They may be related in the sense that they tend to move in opposite directions, but they are clearly distinctive psychoacoustical aspects of reproduction. Early reflections tend to enhance spaciousness (the sense of a spaces acoustic ambiance) but they degrade imaging (the clarity of the sound image/location of the musicians in the recording.)
Classical music recorded in-venue will have a strong spaciousness aspect while imaging is a lessor aspect. Studio recordings will be very strong in image, but usually low in spaciousness. Hence, a low DI will tend to enhance a classical recording while a higher DI will tend to enhance a studio recording. You have to know what you are looking for.
I have listened to speakers in an anechoic chamber. It is unappealing, worse than headphones IMO, which I don't like compared to a good room/speaker design.
The first sentence above is confusing (what else is new!) Some sources have little to no spatial information, in which case adding some with the room can be appealing. IMO the playback room acoustics are always beneficial if done properly, i.e. the room and speakers play well together. The idea of an anechoic playback situation is not appealing to me at all.
I don't think that this is true. Reflections only "color" the sound if they are early enough so as to fuse with the direct sound. After that they are heard as spaciousness and not coloration. A high DI in a lively room will thus have good imaging as well as spaciousness. Room acoustics is a good thing when done right.
I think this paper by David Griesinger might be of interest. I've been running such a tweak for years on end (ever since Pano's Fixing the Phantom Center thread) and I had to conclude for myself that imaging and spaciousness can coincide perfectly well. Some of the other papers (and video's) by Dr. Griesinger are of equal interest for anyone that wants to have their cake and eat it too. Early reflections have too many drawbacks, but spaciousness and envelopment is a topic that gets quite a bit of traction in Dr. Griesinger's papers. A recommended read!
^ Dr. Griesinger's paper are well worth reading. I highly regard his work on spaciousness. He doesn't speak much to imaging. His interest is in recreating the spaciousness of a live concert hall venue - that's clear from his work. I don't think that studio work ever enters into his interests.
And I agree that imaging and spaciousness can coincide, but not with both at there optimum levels. There is always going to some tradeoff. My approach (a high DI and a very lively room) yields the compromise that I prefer for my mostly studio work listening.
And I agree that imaging and spaciousness can coincide, but not with both at there optimum levels. There is always going to some tradeoff. My approach (a high DI and a very lively room) yields the compromise that I prefer for my mostly studio work listening.
“optimum” is relative to the listener to the particular playback material: it’s subjective.
I’ve heard more precise (in location) lateral (reproduced) sources with more directive speakers, but not with respect to depth. I’d describe it more as ”pin-point imaging“. With good results there is still depth to the imaging, but it’s just not as apparent - the listener has to also “focus“: a forced effect. I personally find this result more important for HT (Home Theater) - particularly for on-screen dialogue-tracking.
Alternatively I’ve heard better (in location) depth (reproduced) sources with radial/“omni” and dipole speakers - even with heavy absorption for the wall behind the loudspeakers AND (in other instance) also with the speakers pulled-out well “into” the room (with late and lower spl reflections relative to the listener’s direct-sound spl). (though not always) I’d generally describe the imaging as more real/dimensional: un-forced and more natural. This is what I prefer for most stereo music reproduction.
..of course this is largely with respect to higher frequencies.
A good “veracity check” for spatial and imaging system testing is with a binaural recording on decent headphones (and then comparing a similar recording w/ the same track on the stereo system).
I’ve heard more precise (in location) lateral (reproduced) sources with more directive speakers, but not with respect to depth. I’d describe it more as ”pin-point imaging“. With good results there is still depth to the imaging, but it’s just not as apparent - the listener has to also “focus“: a forced effect. I personally find this result more important for HT (Home Theater) - particularly for on-screen dialogue-tracking.
Alternatively I’ve heard better (in location) depth (reproduced) sources with radial/“omni” and dipole speakers - even with heavy absorption for the wall behind the loudspeakers AND (in other instance) also with the speakers pulled-out well “into” the room (with late and lower spl reflections relative to the listener’s direct-sound spl). (though not always) I’d generally describe the imaging as more real/dimensional: un-forced and more natural. This is what I prefer for most stereo music reproduction.
..of course this is largely with respect to higher frequencies.
A good “veracity check” for spatial and imaging system testing is with a binaural recording on decent headphones (and then comparing a similar recording w/ the same track on the stereo system).
Last edited:
I do like headphones, but I have come to the realization that the level of room evolvement desired by a person is a personal preference.
There maybe late reflections in the source already. If the spl levels of late room reflections are high enough why wouldn't it change/color the perception of the late reflections recorded in the source? I would think that the reverb of the room will always alter the perception of the reverb in the source.
Which brings me back to the idea of music listening inside of an an anechoic chamber... in order to have it makes sense there is a variable that I forgot.... you don't have any music that's actually been designed to sound good in an anechoic chamber does everything that she would listen to would sound much drier than the engineer who sculpted the signal desired it to appear.
I think this is a good and interesting point that I'm not sure but I think it relates to critical damping. And the only way to technically correctly listen to source material in the utmost sense would be in the same room or at least very similar to the room the signal was designed in....
This is the only way to truly hear or at least come as closest possible to hearing watt the sound engineer who designed the signal was hearing
Could we use whatever RT 60 is most commonly used in mastering rooms on average as a sort of benchmark?
Also! Do you enjoy music played outside? Can you describe what the music sounded like inside of the anechoic chamber or what parts of it that you didn't like?
Last edited:
It doesn’t follow… you’d simply have two different versions of spaciousness added together.
There is only one version of listening room spaciousness. The most accurate rendition of any recording is using a room like the one in which the engineer mastered the recording, and with the same layout and the same speakers. Nothing is added together. It's just one or another. Listening room spaciousness is not part of the source.
We listeners decide to accept a room, or build/modify a room to our taste. Both are a mixed adventure - pun intended.
We listeners decide to accept a room, or build/modify a room to our taste. Both are a mixed adventure - pun intended.
Last edited:
Any room verb is an addition and change to the whole direct to indirect presentation The direct signal has its own direct and indirect sound scape.
I then thought hmm, @gedlee listened to music designed to sound good, in a room, not an anechoic chamber. At the very least, we can assume an overly damped presentation that the designer never heard before or intended
The mastering room the source signal came from.... this is the truest state of final desired product. The mastering engineer is the Finisher. What hes hearing in his room, is what he hopes you hear or at least something close enough to it, and that you would think, job well done.
I now wondered how far away from an Anechoic chamber, is "outside"... not a sensible question without more detail so lets say, a grassy open field with no hills around... another example of interest... inside a Michigan forest or similar.
@mark100 I remember correctly you spoke of enjoying your system, outside... what exactly is your "outside"?
I then thought hmm, @gedlee listened to music designed to sound good, in a room, not an anechoic chamber. At the very least, we can assume an overly damped presentation that the designer never heard before or intended
The mastering room the source signal came from.... this is the truest state of final desired product. The mastering engineer is the Finisher. What hes hearing in his room, is what he hopes you hear or at least something close enough to it, and that you would think, job well done.
I now wondered how far away from an Anechoic chamber, is "outside"... not a sensible question without more detail so lets say, a grassy open field with no hills around... another example of interest... inside a Michigan forest or similar.
@mark100 I remember correctly you spoke of enjoying your system, outside... what exactly is your "outside"?
It’s not about if there is a change or not, rather what is important is if there is a substantive change for a given listener: does the change have significance?
Any time change has the do with spl, delay, attack, decay it is potentially substantial to perception. I also consequently view monitoring for pleasure identical to monitoring for critical listening. It is synonymous to me, for what I find as desirable/pleasurable.
To your point, I still agree. You are helping me with my perspective. Sensitivity to spl differs in frequency. On a broader scale.
To your point, I still agree. You are helping me with my perspective. Sensitivity to spl differs in frequency. On a broader scale.
Says Claude
I’d say that near reflections (unless really close in time and spl at high freq.s) are mostly about spl-changes: making direct sound appear louder than it is. Still, that spl change also includes angle - and perceptually that can be a problem in addition to apparent inter-channel imbalance.
Exception: where the near side-wall reflection is loud enough - reflecting and diffracting around the near loudspeaker itself. That does result in less apparent precision. (..easy test: 4” mineral-wool slab very close to loudspeaker between it and near-wall.)
Exception: where the near side-wall reflection is loud enough - reflecting and diffracting around the near loudspeaker itself. That does result in less apparent precision. (..easy test: 4” mineral-wool slab very close to loudspeaker between it and near-wall.)
Most importantly, is that the deviation of the RT60 is low. That's why they talk about 0.3-0.5s (or 0.4 ± 0.1s would be a better notation)
Which it's not in an average living room.
I also don't think you want these numbers in an average living room, because they can be very weird and sometimes even tiring to some.
Also keep in mind we are reproducing music, not mixing music. Totally different approach. Some recordings are designed to be played with (some) additional reverb.
At that moment we go into the rabbit hole of how things are recorded, mixed and with what purpose. That will end up in a chicken egg discussion with no clear answer.
Approaches...
//
- Correct from electrical signal in amp to near field air. Technically fun but not a path to correct reproduction (aka truthful rendition) - at least half the problem is missed.
- Correct from air to air - forget it - its to complicated - think vector field recreation - yes, that hard...
- Nice sound from sane tech choices and experiences... yup.
//
I think you mean periods?
Because reverb is a function of time and sound pressure. RT60 is also a two dimensional unit. While a spectral decay graph contains three variables.
I guess you can plot a burst decay in periods as well of a room. It's just not called RT60 anymore. It also doesn't give you much more information (since RT60 is basically the same thing)
Also keep in mind that the frequency band is only from about 250Hz to roughly 8kHz. Below room modes are becoming dominant, above there is to much local absorption and beaming effects.
Mostly like Scott said, on a back deck facing the lake, with the house's rear wall becoming a single side wall.
Sometimes when guests are over, I'll point the speakers toward the lake and go swim to tunes. But that takes pretty loud since it puts us about 150ft away from the speaker(s).
Also, not many years back I built a soccer field and picnic shelter out in a hayfield. Could set up speakers under the shelter or out in the field.
And I put a pair of Meyer UPA-1p and a 650-p sub in the back of a Honda Odyssey, pointing out the back. Just lift the rear hatch and blast away. Incredibly good sounding "portable" rig lol......and made for outdoors.
Anyway, add some time playing with live-sound, and it sums to a variety of outdoor experiences.
I don't think outdoors sounds dry or anechoic at all. I think ground bounce alone seems to take care of things. Lord know it does on water...who doesn't know how well sound carries over water, with it's own sonic signature.
I haven't had the experience of listening in a anechoic chamber.
Been wanting to ask Earl and any others who have, how does that compare to simple outdoor listening, say in a field or parking lot?
I have to believe it's quite different, as I imagine anechoic to sound like "sound being sucked out", .....like what I hear in a dense clothes closet etc.