Me - the "all-knowing sage"? I think you've got that backwards.
You are the who keeps citing over and over again about all of your time in recording studios as though that makes you a better listener than the rest of us. Seems as though you are appointing yourself as the all-knowing person.
But sorry if I'm not buying that. I know what I hear just as well as anyone else, regardless of their self acclaimed experience in recording studios or anywhere else.
I stand by my analogy. It is a perfectly good one.
For a person to be fully and deeply engaged in an art experience they cannot be simultaneously using their brain to process scientific thoughts. It's not possible and any attempt to do so has to compromise the art experience.
Last edited:
OK, then here's the problem as I see it. You came here for assistance. You've had a lot of assistance, and rejected all of it that doesn't match your preconcieved ideas, and fully denegrate anyone with any insight differing from yours. But you continue to ask questions. So....what DO you want here? Do you want someone to tickle your ears and tell you you're absolutely right? OR do you want to expand your knowledge and learn something? Or do you want to just keep asking quesitons until somebody tells you what you want to hear, whatever matches what you say you believe, with or without actual referential backup?
I don't know, and right now, the frustration is just not worth even trying anymore.
jaddie, if a system in a room has trouble keeping sound sources as distinct as they are on the recording then it's questionable that it is even able to properly reproduce the nuance of a single instrument. Two channel stereo still does some things perfectly well. Also, I disagree with a single instrument being referred to as a point source, along with the implication it seems you were trying to make that it somehow makes it easier for a speaker to reproduce.
I don't know what in the world or who you are talking about. But it's certainly not me.
I have not been continuing to ask questions as you seem to think. If you believe that I have then you should reference those posts. I don't think you are going to find many recently.
What I have been doing is expressing my opinion about certain things that are widely open to discussion here. I thought that this was a place where people could express their opinions freely. But you seem to think that if those don't agree with your opinions, then they shouldn't be allowed.
A good amplifier will make your speakers spring to life and produce their best sound, something like a Sansui AU-555A, a Sansui AU-5900 or Sansui AU-9900 these legendary amplifiers from the Golden era of audio are relatively cheap in the US and will do the job well for another 50 years or so if the amplifier's electrolytic capacitors are replaced and the fail prone transistors are swapped out for modern versions. It's easy and cheap to do if you know how to solder, you will get all the help you need on this forum if you run into trouble plus you get the satisfaction of doing it yourself. You will be amazed at the difference this makes. I've rebuilt a fair few Sansui amplifiers so I can guide you through the rebuild if needed?
Last edited:
Your conclusions presume stereo is "perfect". You need to read up. It's not, perfect, two channel stereo doesn't do anything "well", it does present an acceptable compromise, so ultimatlely common that it is generally accepted as the best and only way.
Certain instrumenst are closer to a point source than a multi-point source, especially at a distance. But it's pointless to argue trhe obvious.
I suggest some reading. But I'm also not going to spoon feed. Look up the original Bell stereo experiments. Just look around for it.
Read "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers And Rooms" by Floyd Toole, in particular Chapter 2, "Preserving the Art", section 2.3 and 2.5.
9.1.3 An Important One-Toothed Comb—A Fundamental Flaw in Stereo ...just as a general start.
Of course, the whole work would tend to buck personal preconceptions, so if you hang on to those tightly, do NOT read this book, just enjoy your own comcept of reality.
Thare are so many works on acoustics, localization, human hearing perception, and so on, not to mention papers. But like any research, if you don't go in with a mind at least a little open to considering the findings and life work of others who take audio as much more than a hobby, then probably don't bother.
I didn't say that, however in the ways we're discussing it isn't flawed, it's not even relevant. Stereo isn't in question, we were talking about speakers/rooms that are incapable of preserving what is on a recording and keeping instruments distinct... even when they occupy the same space.
Now you seem to be inferring that the size of a real source can be compared with the size of a speaker as a source, even though...
1. The sound is brought down to a tiny microphone during the process,
2. The recording is intended to reproduce the original room, not the listening room, and
3. A speaker is meant to reproduce, not produce.. and it can do that.
Wow you do love to edit your posts!
Stereo is flawed in every aspect, and those ways absolutely do include what(ever) we're talking about. How would a flawed reprudction configuration in a room not affect soundstage?
Because of the physical size range the wavelengths of sound, a point sample is all that makes sense. Yes, some speakers are far too large and have complex radiation patterns to ever be a point source, but some are just fine.
How on earth could it ever do that? It's reproducing a recording made with microhpones, not ears. Microphones have nothing like the directional pattern of ears on a head on top of a body. So you get a very different sample of the original space than anyone would hear in that space. Then you reproduce it in an entirely new space, which is added to the original. Then you reproduce a recording made with microphones in one configuration, but played on speakers in an entirely different configuration. There's simply no means to reproduce the original sound in the original room. Not a chance. And that's not the goal anyway. Anyone who thinks it is has never produced a recording. It just does not work that way ever.
A speaker is a terrible "reproducer". There's nothing about it that matches the way the original instrument produces a sound, and there's not much in the signal driving it that accurately represents the original either. All transducers, mics, speakers, and headphones, have all manner of distortions of response, time, and linearity, and all have spectral radiation patterns that are unique to them. No sound system replicates. They can only produce their unique version of the signal sent to them, which is already a unique representation (not replica) of the original.
This doesn't mean a stereo system is unlistenable, or not fully enjoyable, they certainly are very listenable and we should all get a lot of enjoyment out of them. I know I do. But it's not a replica, it's something new that suggests the original well enough to satisfy an suspend disbelief.
I cannot continue this. Please read the references I've given. Please study recording and reproduction. I know you don't believe a word I write, niether does classicalfan, and I don't know who else. If you have a real interest, dig in, and you'll find the answers.
I have to be done here now for good. I've literally written a small book trying to help you all understand the well understood principles of sound, acoustics, and perception, but it's been a total waste of time for me because you are all just fighting back. You're fighting well understood principles in favor of your own misconceptions, but it's beyond wasteful for me to try to help any further. I welcome questions and discussion, but all of this hand waving based on a lack of knowledge is just a time vampire.
Believe anything you want, so long as you're happy with it.
I disagree that one cannot hear a sense of the recording venue acoustics, when they exist on the recording, and when the system/room is capable.
Thanks for the suggestion and I'm sure that the Sansui amplifiers sound great. But I really prefer to buy new products and not have to rebuild something. Even if the results are not quite as good, I still want to have someone else do the work.
I'm happy to build speakers myself, but don't want to build amplifiers or do modifications to them.
I have Toole's book and have read a good part of it. The problem is that all of the testing he did at Harman was conducted in a large room under very tightly controlled circumstances. And the reporting he does about his own system in his home is again in a large room as well and uses five speakers rather than two.
For most of us the results that Toole reports are not anything very useful because we don't have rooms or systems that are even close to those he reports on. I put the book away after a while realizing that it was of limited value for my situation and I suspect the same is true for many others here. It's not that Toole is necessarily wrong, it's just that a lot of what he discusses is not applicable to everyone.
I'd like to believe that as well. But in reality we hear a combination that was cooked up in the control room, using several microphones to get there and mixed
by professionals that know a thing or two about perception. It is satisfying, it is believable, but is it the real room? 🙂
Yes. Although that wasn't the point, it's still interesting. Sometimes what I hear is more residual than intentional ambience, not necessarily helpful.. but whatever it is, when the speakers and room are working well, it becomes audible. The previous point being that when music falls apart to the point that things can't stand on their own, the place I'd look first is the speakers and room.
A speaker is not supposed to "sound" like an instrument. It should somehow do the reciprocal of the mic. At least this must be the idea of the stereo systsem. Now, there might be a flaw in the "stereo system" architecture...
//
//
True, and it was my view on the Toole literature as well. Look at the room he uses, that's not nearly as challenging as mine.
But... in a small room, things get worse. But using room treatment does an awful lot to make it better.
That doesn't mean I'm telling you to treat your room. It's just stating the fact that there are large differences to be heard when one does choose to do so.
I have the measurements and the first hand experience to back that up.
But, in your case I'd probably follow a few simple steps...
1) Get the bass more right. Get some bass drivers to help the speakers (leave those sealed) and EQ to get the bass right. Don't try it with a single subwoofer,
use more than one, preferably 3 or more.
2) Play with diffusion. Try to diffuse the first reflections. I've told you I've absorbed my early reflections, but in your case, listening to classic primarily, diffusion
would probably get you closer to what you'd like. Making the room sound larger being the goal.
To attack step 2, just experiment. Use simple stuff to do a temporary job. If it works, make something a little more fitting. If you can and have a big backyard,
place the speakers outside, in a stereo triangle with speakers and listening position well away from any objects and just observe. That should give you more than
an idea about what a room does.
The room is your biggest mountain to climb to get where you want to be. But simple things can work to make it way better. Experiment and test.
Do borrow a nice amplifier to test to see if those suggestions are worth anything. Maybe someone is close enough to help out and come over to chat and listen.
I've had several DIY members over for a visit, it's always fun and feels like extended family at times.
That's about all I could come up with, I do realize not everyone on this forum is as crazy as I am, but I want to say: I've not seen @jaddie say anything that didn't
line up with my personal experience. I've read a lot, more than a lot... I followed the advise of Geddes, Danley, Dunlavy, Toole, Olive, most of all Griesinger and
more than I can name on this forum and it definitely helped me get where I wanted to be. In a room that looks simple enough on first look, but sounds amazing.
It wouldn't be fair to not mention the Gearslutz forums. Nowadays called Gearspace. As I've read a lot there to learn more about rooms and room treatment and it's effects.
Somehow that is a very neglected topic on DIYaudio.
Last edited:
Yeah, thanks wesayso. A lot of people her like to cite Toole, but I think much of what he writes is of limited value to many of us specifically based on room size.
The two biggest points he makes, in my opinion, are:
1. Speakers should have a flat frequency response. The flatter the better.
2. Five speakers are much better than two, if you can arrange for them.
and I almost forgot Number 3, which will explode some people's heads here:
3. Speaker cables don't matter. You can't hear any difference regardless of how much they cost.
With regard to my situation while I appreciate much of the advice, I just simply cannot put a panel, absorber or reflector, on one of the walls because it is a window. And I'm not willing to cover it up for the sake of possibly improving the sound. It's just not worth it to me. And that is reason I have continuously rejected room treatments. Also, the opposite wall is a sliding closet door and any panel on it would interfere with its ability to slide. So again, those sidewall room treatments just are not possible. I could do something on the front wall and perhaps will at some time, but it's not very high on my list at the moment.
I agree with doing something to improve the bass and that is clearly the next step.
I looked at the Gearspace website, but it really is for professionals and way over my head. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
The two biggest points he makes, in my opinion, are:
1. Speakers should have a flat frequency response. The flatter the better.
2. Five speakers are much better than two, if you can arrange for them.
and I almost forgot Number 3, which will explode some people's heads here:
3. Speaker cables don't matter. You can't hear any difference regardless of how much they cost.
With regard to my situation while I appreciate much of the advice, I just simply cannot put a panel, absorber or reflector, on one of the walls because it is a window. And I'm not willing to cover it up for the sake of possibly improving the sound. It's just not worth it to me. And that is reason I have continuously rejected room treatments. Also, the opposite wall is a sliding closet door and any panel on it would interfere with its ability to slide. So again, those sidewall room treatments just are not possible. I could do something on the front wall and perhaps will at some time, but it's not very high on my list at the moment.
I agree with doing something to improve the bass and that is clearly the next step.
I looked at the Gearspace website, but it really is for professionals and way over my head. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
Hi ClassicalFan,
you said you have a woodshop and though you have been forthright about not being interested in room treatments, the following thread has always been of interest to me: Depot diffusers.
Something like this could look quite tasteful on a wall (in a mid-century way) if executed properly; they are somewhat sculptural and an oil finish works wonders when appropriate.
Maybe the dark horse of this thread is that we’ve been encouraging room treatments without elaboration, when instead we should have been convincing you of ways to make the process and finished result enjoyable and satisfying.
just a thought.
you said you have a woodshop and though you have been forthright about not being interested in room treatments, the following thread has always been of interest to me: Depot diffusers.
Something like this could look quite tasteful on a wall (in a mid-century way) if executed properly; they are somewhat sculptural and an oil finish works wonders when appropriate.
Maybe the dark horse of this thread is that we’ve been encouraging room treatments without elaboration, when instead we should have been convincing you of ways to make the process and finished result enjoyable and satisfying.
just a thought.
I looked at the Depot Diffusers thread you referenced, but it's not my cup of tea. If I'm going to be looking at diffusers on the wall all the time I would use a much better grade of wood. Probably either maple, walnut, or oak. Something that I can make look very attractive. Sort of into an art piece with an attractive grain.
I don't use softwoods like pine or fir for anything other than shop fixtures. If it comes into the house it will have be a hardwood of some type.
Thanks for the tip, but I am willing to spend the money for better, more attractive wood.