The performance ceiling or envelope of any loudspeaker system be it in in post production, control room, critical listening (mastering) or hifi home listening is the room acoustics.
Unfortunately home listening rooms are a random and chaos when compared to recording in home studio near field set ups and commercial studio certifications by Atmos. All recording environments are treated acoustic products then critically EQ with Sonar works.
The reality is that you are home in an un treated room are highly unlikely to be able to listen deep enough into a recording to hear the detailed layering of the mix, the correct depth and sound staging of a recording.
Therefore any amount of focused thinking is not going to help improve your results. You might be fooled by sight bias of making a change and then believing a difference. In a real blind test who is Kidding who.
I lot can be done to improve your room but it’s typically neglected.
If you actually believe the dribble that a CD Loudspeaker is all you need then good luck. Or worse the notion that room curves are an indicator of sound quality your a living in a fool’s paradise. It’s an Wank. All of Floyd’s assumptions are based on data from a sample of recording studios that had critically treated acoustics not home listening environments. Earl Geddes points this out after close examination of Floyd’s papers.
Olive admitted he has a crappy home theatre set up in an Interview on Erin’s Audio corner. He obviously does take his work too seriously.
The simple fact is that the ratio of direct and reflected sound cannot be measured with a sliced frequency response or predicted models by Klippel as far as your room at home is concerned. This is because a home listening space is unquantified and cannot be assumed in a predictable model. Most modern homes have large open plan areas with large areas of glass and flat walls.
The result is a situation that will have significant variability in the reverberation time of sound with frequency often over 500 ms. The human ear identifies this a louder or more intense sound at certain frequencies as a build up on reverberating sound energy.
The delay time until the level drops sufficiently completely destroys the detail and resolution of the direct sound. Put simply sound hangs in your room across a range of frequencies including the bass.
If you don’t believe this you are sadly miss informed.
It’s problem solving exercise that starts with finding the best loudspeaker location and listening position. Then critical prioritising the worse offending audible issues and determining how best to deal with them.
If you think you can’t deal with this then go out side and go to Walmart and buy a Bose set up and save yourself a headache.
Unfortunately home listening rooms are a random and chaos when compared to recording in home studio near field set ups and commercial studio certifications by Atmos. All recording environments are treated acoustic products then critically EQ with Sonar works.
The reality is that you are home in an un treated room are highly unlikely to be able to listen deep enough into a recording to hear the detailed layering of the mix, the correct depth and sound staging of a recording.
Therefore any amount of focused thinking is not going to help improve your results. You might be fooled by sight bias of making a change and then believing a difference. In a real blind test who is Kidding who.
I lot can be done to improve your room but it’s typically neglected.
If you actually believe the dribble that a CD Loudspeaker is all you need then good luck. Or worse the notion that room curves are an indicator of sound quality your a living in a fool’s paradise. It’s an Wank. All of Floyd’s assumptions are based on data from a sample of recording studios that had critically treated acoustics not home listening environments. Earl Geddes points this out after close examination of Floyd’s papers.
Olive admitted he has a crappy home theatre set up in an Interview on Erin’s Audio corner. He obviously does take his work too seriously.
The simple fact is that the ratio of direct and reflected sound cannot be measured with a sliced frequency response or predicted models by Klippel as far as your room at home is concerned. This is because a home listening space is unquantified and cannot be assumed in a predictable model. Most modern homes have large open plan areas with large areas of glass and flat walls.
The result is a situation that will have significant variability in the reverberation time of sound with frequency often over 500 ms. The human ear identifies this a louder or more intense sound at certain frequencies as a build up on reverberating sound energy.
The delay time until the level drops sufficiently completely destroys the detail and resolution of the direct sound. Put simply sound hangs in your room across a range of frequencies including the bass.
If you don’t believe this you are sadly miss informed.
It’s problem solving exercise that starts with finding the best loudspeaker location and listening position. Then critical prioritising the worse offending audible issues and determining how best to deal with them.
If you think you can’t deal with this then go out side and go to Walmart and buy a Bose set up and save yourself a headache.
The real point is how do you at home know if the last change you made was different, better or worse without a critical listening room.
The sobering fact is you can’t determine anything accurately by listening or basic measurements.
I full understand this is going to cause a crap fight but it is what is. In the control roo. they use little loudspeakers on the mixing bridge to get an idea of what hifi diddly dee sounds like.
Cold shower anyway
The sobering fact is you can’t determine anything accurately by listening or basic measurements.
I full understand this is going to cause a crap fight but it is what is. In the control roo. they use little loudspeakers on the mixing bridge to get an idea of what hifi diddly dee sounds like.
Cold shower anyway
What price category does the sound of this homemade acoustics correspond to if it were acoustics of famous companies? The link below for downloading. I would like to hear your opinion.
https://dropmefiles.net/ru/whNL7S5XBx
https://dropmefiles.net/ru/whNL7S5XBx
I use the most critical listening room i have / know of....outdoors.
It's very revealing, and generally not hard to hear which way changes are headed.
Likewise to hearing, I make speaker tuning measurement outdoors as quasi-anechoically as possible.
Flat mag and phase, and smoother polars DO translate into better indoor listening, ime.
While I'm sympathetic to your argument as to how difficult it is to make valid assessments in our typical rooms, I think you are overblowing the difficulty far too much.
For instance, through too many measurements both outdoors as just described, and also less optimally indoors,
I've learned from listening to both type tuning outdoors, that indoor measurements can also lead to improved changes.
There's just too much going on with audio for grand sweeping statements, imho.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lot´s of experience and good ear´s, are always more helpful despite the room.
Other things that are helpful for me, besides outdoor listening which can be a lot of work....
are of course comparing detail with headphones.
Listening to a single speaker summed to mono helps too...just like we measure 😉
One surprising test, is how does a speaker sound indoors...NOT in the room it is playing in.
I've found playing a single speaker, summed to mono, down hallways or across rooms, where I am out of the reverberant field, to be very revealing.
In fact, I'd go so far to say if i want to catch lyrics i can't make out indoors, maybe best technique.
last test, and best objective test I know for speaker development, is the generative loss test as described by T Danley.
Get as reflection free as you can, record a track. Play that recording, and record that. See how many sequences still sound OK.
And prepare to be dismayed LOL, because it is quite telling what is going wrong.
are of course comparing detail with headphones.
Listening to a single speaker summed to mono helps too...just like we measure 😉
One surprising test, is how does a speaker sound indoors...NOT in the room it is playing in.
I've found playing a single speaker, summed to mono, down hallways or across rooms, where I am out of the reverberant field, to be very revealing.
In fact, I'd go so far to say if i want to catch lyrics i can't make out indoors, maybe best technique.
last test, and best objective test I know for speaker development, is the generative loss test as described by T Danley.
Get as reflection free as you can, record a track. Play that recording, and record that. See how many sequences still sound OK.
And prepare to be dismayed LOL, because it is quite telling what is going wrong.
I understand and respect your point of view.
I am not attempting to rain on anyone’s parade although that thought did occur to me after my last post.
Let’s focus on the room.
I would say it’s like upgrading to something better. Until you do actually do you don’t know what you’re missing out on.
As listeners we kind of compensate for some errors and room stuff. That is well recognised.
If you go to a concert hall and hear a symphony in the best seat in the house the key thing is your in what’s it’s technically called a large acoustic space where sound reverberates away naturally. The walls might be 50 yards apart at least and the ceiling 30 metres high. 500 peoples bums on seats soak up a lot of sound.
In a home your room is classed as small acoustic space like 6 yard long, 4 yards wide and 2.5 yards high. That is an irrefutable fact but some will naturally disagree.
The test is to record your voice into a microphone at varying distances in your room and play back via headphones.
Like a lot of us l never ready dwelled on the “room”. I’ve lived in a dozen homes over the years and it was obvious that some rooms sucked while others had a few obvious problems.
About three years ago l saw an opportunity to renovate a property which l bought with the idea of making the main living area a multi purpose media room where l could entertain, listen to music, HT, do podcasts, critical listening for development of my diy loudspeakers.
I engaged a qualified acoustic consultant to assess my needs and determine a room treatment that l could do diy fashion with professional raw materials.
The consultant did a number of tests including use of REW, took pics and determined where l was going to sit and the loudspeaker locations. The room is 5.8 x 5 x 2 metres overall.
What l got was a detailed plan. I purchased the materials direct from the suppliers including curtains, wall panels with decorative velour finish and a large rug.
There are bespoke triangular bass traps in each corner and wall ceiling junction. A large panel at the front and rear, on the ceiling and near the loudspeakers at the side walls. About 15 square metres of surface treatments.
The thick wool blend rug and a special acoustic curtain covers the floor in front of the loudspeakers and the windows on a 6 metre track. It took a while to complete.
The difference in the before and after isn’t subtle. The bass is damped, the timbre is markedly improved, fine details are far more resolved and the sound stage is night and day better. The room feels much bigger. Quiet but not dead if that makes sense.
The listening experience is simply in a different league to anything l’ve had before.
So am l making sweeping statements? In your opinion your entitled to say what ever you think.
It cost about $2500 overall in raw materials and it does not look like Batman’s cave or a home studio. The panels have velour felt that are colour matched to the wall paint.
So its not a rich man’s thing by any means. You will possibly need a neuraliser to convince your other half …Lol
Ugly foam acoustic panels are not used anywhere. Nor any diffraction panels or pro studio bass traps.
I’m running several different two channel loudspeakers including the JBL M2 diy monitors, an Atmos 7.6.2 set up with JBL Synthesis processor.
I think looking into my room was a reset that reinvigorates my interest in the hobby.
The main variable now is the recordings….Lol
Each to their own. For privacy reasons l can’t post pics.
FWIW if seriously invested in the hobby it’s a game changer that you kick yourself for not doing earlier.
References
https://www.csrmartini.com.au/our-products/martini-deco-quiet-panel/
https://www.csrmartini.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Martini-DataSheet-Absorb_0421_v1.pdf
https://www.indesignlive.com/collec...cription,(Noise Reduction Coefficient) rating.
Over and out
I´m glad you are satisfied 👍
And mark your own word´s " anything l’ve had before"
Because everything is based on your own experiences, and no one but you knows those.
And in my own experience, you can in most situations get a good result without rebuilding the entire room for lots of $$
Also different speakers behaves very different in "the same room", so also speakerchoise and placement is importent.
Here is a good point!
I don´t know how much time you spent on HiFi or how many different speakers "and rooms" you have listening on, so how do you know "what you´re missing out on" ?
Every human being have their own definition on everything, depending on their own past experiences, and their ability to put things into context.
Nothing is black or white.
Regards John
Hi macka, congratulations to you on your room, and thx for describing what you did.
I fully agree how much a proper room adds to sound quality, as I've had the same opportunity to put a lot of planning into a room's acoustics.
I was able to build from ground up, an addition off the the back of the home that served as a large audio room, about 12 x 7.5 x 4 m. Interior dimensions were laid out to the cm for the best modal dispersion per the available room calculators. Floors, walls, ceiling, built in bookshelves, drapes on windows, etc...their construction material was chosen predicting how they would act acoustically in conjunction with further planned acoustical treatments. Such treatments were determined and placed via in-room measurements, after construction.
Room was built to allow a number of differnt main speaker and sub placements, and also allow muti-channel experiments. Wall and ceiling wiring jacks everywhere, line level, speaker wire, and AC power. Ceiling because I put in fly points for mains and multi-channel, to experiment with ceiling hung, as well as floor standing. AC power in ceiling, because speakers were mainly self-powered pro-audio.
Wonderful sounding, fun, fun, fun room....
Your "Quiet but not dead" makes total sense to me. 🙂
For about 3 years I was in audio heaven. Then, for a big birthday party for my wife, I decided to pull down a pair or the pro-audio surround speakers off the ceiling, so I could set them up outdoors for the party. (They were still more powerful than what the band brought LOL.)
Damn!! A whole new level of clarity, and nuance, beyond heard in my wonderful room.
Honestly, it was a mix of joy of hearing better sound, disappointment that the room wasn't as good, and a clear sign I had much to ponder.
Hope this explains why I'm such a fanatic about using outdoors as the basis for judging speaker improvements.
For me, it really was another case of we don't know better until we hear it.
I hope to keep having such aah-haa audio moments....nothing better than the new WoW......listen to that, experience...
Which I think is within all or our reaches, for each his own, all of the time....
Hi Mark,
Thank you for sharing. The thing l love about audio is its full of surprises. The more you dare and be bold the more you learn.
Thank you for sharing. The thing l love about audio is its full of surprises. The more you dare and be bold the more you learn.
Hi John,
Please indulge me.
On the surface it could be argued that the myriad of changes and comparisons we all make is or are a circle of confusion.
Underneath it all is a real science that explains in a very factual way the role that psycho acoustics and room acoustics play in a listening experience.
The pivot point in any change is often only identified when the underlying assumptions are challenged. Today we are fortunate to have wonderful tools like REW that is used by hobbyists and professionals all over the world to explore, understand and measure room acoustics.
This science is real whether you want to question it or not.
My journey is not just about the joys of diy audio but the opportunity to collaborate, work with and learn from professional practitioners in the industry. This has explained things l didn’t understand or didn’t realise that l needed to understand.
This experience this has made the hobby a richer pursuit. I now believe that in order to question the details you really need to have a foundation knowledge.
Hifi is full of details. Lots of details. Some are glorified and some are not obvious. Some we take for granted.
Of course not everyone will tread the same path and some are content to simply assemble a loudspeaker kit. There’s nothing wrong with that. You often spend more time listening to your recordings that way.
What is the point of overthinking all those details if you only need to think about them once?
As for my experience l can humbly say l’ve built a range of loudspeakers both large, small and purchased consumer products over the past 50 years. My first loudspeaker was the Magnavox 8-30. It was a diy design published in Electronics Australia in the early 1970’s.
I listened to it in a bedroom with a
Paymaster 422 integrated amplifier.
The Magnavox 8-30 was powerful enough to be used in bigger spaces and l realised how much better it sounded.
When l was about eighteen l boldly set my eyes on building the JBL pro 4343 monitor system. Three years later it was used in the Alexander theatre at Monash University by request of the house engineers to replace the Altec system for a ballet school concert. The 4343’s were then used for seven years at that event. The theatre unfolded the true potential of these monitors playing recorded music for the Victorian Ballet School. The difference between a 1970’s lounge room listening space and this theatre is undeniable.
It’s said that a recorded event will never match a live in unamplified event. That is true. But a significant component of that challenge is the acoustic space in which the recorded event is being re played.
https://cleardesign.com.au/projects/mpac
Attachments
Hi,
there is surprisingly lot one can do without special acoustic treatment just by positioning, and there seems to be a key ingredient to this no one is talking about.
Speaker and listener positioning in room can affect roughly three perceptually big things: early reflections, late reverberation or "room sound", and bass modes. Modes get excited less or more depending where speakers are located and choosing listening position will further help. The first two are more interesting though, as they relate to perception of stereo sound and how one would hear the "detailed layering" and spatial cues in the recording. The "late reverberation" is misnomer as domestic rooms can have quite short decay, but there is still the room sound beyond early reflections so lets call it late reverberation. This is quite constant no matter where in room one is, so positioning doesn't affect it too much although it's level compared to direct sound can be adjusted by adjusting level of direct sound, which adjusts with listening distance (and toe-in), D/R ratio.
Most interesting is early reflections. How do we perceive those? First, they are surprisingly loud if you just think about it, typical small home speaker with DI ~6db at 1kHz so any of six boundaries first or second order reflections are attenuated only perhaps 6-10db, and together easily combine to be louder than the direct sound for longer listening distances at least. For example floor reflection could be only 40cm late with 3m listening distance. Rug on the floor attenuates very little, so it's almost as loud as direct sound because it has practically no attenuation with very similar path length as direct sound, maybe couple decibels down on frequencies where speaker directivity doesn't attenuate it. If one shortens the listening distance to one meter keeping height of speaker and listener the same, the path length through floor could be double of direct sound, perhaps 2m with 1m listening distance so 1m late, which now changed delay of it from ~1ms to ~3ms and changed the incident angle so that speaker directivity attenuates it and also the double path length makes about 6db attenuation. The floor reflection went perhaps 10db down and delayed three times longer just by changing listening distance, that is significant. Similar thing happens with all the other early reflections.
Now if you are interested about perception and listening put speakers perhaps 2m apart, make sure there is room to move yourself closer or further from speakers and start listening, eyes closed. How does 1m listening distance sound like? What about 2m? what about 3m? If you start from far side of the room, close your eyes and concentrate listening the phantom center and then start moving closer to speakers. How does perception of phantom center change? Use mono pink noise and adjust your speakers toe-in and EQ to make sure there is possibility for very sharp phantom center to happen.*
Turns out there is quite stark contrast perceptually between the close and far listening distances, and transition between the two doesn't seem to have too much slide but is quite sudden. Even though parameters of the system, the delays and the attenuation of early reflections, slide as you move toward speakers the perception doesn't but jumps from "hazy" to "sharp" at some point quite suddenly. At least with my setup in various rooms I've had it in, and few other setups I've heard. And this perceptual effect is very similar to what David Griesinger writes with "Limit of localization distance" and what it means perceptually, and thus I think it is the same thing. Basically auditory system switches state there, as per Griesinger there is one neural stream when too far from sound source, and close enough brain can notice the direct sound and separate it to it's own foreground neural stream while the other surrouding sounds get their own background stream. Relationship of direct sound compared to all the early reflections and late reverberation, perhaps other things, get to a point at some close enough distance to speakers that brain suddenly pays involuntary attention to direct sound providing clarity, better localization and turns local room "spacious" sound into envelopment. The sound literally changes in one step with my setup, as if stereo sound was in front of me bit hazy blob located in my room, to a clear "what's on the recording" sound, like stepping into the sound. All without any special room acoustics, just a domestic living room and changing listening distance. This is not new stuff per se, both the far and close sound are familiar to people like in near field studio monitors and mains, but no one seems to play with the transition between the two, or realize both sounds are always available just by moving yourself a little, and little bit of listening skill to find the transition in the first place and put your chair there.
The transition, where auditory system switches state, is quite easy to listen after one finds it, and it should happen with any sound source with any reflective space because it is not property of speakers or acoustics but our own hearing system. This way it's like a beacon, a clear spot in unknown situation which you can always find and then start reasoning about acoustics, room sound and speaker sound with it because one can AB switch things with it! And this, the hearing system and clear state switching, is not talked much at all but everyone concentrates on the milliseconds and decibels, directivity indexes, horn speakers and other details., which all eventually just leads to the state switching of hearing system and which side one prefers. If this feels hard to grasp, the perception of sound we have is not directly what comes into our ears, but there is unconscious process between ears and conscious perception of sound, the auditory system, which always affects what you perceive. It's a filter between your consciousness and physical reality, processor of sensory input.
Now when one realizes there is two distinct sounds available from (almost*) any sound source and room there is opportunity to optimize the positioning, toe-in, acoustics, sound, to either, or for both! Turns out some recordings sound better on either side, while some sound great no both, but sometimes the mood calls for either and it is very powerful to know about this stuff, to optimize sound just by changing listening distance a bit. It's possible to put listening chair about at the transition so that one can lean back for the relaxed local room hazy sound, or lean forward to dive into the recording and get the whole brain/attention involved. Here ~constant directivity speakers really shine, because toe-in and can be adjusted to optimize both sides of the transition, because any (direct sound and off-axis/early reflections) listening axis is as good as any other.
Now, acoustic treatment can still be only positive, but the task is now mostly to adjust the "space" and bass modes. Clear sound and localization is achieved by changing state in brain, which could be done just by shrinking listening distance enough (compared to acoustics and speaker DI), and I'd speculate acoustic treatment can move this transition distance further out into the room. Now one can listen to the envelopment and refine the acoustic treatment, basically delay and attenuate the earliest frontal arriving reflections in favor to increase later sound arriving from all directions. For example one might be able to leave walls fully reflective for maximum envelopment, if the close sound is the goal and if early reflections influence is delt with the positioning only to achieve the close sound. There is more, bass is also involved with envelopment, but the post is already too long. Look for Griesinger papers.
So, currently it seems to me that acoustic treatment isn't absolutely necessary, but listening skill is, to find the transition and then use that to one's benefit is. After that, acoustics would help further refine things, what ever it is that one wants to refine, bass modes, envelopment of close listening distance or spaciousness of further listening distance and any combination off. By the way, it is possible to subject your hearing to even a particular early reflection utilizing the AB switching of brain, and directional speaker 😉
Anyway, long story 😀 if you don't mind it would be very interesting to know whether you can find such perceptual transition in your current setup and what it feels like to you, is it sudden or gradual, how far it is and what do you think about it overall?
cool cool, have fun!🙂
ps. if one does this and spends time listening with the transition ideas about better (more suitable) speaker system might emerge. Or one could find the system is just find and can finally relax and stop lusting over something that one doesn't need. In this regards this is very much on topic, but could be approached with commercial speakers as well. DIY stuff helps experimenting with it though, to develop listening skill and the system naturally evolves with it.
*) if speakers aren't very good, or too big for room so that perceptual transition is closer than speaker technical near field, I think it's possible not to have the transition happever. I've had it happen in any speakers in any room I've had access to recently so I think it's very likely any sensible speaker in sensible rooms can do this.
Last edited:
Hi Timuikku,
Thank you for your detailed descriptions.
I am well aware of the differences in loudspeaker locations down to the inch.
Has it occurred to you that if you spent half your budget on your room which HiFi retailers are now advocating you wouldn’t be thinking about it all this stuff on these forums. The upshot is you’d start listening to more of your recordings and forget about the forums.
The other painfully fundamental point is that home studio mixing professionals should not need to install room treatments if they follow your playbook.
I don’t think they would agree with you. I will leave it to you to persuade them otherwise.
My belief is simple and nobody here will like it. Oh don’t spoil our fun….🤩
“The amount of over hypothesising, debates and ramblings on these forums would drop like a rock off a cliff if people were a little more self aware about the space they listen.
I am willing to bet most don’t care because it’s in our nature to take the easy fun path.
Thank you for your detailed descriptions.
I am well aware of the differences in loudspeaker locations down to the inch.
Has it occurred to you that if you spent half your budget on your room which HiFi retailers are now advocating you wouldn’t be thinking about it all this stuff on these forums. The upshot is you’d start listening to more of your recordings and forget about the forums.
The other painfully fundamental point is that home studio mixing professionals should not need to install room treatments if they follow your playbook.
I don’t think they would agree with you. I will leave it to you to persuade them otherwise.
My belief is simple and nobody here will like it. Oh don’t spoil our fun….🤩
“The amount of over hypothesising, debates and ramblings on these forums would drop like a rock off a cliff if people were a little more self aware about the space they listen.
I am willing to bet most don’t care because it’s in our nature to take the easy fun path.
I LOVE the original query and the responses to it. Most are a pile on of how any and all speaker manufacturers gouge their customers, and how anyone can do better in their garage with a speaker catalog and a chain saw.
Yeah, you might be able to make a speaker that sounds better TO YOU, but how about ANYONE ELSE. Most DIY'ers I know never GET OUT to mingle with the rest of the world and see what's going on. Go ahead and build your best - then try to sell it to someone - and see the response. Once you're out of your own little world??? O yeah - how would you price it - single piece and quantity 50 pair
Yeah, you might be able to make a speaker that sounds better TO YOU, but how about ANYONE ELSE. Most DIY'ers I know never GET OUT to mingle with the rest of the world and see what's going on. Go ahead and build your best - then try to sell it to someone - and see the response. Once you're out of your own little world??? O yeah - how would you price it - single piece and quantity 50 pair
Hi macka,
I see your point but I think you missed mine. What I'm saying there is keys to unlock listening skill regarding this stuff so it's not as random anymore as you make it seem in your posts, because one unknown is solved by finding the audible transition. Auditory system is part of the chain that makes into perception, after speakers and room, but no one talks about the auditory system much at all even though it's very important: Since there is two states with the auditory system + lots of variability as it adjust to the sound all the time, there is a lot of room for confusion on things. Not knowing which state the auditory system is could lead to false assumptions, maintain confusion, be part of the circle of confusion. See, even if two people listened same system in same room, but not knowing which state their auditory system was , they might argue about sound of the system and be both right just not understanding they had different perception to it (due to both having different listening distance basically). For which one the system was setup for? both?
For example, if homestudio guy sits too far from speaker regarding acoustics, buys and installs some acoustic treatment recommended by someone while no one actually listened what's the issue and whether it gets fixed, how does he validate it's better now? He could still be too far. What is it that he was looking for in the first place, anechoic sound? well, just trying to make an example. There is likely flutter echo issues, bass issues and perhaps too long reverberation time.
One needs to somehow AB test what ever it is one was trying to fix with the acoustic treatment, or what ever is it that one is trying to tweak, speaker positioning or the speakers, rotate amplifiers trying to get clarity without knowing it's the too far listening distance that ruins it not the amplifier. Yeah one can measure difference with stuff, like before and after acoustic treatment, measurements look different so the sound must be different right? But did it actually get to the point one wants it? Possibly, but perhaps one now has only the close sound available so some records sound weird because the mixing engineer mixed with auditory system in another state?🙂
See, it's just listening skill I'm promoting, and how to get sense to perception by utilizing the transition. two states of our own auditory system, so one can effectively use logic with perception. Adjust toe-in, figure out necessary acoustic treatment, or choose more appropriate speakers if acoustic treatment is not practical. What is appropriate? What the sales man sells or forums write? These do not come with perceived audio so it's just money transfer until one learns what they want to perceive and learn to AB whether it happens or not on their own. Perhaps people do this, it's just not talked too much, at least not on this or another forum. Haven't been on homestudio forums for long time, as most folk usually aren't into speakers or acoustics but into producing and mixing and that sort of stuff. Professional homestudio must have brand x gear and acoustic treatment to be professional, right 😉
One more, look up any discussion about stereo image or soundstaging, and see if auditory system is brought up. Usually not, and the discussion is full of debate and confusion until you put everyone on either side of the transition, they just aren't aware auditory system state in this regard. If they were, it would have been brought up.
I see your point but I think you missed mine. What I'm saying there is keys to unlock listening skill regarding this stuff so it's not as random anymore as you make it seem in your posts, because one unknown is solved by finding the audible transition. Auditory system is part of the chain that makes into perception, after speakers and room, but no one talks about the auditory system much at all even though it's very important: Since there is two states with the auditory system + lots of variability as it adjust to the sound all the time, there is a lot of room for confusion on things. Not knowing which state the auditory system is could lead to false assumptions, maintain confusion, be part of the circle of confusion. See, even if two people listened same system in same room, but not knowing which state their auditory system was , they might argue about sound of the system and be both right just not understanding they had different perception to it (due to both having different listening distance basically). For which one the system was setup for? both?
For example, if homestudio guy sits too far from speaker regarding acoustics, buys and installs some acoustic treatment recommended by someone while no one actually listened what's the issue and whether it gets fixed, how does he validate it's better now? He could still be too far. What is it that he was looking for in the first place, anechoic sound? well, just trying to make an example. There is likely flutter echo issues, bass issues and perhaps too long reverberation time.
One needs to somehow AB test what ever it is one was trying to fix with the acoustic treatment, or what ever is it that one is trying to tweak, speaker positioning or the speakers, rotate amplifiers trying to get clarity without knowing it's the too far listening distance that ruins it not the amplifier. Yeah one can measure difference with stuff, like before and after acoustic treatment, measurements look different so the sound must be different right? But did it actually get to the point one wants it? Possibly, but perhaps one now has only the close sound available so some records sound weird because the mixing engineer mixed with auditory system in another state?🙂
See, it's just listening skill I'm promoting, and how to get sense to perception by utilizing the transition. two states of our own auditory system, so one can effectively use logic with perception. Adjust toe-in, figure out necessary acoustic treatment, or choose more appropriate speakers if acoustic treatment is not practical. What is appropriate? What the sales man sells or forums write? These do not come with perceived audio so it's just money transfer until one learns what they want to perceive and learn to AB whether it happens or not on their own. Perhaps people do this, it's just not talked too much, at least not on this or another forum. Haven't been on homestudio forums for long time, as most folk usually aren't into speakers or acoustics but into producing and mixing and that sort of stuff. Professional homestudio must have brand x gear and acoustic treatment to be professional, right 😉
One more, look up any discussion about stereo image or soundstaging, and see if auditory system is brought up. Usually not, and the discussion is full of debate and confusion until you put everyone on either side of the transition, they just aren't aware auditory system state in this regard. If they were, it would have been brought up.
Last edited: