ScottG said:I'd have to agree with Thy' here with regard to emphasis - the speaker is always SUBSTANTIALLY more important, and strangely enough this NOT with respect to a linear response on-axis.
You can have all sorts of modal issues FUBAR'ing the sound typically from anywhere between 28 Hz - 200 Hz, AND possibly floor bounce creating a sever null around 300-500 Hz and still have good sound (though a bit different).
In this respect its because the mind is an amazingly adaptable equalizer for freq. linearization.. Think about it - it must do this all the time for ear wax build-up. (..eww)
Sorry, have to disagree Scott (makes a change from me kissing your a**)
The room and setup are often more important than the loudspeaker. The number of times I've heard stupidly expensive and well review/regarded kit at shows and instantly dismissed the sound as bad... well I've lost count now. On the other hand I've heard much lesser systems with a couple of portable room treatments and traps sound very good for the money, some £500 Focal floorstanders spring to mind, as well as the NHT DEQX loudspeaker/sub system.
As another example I've got a mate who gave up on highend because his room was so bad, he bought PMC AML1's, ATC SCM20-2 and others. The result was that he downgraded and isn't missing much he feels. Unfortunately he couldn't treat the room due to renting and he didn't like the idea of having DRC either (it wouldn't have sorted his problems anyway).
Very few systems I've heard actually have what I'd call a natural sound where you can't hear at least part of the rooms negative contribution. Quite often this gets blamed on the speakers, I'm more inclined to believe its the room these days. When I measured the Perceives in semi-anechoic conditions(large concrete back yard at a community center just around the corner from me) it was liberating to hear them without the colour added by the room.
I think the folks with the poor rooms cite them as more important than the loudspeaker and those with great rooms with lesser problems tend to cite the speaker as more important. I've argued this before and I'll always maintain my position because I've seen its all too common to hear great kit made to sound poor by the room.
The reason's for the why's and how's are widespread, indepth and complex. Reading a good book makes you realise just how complex the loudspeaker/room interaction really is. Its massive and overshadows every aspect of the loudspeaker in particularly problematic and extreme examples. Even rooms considered good add a still surprising amount of colouration to the loudspeakers original intent.
ScottG said:
This is the biggest room in our house, the 4 x 3m was actually two rooms before we knocked through. The Borrowers love it anyway 😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
Remember with those trade shows and shops - there is very little you will likely be used to. Additionally, there are any number of reasons for an unfamilar system to "fail" that may have nothing to due with the room/loudspeaker interaction. (..heck, despite a component's high cost it could very well be mediocre at best.)
None of this is to say you can't hear the negative contribution of a room however. Its more to say that with using the product as directed by the manufacturer - that its strengths and weaknesses will become apparent *despite* the contribution of the room.
I also think that trade-show "blame the room" game is just that, a game to help compensate for other inadaquecies. IMO one of the biggest problems the trade shows have (in order) are:
1. The products aren't "broken-in",
2. The products aren't used as directed (..for example placing loudspeaker near a wall when the designer spec'ed that it be placed well away from boundries),
3. The level of noise (both acoustic and power line) is way to high.
4. One or several components are simply not that good irrespective of price.
#1 in particular reminds me of a demo I did quite sometime ago in a "hi-fi" shop. I was listening to a Apogee Stage based system and everything but the integrated amplifier being used was "broken-in". Swaping-out the amplifier (to one that had been "broken-in") resulted in a rather profound change for the better - DESPITE the fact that the "broken-in" amplifer was a considerably less expensive, (and less good for that matter), Adcom amp.
Several weeks latter that same amplifer WAS broken-in and the sound was MUCH better than with the Adcom. (..the amplifer was Cello's least expensive at that time.)
Again though, none of this is to say that a room's contribution can't be significant.. To me its more a matter of this logical progression:
Place a good system in a cr@ppy room ='s good qualities and bad qualities.
Place a bad system in a cr@ppy room ='s nothing but bad qualities.
Place a bad system in a good room and still ='s nothing but bad qualities.
Place a good system in a good room and ='s mostly good qualities.
A box within a box; just optimising the performance of one isn't the whole picture. Why do you think the best concert and opera halls have hours worth of research and deployment of acoustics. The pit is the start of the sound(loudspeaker) and the room carries this through. In an ideal world the two would be designed as one and the same thing as is the case with these venues.
I also don't believe that good kit always displays elements of good and the bad stuff only sounds bad, actually I've not heard anything for a longwhile that was grossly unlistenable room related or otherwise.
As an example, the B&W room at Raddison 06 with well over £40k worth of 7.2 setup was pretty rough sounding. The bass in particularly was all over the place and dominated everything. Not even the fact that these were great and highly distingished (apparently) speakers could save them from the fact that they just didn't work well at all in that room, the only good thing about the sound was.... erm, nope there wasn't anything I could highlight as good actually. On the next floor was the Dali room with some large line arrays, sounded great and the room was half the size but they had treatments, so good kit can sound great. Conversely I've walked into a room with a very modest setup and thought it sounded better despite being fractions of the cost of others.
There's also rooms that sound spectacular with nothing but the kit in there. MBL's omni speakers and hybrid tubes kept me listening for what must have been half an album.
I agree that some setups are poor and I frequently find show rooms using tubes to drive speakers that I know to be unsuited. These rooms always have a woolly character that's soft, boring and slow.
I also don't believe that good kit always displays elements of good and the bad stuff only sounds bad, actually I've not heard anything for a longwhile that was grossly unlistenable room related or otherwise.
As an example, the B&W room at Raddison 06 with well over £40k worth of 7.2 setup was pretty rough sounding. The bass in particularly was all over the place and dominated everything. Not even the fact that these were great and highly distingished (apparently) speakers could save them from the fact that they just didn't work well at all in that room, the only good thing about the sound was.... erm, nope there wasn't anything I could highlight as good actually. On the next floor was the Dali room with some large line arrays, sounded great and the room was half the size but they had treatments, so good kit can sound great. Conversely I've walked into a room with a very modest setup and thought it sounded better despite being fractions of the cost of others.
There's also rooms that sound spectacular with nothing but the kit in there. MBL's omni speakers and hybrid tubes kept me listening for what must have been half an album.
I agree that some setups are poor and I frequently find show rooms using tubes to drive speakers that I know to be unsuited. These rooms always have a woolly character that's soft, boring and slow.
I'll read your posts later, but the room issue isn't a big deal.
For example;
What is easier ?
1. To build another Perceive
or
2. To treat a room with carpet, drapes, furniture and
sound conditioning items ?
Item #2 is a piece of cake if you ask me.
Most homes have natural treatments in the form of;
A. They already have carpet or rugs on hardwood installed.
B. They have curtains/drapes installed.
C. They have furniture in the room.
Do an 'echo test' and the room is well treated for doing
nothing other than normal decoration.
Spend a few dollars more to improve this, piece of cake.
Remove items A, B and C, and yes... you have audible echo
and the loudspeaker will not perform optimally.
But the hardest part is building the sweet loudspeaker
not furnishing the home and adding sound conditioning.
For example;
What is easier ?
1. To build another Perceive
or
2. To treat a room with carpet, drapes, furniture and
sound conditioning items ?
Item #2 is a piece of cake if you ask me.
Most homes have natural treatments in the form of;
A. They already have carpet or rugs on hardwood installed.
B. They have curtains/drapes installed.
C. They have furniture in the room.
Do an 'echo test' and the room is well treated for doing
nothing other than normal decoration.
Spend a few dollars more to improve this, piece of cake.
Remove items A, B and C, and yes... you have audible echo
and the loudspeaker will not perform optimally.
But the hardest part is building the sweet loudspeaker
not furnishing the home and adding sound conditioning.
Making a speaker is easy as well! The hard part is doing either of them to an exceptional level.
I think Shin has a point that people who think it is not much of a deal have just been lucky enough to have good rooms anyway. That or… out of interest thylantyr have you heard a good system in a fully treated room (and I don't mean it had lots of foam over the place, if you see foam it is probably not well treated!)?
Lets face it, both are important.
I think Shin has a point that people who think it is not much of a deal have just been lucky enough to have good rooms anyway. That or… out of interest thylantyr have you heard a good system in a fully treated room (and I don't mean it had lots of foam over the place, if you see foam it is probably not well treated!)?
Lets face it, both are important.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Certianly not the "whole picture" - rather I'm looking at it as if each has a percentage to the total contribution (..and obviously I'd give a much higher percentage to the loudspeaker in general).
I also think that engeneering of concernt hall acoutics have different goals than "control room" settings (..which are more closely aligned with domestic goals). Auditoriums in general are designed to project sound (and enhance it in other aspects) where as control rooms are designed to have the least influance on the sound possible for most of the passband. One is "additive", the other strives for a "negative" *result* (..though note that it is the "result" and not the measured performance).
Hmm, with "good" and "bad" I intended to suggest the average overall result, not one or even a few bad aspects. Nor did I mean to imply a few results that were so bad that they effectivly caused fatigue - not allowing you to experience the "good". Its possible that the B&W 7.1 poor experience had more to do with the recording than the system. (I've definitly experienced that before.) Moreover I've also had occasions where there was one attribute, (like you - bass linearity), that initially caused me to hear nothing good. That didn't mean there were not good aspects to the sound, or that it wasn't a good speaker overall - the only conclusion was that there was something overwhelmingly wrong and I couldn't find anything "right".
Does this mean I agree with your argument? To an extent yes, but I find that this agreement is more an "exception" than a "rule". I.E. *sometimes* rooms will contribute so negativly to the sound that its effect dominates everything else - speakers included.
(..and in reality we are talking about apples and oranges here - the construction for your homes/apartments/hotels is more than a little different in the UK than it is in the US - so perhaps what I would deem an "exception" here, I might well deem a "rule" in the UK.)
Now a look at your "Dali" example - while it sounded great in a room that was treated, might it not have sounded great without the treatment? (..that might be kinda of fun actually - "hey you, I'm a "serious" customer, take the room salves out so I can hear what it sounds like without them..
😀 )Also consider a very modest system vs. a costly one. Thinking about just how many products are available at any price, does cost always equate to quality? Like you I've heard much less expensive systems that just plain sounded better than more costly systems. I've even heard this effect "relativly" regardless of the room. (I.E. I've heard low cost stuff that sounded very good in multiple settings). Consider that Monitor Audio speaker for a grand - I'm betting that thing sounds good in most rooms with only $500 in good quality partnering equipment.
And finally - MBL's.. Hmmm, omni's - Good. MBL omni's - EXCELLENT. (..some of the best speakers I've ever heard.) This is a design that works with your brain and the room to good effect. Some would say - "eww, they interact with the room more than any other design and that can't be good for the sound, or at least not for "accurate" sound reproduction". The logic thats failing here is that the way they interact with the room (as opposed to other designs) may in many cases actually have less effect on the sound. I.E maximal interaction may *result* in minimal sound "imprint" because of the way we process sounds.
Well - enough of my rambling. 😉 You have a room to create! 🙂
I liked the MBL's when I heard them, great dynamics and sweet tone, but they are certainly not something I could live with, they are a gimmick IMO. Only certain types of music would work and I'd get tired of the 'coming from nowhere' soundstage. If you seriously like that kind of sound (could live with it) it might explain your views on room vs. speaker.
thylantyr said:I'll read your posts later, but the room issue isn't a big deal.
For example;
What is easier ?
1. To build another Perceive
or
2. To treat a room with carpet, drapes, furniture and
sound conditioning items ?
Item #2 is a piece of cake if you ask me.
Most homes have natural treatments in the form of;
A. They already have carpet or rugs on hardwood installed.
B. They have curtains/drapes installed.
C. They have furniture in the room.
Do an 'echo test' and the room is well treated for doing
nothing other than normal decoration.
Spend a few dollars more to improve this, piece of cake.
Remove items A, B and C, and yes... you have audible echo
and the loudspeaker will not perform optimally.
But the hardest part is building the sweet loudspeaker
not furnishing the home and adding sound conditioning.
Echo/reverberation is one of many things; standing waves, reflection, cancellations, flutter, decay rate, time-phase distortion and on and on.
MBK posted a good link to a short but interesting paper on frequencies below the modal region. Even this small range of frequencies has a huge impact on overall sound quality. Then consider the rest frequency range.
What I'm trying to say here is that there's more than meets the eye at work. Its a subject that bears more than a passing resemblance to something I studied at A-Level Physics; fluid dynamics, and that's a heady subject indeed, infact we only scratched the surface during studies. Sure you can sit your speakers down, put a carpet and a few soft furnishing in to help matters but these are indiscriminate passive solutions and aren't a targetted effort at the specific problems. By using these indiscriminately these can actually damage the sound without even realising it - I know because I went gung ho with treatments that weren't addressing the all the issue and actually ruining some of the good characteristics of the sound. I want to explore this in more considered way than I've done previously.
The real issue is I know my room has severe problems that fully detract from the sound, I've already shown I can enjoy the system with virtually zero treatments but I also know there's a fair bit more to be had. I also believe all rooms have a problems to a lesser or greater degree. What we do about that is upto the individual. The loudspeaker and the room are symbiotic, they function as one. I think its therefor important to class the room at least as high on the priority list as the loudspeaker.
Tenson said:
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the sound and only really mentioned it as a loose example whilst putting a point across.
Half the attraction was that they sounded different.
They had some kind of sweeping classical music with large dynamic swings playing, it was obvious this was a carefully choosen piece of music. I'd expect that they wouldn't sound quite so convincing when playing back something more upbeat that I'd listen to for pleasure.
My views on speakers and room stem from experience with poor rooms. Around 13 and my first room was a loft conversion with non parallel ceilings and walls. I couldn't get anything in the way of decent bass at all, I'd fix one problem and another would appear, this was before I'd even realised there were treatments and long before effective DRC was even realised for a domestic setting.
Then fast forward 3 rooms later and still struggling. I should really just take my speakers outside and listen there - they sound much better 😀
Tenson said:
Fascinating.. I personally thought the tonal quality lacking and dynamics stunted (largely due to their exterme inefficiency no doubt). (I also didn't like the fact that they were "current hogs".)
Also that bandpass sub (or at least the one I heard) was, mediocre.
What I liked about the design was perhaps what you consider a "gimmick" - the horizontal polar radiation character.
What I heard was good with all types of music. Moreover the soundstaging was *really* well "constructed" and varied with recording.
The only thing that sounded like a "gimmick" to me was that the perspective of the soundstage would "rotate" to whatever listening position you happend to be in. But that isn't really a gimmick unless you move around while listening.
So whats the "comming from no where" phenom, and what types of music didn't work for your?
ScottG said:
Agreed but the example is all the same; tailor the room and speaker as if they were one, however the goal is to allow the speaker to work unfetted rather than add anything to the sound as with a venue. The venue and the playback room both have the same ideaology when created ie. they're both a function of the other and the aim is to create harmony which serves a specific goal be that accuracy, projection or otherwise.
Yep, I stuck around hoping it would get better but the fact was that I spent around 15 minutes in the room and never once heard anything that made me think "now this is a good system". In that time frame they switched from a Robbie Williams concert DVD to Chemical Brothers 'Surrender' CD(which I own and sounds fine) so I'm pretty sure recording and medium wasn't the problem and of course there were two sources involved which narrow the chances of that being the problem.
Its hard to write everything on a forum followed by IMO. Its entirely down to personal experience, preference, budget or whatever. I see you agree that rooms are a part of the problem, we only disagree on the extent(probably because you don't have your system setup in 4x3m box room 😀). I think Thy's approach is something that I'd strongly recommend rethinking... or not as the case maybe 😉
Now a look at your "Dali" example - while it sounded great in a room that was treated, might it not have sounded great without the treatment? (..that might be kinda of fun actually - "hey you, I'm a "serious" customer, take the room salves out so I can hear what it sounds like without them..
Would have been interesting but I don't think they'd have indulged me even if I had thought of that.
I did consider that whilst typing but its a simple baseline that's often drawn - value for money. I wasn't suggesting expensive is any kind of guarantee but it does beg the question why is it so expensive if not for the sake of the sound?
ShinOBIWAN said:
Because some idiot is willing to pay that much! 😀
Reminds me of the most expensive Revel speakers when they first came out.
Smooth on-axis response, pretty smooth off-axis response, very extended bandwidth - sounded like mid-fi with any component I used with it. Despite that there were plenty of people purchasing them based on some good reviews, good salesmanship, and a limited exposure to that speaker and VERY little exposure to competing products.
ScottG said:
By the coming from nowhere, I meant that while the soundstage was very large, it had crap imaging compared to what I am used to, it had no seperation.
When I heard them at Manchester they were playing some stuff with high SPL in a large room, showing off the bass really. It had very large dynamic swings and handled it pretty damn well, especially given the size of the room.
I don't see them sounding any good with punk-rock or rap or really anything other than classical, jazz, vocals; acoustic stuff really.
Tenson said:
What was wrong with the imaging? I'm betting you didn't like the somewhat more diffusive image. (..I've found with this particular omni the degree of diffusion vs. holographic image is largely due to the pairing amplifier. Not so with reflector based omni's though.)
Also, what do you mean by "no seperation"? And how many feet were the speakers spaced apart? Were the images spanning beyond the outer boundries of the loudspeaker, or were they only between the speakers? (..and was it recording dependent?)
Finally, why don't you see them as good for rock, punk, or rap? I'm thinking here that it was the rather light-weight presentation of the midbass ribbons that because of the low moving mass seemed a bit "thin".
Sorry for "prodding for details", but it gives me generally a better idea of peoples likes and dislikes for particular types of loudspeaker designs so that I'm better able to suggest (or not suggest) certain designs in preferance over others. Obviously omni's (particularly in the midrange) are one of my favorites and I tend to favor them over other designs, perhaps to the detriment of the person I'm responding to (..and if so it needs to at least come with a warning and reasonable expectations).
ShinOBIWAN said:
Why would you assume the lesser system sounds good
due to room treatments, could they sound good because
of the loudspeaker design ?
Expensive loudspeakers don't guarantee good SQ.
Don't be surprised to find commercial loudspeakers boring
vs. a good DIY effort. If I found a commerical loudspeaker
that satisfied me, I wouldn't be doing DIY ever.
If you look at the folks on the DIY HT theater construction
forum - you will find people making great rooms paying attention
to fine details - then when it comes to loudspeaker installs, it's
junk as they were told to focus on room treatments first.
People on HT forums are being mislead that room treatments
are the #1 priority.
DIYer's who build loudspeakers will tell you speakers are #1,
room #2 but I still haven't been convinced that room treatments
require some magic installation for a successful SQ installation.
Shin:
Curious, I don't ever see you mention the Peerless 12" XLS or XXLS woofers as an option for the subwoofer driver. Did you consider these? Why or why not?
Curious, I don't ever see you mention the Peerless 12" XLS or XXLS woofers as an option for the subwoofer driver. Did you consider these? Why or why not?
ScottG said:
Lol, diffusive imaging, that’s a contradiction! It just splurged the image all across the soundstage. I have heard them on two occasions in two rooms, they were using a full MBL set-up so some pretty beefy amps!
By no separation I mean that because of the mushy imaging instruments and performers just merged into each other, there was no definition so that one person was over there, the other here, like I said it all merged together. Yes the soundstage was vast and went beyond the speakers, but again artificially. It just smudged on past the speakers. The speakers were probably about 3.5m-4m apart in a very large room, I sat back from them by about the same amount.
They wouldn't suit my taste for punk, metal, rap (some rap might be okay) because they simply have too much room in the sound. These types of music need a very dry presentation. With the MBL's there was just too much 'air', I suppose. I guess its RT60 is too long so it doesn’t have enough control over the mid and treble.
The mid was not thin, just about right. Like I said, they had good tonality.
Don't misunderstand me, I do like them, but only for some music and I could not use them as my main system. They are not bad and the imaging, soundstage, all the things I have mentioned are not BAD, just not as good as I am used too and would expect. The subwoofer part looks like it belongs in a chav's Nova as well 😉
Edit: I guess what I didn't like was that they bought the performance into the room rather than taking you to the performance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.