake. If one uses an all analog setup with vinyl
and a speaker with passive crossover or a full range I can understand not wanting to add any EQ whatsoever. But that's not my point here.
I just think EQ gets a lot of bad press without the EQ itself being the culprit. EQ does what we tell it to do. So be sure you make it do what you want it to do. And that isn't all that easy.
Nor is it easy to design and implement a good crossover, be it passive or active.
I use a reverb plugin, but never on main L+R speaker. I use it on ambience speakers, their only task is to hide the true properties of my (smallish) room. If I had more room to play with, I would not have needed the ambience speakers, but I would have added well timed diffusive panels behind the listener. If one hears the ambience speakers by themselves, than it wasn't done right.
One does not notice them, until they are turned off.
Another quote from Toole on that specific subject:
Source of quoteToole said:
Yes, that Lexicon Logic 7 used reverb, in fact it is where I got my inspiration from. Created by David Griesinger after his studies on rooms. The specific reverb algorithm that was used was "Random Hall" from Lexicon. Mr. Griesinger created that one too as far as I know/could find out.
Last edited:
You are saying "room correction" when you seem to mean "room treatment." This thread will be moved.
Pre internet you would either have to visit someone who had a better sounding setup or go to a specialty shop that had a better sounding setup to think you were missing anything in your system. Sure there were monthly magazines with reviews of high end stuff to make people drool; but for the most part we lived in our own world, happy with what we had.
Now we have a nonstop and nearly limitless flow of tips, tricks and components that are exalted as what we need to change our world. I can't even guess how many products the youtube infomercial hosts sell after each new video where they describe the item as being the most amazing ever.
Rare is the room that cannot benefit from appropriate room treatment. Although the 'appropriate' treatment can be difficult to assess, it is a far far better way to begin with this before ANY DSP-ing.
[My comments below are nothing to do with the decision to move the thread]
I object to using the term 'room correction' for modifying the signal via hardware or software. It's one thing that can't 'correct' it. Maybe the term 'compensation' fits the traditional model of what can be done.
Thanks for the clarity krivium. Are the needs of a studio that similar to our home listening rooms though? I look at them has having different functional needs.