I want it on my ambience, but very little on mains, just enough on phantom parts and nothing on the sides. Believe me, I tried 
.
There is a reson I removed all early reflections. The increase in clarity is worth it. Voices that can spook you, as if they are real. That's the goal. Instruments are more forgiving, but voices can really get to you.
At least, that's how i see or hear it. It's an almost impossible goal, but fun!
.There is a reson I removed all early reflections. The increase in clarity is worth it. Voices that can spook you, as if they are real. That's the goal. Instruments are more forgiving, but voices can really get to you.
At least, that's how i see or hear it. It's an almost impossible goal, but fun!
Last edited:
ehhh reason....
The only reason to want to have it on the phantom part? To "reconstruct" the holes left by crosstalk, because it works. The brain kicks in and fills in the rest.
The slight touch of reverb, even when it's 7 ms behind the mains, fills the left and right speakers with differing reflections, which completes the missing parts.
Got some time today to listen, last time my son took the listening seat and I only got one song out of it .
I must say, getting close to what I want/love. One thing still nags me a bit, I have an asymmetrical setup, and that does result in a stronger left side than the right side when listening. The phantom part is dead on straight ahead, but somehow the right side feels less "full", the emphasis is always on the left (where the walls with damping panels are). Due to the walls there that are missing from the right side, it isn't shocking that you'd hear it being different, but it's harder to make up for. I'll try though.
Wall(s) on the left side (with damping panel), fire place and open on the right side.
Maybe I can use the Multichannel setup disk to show differences in SPL. First I need to find a proper time slot again for these kind of exercises.
On other fronts, like the potential for even bass output etc, the asymmetrical part of the room is helping out. We had a famous football player called Johan Cruijff who said: Every advantage has its disadvantage. I guess he was right.
.I must say, getting close to what I want/love. One thing still nags me a bit, I have an asymmetrical setup, and that does result in a stronger left side than the right side when listening. The phantom part is dead on straight ahead, but somehow the right side feels less "full", the emphasis is always on the left (where the walls with damping panels are). Due to the walls there that are missing from the right side, it isn't shocking that you'd hear it being different, but it's harder to make up for. I'll try though.
Wall(s) on the left side (with damping panel), fire place and open on the right side.
Maybe I can use the Multichannel setup disk to show differences in SPL. First I need to find a proper time slot again for these kind of exercises.
On other fronts, like the potential for even bass output etc, the asymmetrical part of the room is helping out. We had a famous football player called Johan Cruijff who said: Every advantage has its disadvantage. I guess he was right
.
Last edited:
...
One thing still nags me a bit, I have an asymmetrical setup, and that does result in a stronger left side than the right side when listening. The phantom part is dead on straight ahead, but somehow the right side feels less "full", the emphasis is always on the left (where the walls with damping panels are). Due to the walls there that are missing from the right side, it isn't shocking that you'd hear it being different, but it's harder to make up for.
…
Maybe I can use the Multichannel setup disk to show differences in SPL. First I need to find a proper time slot again for these kind of exercises.
...
If you mentioned this issue so concisely elsewhere in the thread, I’m forgetting.
I’ve a variation of this issue in reverse: right wall totally untreated (besides a couch); left wall has room-length, floor-to-ceiling shelves. I don’t remove early reflections so L / R interactions with sidewalls should be different.
The effect = dominant right channel in many (most?) recordings, although the phantom center is generally large enough that, as you said, remains spot-on.
The idea of using a multi-channel disk to test SPL is a good one. Wish I still had my last multi-channel receiver…
and the time to use it!
What would happen if you slightly increased overall gain for your right channel, in this regard?
I can do better than that... I already split the Stereo signal into it's mid and side components and as such I can raise the right channel level without upsetting the phantom balance. But, there's always a but in Audio, raising the right channel will also influence the left, as there's a -L component in that right channel. So it's a balancing act, as always. The Phantom part is L+R, which means it already contains part of the the left and right channel. The side information is L-R for left and R-L for the right. So small tweaks is all it takes.
For Home Theatre I already tweak channel balance as if I really have a dedicated center channel. For stereo it works a little different because that center actually contains the side info as well. But I can balance left and right independently.
Hello, I just read something by Duke and thought of your room, maybe it's usefull information.
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-do-you-properly-set-up-a-horn-speaker
the rest of the post is 1/2 way down the page here.
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-do-you-properly-set-up-a-horn-speaker
^ Hi, I noticed the quote is funny, because to actually achieve that kind of reflections would require quite specialized room/positioning; To make path length of first lateral reflection longer to the same ear as the speaker is closer to, through adjacent wall, the early reflection would need to go through a door for example, while first reflection from the other speaker on the same (now opposing) wall should not. Doors both sides of the room would do.
On the next paragraphs, from the same post you linked to:
"
There is an unorthodox setup geometry that takes advantage of the beneficial radiation pattern of your T1.4's: Extreme toe-in, such that the speaker axes criss-cross a foot or two in front of the center sweet spot. I use 45 degrees as a starting point. This results in negligible early reflection off the near-side wall; instead, each speaker's first significant sidewall reflection will be off the OPPOSITE side wall. This not only gives a long time-delay, but also gives us decorrelation, as now the left speaker's first sidewall reflection arrives at the right ear, and vice-versa.
"
I've bolded the important bits that refine the context. What he is getting at, is that the closest wall early reflection should be attenuated, perhaps diffused, so that brain perceives the opposing side reflection stronger even though it comes later. This makes opposing side first specular reflection louder than the adjacent side but does not change the timing of the early reflections.
Can't escape short delays on small room other than listening very close. To get 10ms delay for early reflections one would need roughly 3.3 meters on top of your listening distance for reflection path length. So, if your room is 5x5 meters, your max stereo listening triangle could be something like 1meter, speakers and you ~2m away from walls. This would make ~4.3m path length for earliest reflection, minus 1m listening distance leaves about 10ms reflection free time. How about floor and ceiling? Practical "solution" is to attenuate sound toward the earliest reflections, while the sound can be loud for the longest early reflections, those from the opposing sidewall, narrow coverage speaker with generous toe-in.
On the next paragraphs, from the same post you linked to:
"
There is an unorthodox setup geometry that takes advantage of the beneficial radiation pattern of your T1.4's: Extreme toe-in, such that the speaker axes criss-cross a foot or two in front of the center sweet spot. I use 45 degrees as a starting point. This results in negligible early reflection off the near-side wall; instead, each speaker's first significant sidewall reflection will be off the OPPOSITE side wall. This not only gives a long time-delay, but also gives us decorrelation, as now the left speaker's first sidewall reflection arrives at the right ear, and vice-versa.
"
I've bolded the important bits that refine the context. What he is getting at, is that the closest wall early reflection should be attenuated, perhaps diffused, so that brain perceives the opposing side reflection stronger even though it comes later. This makes opposing side first specular reflection louder than the adjacent side but does not change the timing of the early reflections.
Can't escape short delays on small room other than listening very close. To get 10ms delay for early reflections one would need roughly 3.3 meters on top of your listening distance for reflection path length. So, if your room is 5x5 meters, your max stereo listening triangle could be something like 1meter, speakers and you ~2m away from walls. This would make ~4.3m path length for earliest reflection, minus 1m listening distance leaves about 10ms reflection free time. How about floor and ceiling? Practical "solution" is to attenuate sound toward the earliest reflections, while the sound can be loud for the longest early reflections, those from the opposing sidewall, narrow coverage speaker with generous toe-in.
Luckily I don't have that problem. I already attenuated the earliest reflections up to 20 ms and can "inject" any combination I like (properly decorrelated) through the ambience channels. Believe me, it does make a difference in perception!
The way I see it, the extreme toe in situation could reflect off of the far wal, back to the wall behind the listener before reaching his/her (opposite) ear. That makes for a longer time delay. Absorb the early stuff... If you look at jim1961's room, you'll see an example of years work optimizing a room with damping panels and diffusers to reach an optimum.
You'd need the proper space, dedication and materials to do it.
My own solution is cheating, but I don't care.
The way I see it, the extreme toe in situation could reflect off of the far wal, back to the wall behind the listener before reaching his/her (opposite) ear. That makes for a longer time delay. Absorb the early stuff... If you look at jim1961's room, you'll see an example of years work optimizing a room with damping panels and diffusers to reach an optimum.
You'd need the proper space, dedication and materials to do it.
My own solution is cheating, but I don't care
.That's what I was thinking too. If what Duke says is correct information, it seems like a nice piece of the puzzle actually.
Hi,
yeah it is legit info. Still, often not mentioned, mind your stereo listening triangle size which is about the most meaningful factor for about any good stereo image qualities you might think off! So here is more context on the subject, my perspective on it:
You have to make stereo listening triangle small enough for clear stereo image. If distance to speakers is too big for the room acoustics its just the typical big haze of sound stereo image and not sure if anything could fix that except getting listening distance smaller. The big hazy flattish image might be what you prefer so nothing wrong with that. For very good clear stereo image with all properties you can think of everything matters and positioning is at the core, toe-in is just some balancing on top of it.
While the above is not conclusive, just my personal observation with my personal setup, I haven't been able to extend stereo listening triangle size past ~2.2m in our living room no matter what the distance to early reflections is, and no matter toe-in. If listening further than this the stereo image flattens between the speakers and phantom center gets veiled a bit. Listen closer, and envelopment and all the stuff happens, the sound is more 3D and phantom center more clear. Its hard to describe and I do not know if other people have this and perceive this, or is this just anomaly with my setup or whats going on. Perhaps its due to vertical reflections, I don't know yet. Anyway, for now it seems to be some lumped property like direct to reflected sound ratio, which reduces the further I'm from the speakers. The phenomenon does not seem to be property of singular lateral early reflections for example. The speakers have DI > 5db from schroeder up, cardioid mid and ~90deg nominal waveguide for context. I suspect that wider coverage speaker, like typical bookshef speaker, would need quite a short listening distance, but I haven't tried any yet.
Why I brought stereo triangle size up: if you listen too far away (too big stereo triangle) so that the image is hazy to begin with I'm not sure if the toe-in or anything matters too much. Total acoustic treatment of the room perhaps. Much narrower coverage speaker possibly. Get listening distance short enough first to hear good image, then start optimizing stuff as needed to make the listening triangle big enough to accomodate more than one seat, or to allow practical positioning. Note how small the listening triangle is compared to room size on image #7894 even with what seems ultimate optimization for room acoustics.
Toe-in with narrow coverage speaker can increase sweetspot size, but not necessarily extend the max stereo triangle you can have. What I mean is that the toe-in is not substitute for positioning, or room acoustics, while narrow coverage is to some extent. Toe-in with narrow coverage speaker has advantage with the time/intensity trading which prevents the phantom center to collapse to nearest speaker for bigger sweetspot. If there is no toe-in, or speaker is wide coverage, the phantom image would shift to the nearest speaker quite soon if you drift out from exact sweetspot.
yeah it is legit info. Still, often not mentioned, mind your stereo listening triangle size which is about the most meaningful factor for about any good stereo image qualities you might think off! So here is more context on the subject, my perspective on it:
You have to make stereo listening triangle small enough for clear stereo image. If distance to speakers is too big for the room acoustics its just the typical big haze of sound stereo image and not sure if anything could fix that except getting listening distance smaller. The big hazy flattish image might be what you prefer so nothing wrong with that. For very good clear stereo image with all properties you can think of everything matters and positioning is at the core, toe-in is just some balancing on top of it.
While the above is not conclusive, just my personal observation with my personal setup, I haven't been able to extend stereo listening triangle size past ~2.2m in our living room no matter what the distance to early reflections is, and no matter toe-in. If listening further than this the stereo image flattens between the speakers and phantom center gets veiled a bit. Listen closer, and envelopment and all the stuff happens, the sound is more 3D and phantom center more clear. Its hard to describe and I do not know if other people have this and perceive this, or is this just anomaly with my setup or whats going on. Perhaps its due to vertical reflections, I don't know yet. Anyway, for now it seems to be some lumped property like direct to reflected sound ratio, which reduces the further I'm from the speakers. The phenomenon does not seem to be property of singular lateral early reflections for example. The speakers have DI > 5db from schroeder up, cardioid mid and ~90deg nominal waveguide for context. I suspect that wider coverage speaker, like typical bookshef speaker, would need quite a short listening distance, but I haven't tried any yet.
Why I brought stereo triangle size up: if you listen too far away (too big stereo triangle) so that the image is hazy to begin with I'm not sure if the toe-in or anything matters too much. Total acoustic treatment of the room perhaps. Much narrower coverage speaker possibly. Get listening distance short enough first to hear good image, then start optimizing stuff as needed to make the listening triangle big enough to accomodate more than one seat, or to allow practical positioning. Note how small the listening triangle is compared to room size on image #7894 even with what seems ultimate optimization for room acoustics.
Toe-in with narrow coverage speaker can increase sweetspot size, but not necessarily extend the max stereo triangle you can have. What I mean is that the toe-in is not substitute for positioning, or room acoustics, while narrow coverage is to some extent. Toe-in with narrow coverage speaker has advantage with the time/intensity trading which prevents the phantom center to collapse to nearest speaker for bigger sweetspot. If there is no toe-in, or speaker is wide coverage, the phantom image would shift to the nearest speaker quite soon if you drift out from exact sweetspot.
Last edited:
Maybe it's time to post this video again:
Watch it closely, it explains what you're experiencing. And much more, but lets leave that aside. Watch beyond his "first reflection" talk and for the moment the audience gets involved. That's when tmuikku's story gets confirmed.
There are multiple ways to enjoy (good) sound. One of the most common ways is to get good behaving speakers in your room (meaning they have a good on and off axis behavior according to the 'well known by now' Harman research). Place them in your room, play with their position to get it working right tonally.
For casual listening, this is fine. At least, that's what the research from Harman has taught us. They even went as far as saying that wide dispersion is the people's favorite. If you enjoy this, more power to you. It requires less room adaption and works pretty well in mid to large sized rooms. I guess it would be ideal for the majority of people that are into this hobby to build speakers. You get to enjoy different speakers and compare... on to the next one after that.
Then there's going a step further, wanting to hear 'deeper into the mix' or something like that. That's when you have more work to do and it isn't all that easy anymore. The best start you can give yourself is to pick the speakers that can work with the room. It would be wise to spend some time studying what the studio preferences are and why. Even there you'll notice that even the Pro's don't all agree. There are certain trends to be witnessed in room configurations through the years but right now I'd say the "non environment" has the upper hand. I've spend most of my time to study an older concept, now largely abandoned for studio work. The LEDE concept, or Live End, Dead End. With that setup, one creates a Reflection Free Zone (I went no further than Reflection Reduced Zone, as this is a functional living room) and to keep the room comfortable it featured a Live End that follows the reflection free zone. It used to have a sound return, called a Haas Kicker. There is an answer from the room, a return of sound to the listening spot after the main pulse. Usually somewhere between 10 dB and 12 dB below the main sound would work. To create a LEDE room, one can preserve the energy in the room by sending it to behind the listener where it hits a diffusive panel that reflects or rather scatters it back to that listening spot. It will be diffuse by nature and it would take longer to arrive at that spot due to the longer traveling distances.
Why is it abandoned? It made pretty much all music sound better. Which makes it harder to make the right mixing decisions. So that Haas Kicker isn't in use in Studio's anymore. But when you're listening for pleasure, isn't that just what you want? Due to that Reflection Free Zone, you get a crystal clear sound with great imaging and the late return (the Haas kicker) gives you that feel of envelopment and it even creates a more holographic perception.
To those, that want casual listening, moving about in the room, go for option one. For those seeking that second option, the "getting closer to the music", either start a near field experience or be prepared to do quite a bit of work. Guess where I belong...
Watch it closely, it explains what you're experiencing. And much more, but lets leave that aside. Watch beyond his "first reflection" talk and for the moment the audience gets involved. That's when tmuikku's story gets confirmed.
There are multiple ways to enjoy (good) sound. One of the most common ways is to get good behaving speakers in your room (meaning they have a good on and off axis behavior according to the 'well known by now' Harman research). Place them in your room, play with their position to get it working right tonally.
For casual listening, this is fine. At least, that's what the research from Harman has taught us. They even went as far as saying that wide dispersion is the people's favorite. If you enjoy this, more power to you. It requires less room adaption and works pretty well in mid to large sized rooms. I guess it would be ideal for the majority of people that are into this hobby to build speakers. You get to enjoy different speakers and compare... on to the next one after that.
Then there's going a step further, wanting to hear 'deeper into the mix' or something like that. That's when you have more work to do and it isn't all that easy anymore. The best start you can give yourself is to pick the speakers that can work with the room. It would be wise to spend some time studying what the studio preferences are and why. Even there you'll notice that even the Pro's don't all agree. There are certain trends to be witnessed in room configurations through the years but right now I'd say the "non environment" has the upper hand. I've spend most of my time to study an older concept, now largely abandoned for studio work. The LEDE concept, or Live End, Dead End. With that setup, one creates a Reflection Free Zone (I went no further than Reflection Reduced Zone, as this is a functional living room) and to keep the room comfortable it featured a Live End that follows the reflection free zone. It used to have a sound return, called a Haas Kicker. There is an answer from the room, a return of sound to the listening spot after the main pulse. Usually somewhere between 10 dB and 12 dB below the main sound would work. To create a LEDE room, one can preserve the energy in the room by sending it to behind the listener where it hits a diffusive panel that reflects or rather scatters it back to that listening spot. It will be diffuse by nature and it would take longer to arrive at that spot due to the longer traveling distances.
Why is it abandoned? It made pretty much all music sound better. Which makes it harder to make the right mixing decisions. So that Haas Kicker isn't in use in Studio's anymore. But when you're listening for pleasure, isn't that just what you want? Due to that Reflection Free Zone, you get a crystal clear sound with great imaging and the late return (the Haas kicker) gives you that feel of envelopment and it even creates a more holographic perception.
To those, that want casual listening, moving about in the room, go for option one. For those seeking that second option, the "getting closer to the music", either start a near field experience or be prepared to do quite a bit of work. Guess where I belong...
Last edited:
Some people only allow for the first one, the Toole studies, to be valid. It got me banned from ASR while trying to explain there's more than one way to enjoy audio.
I guess I got fed up that the followers on ASR including their "Bossman" that can't accept that the second version of enjoying audio isn't clashing with science in any way, so I said I would leave. Next thing I know I got banned. This is what I was facing:
Ah well, I never really felt at home there and often had clashes with those that don't allow any wiggle room, "our guru has spoken and you may not deviate from that".
The real reason I got fed up has more to do with a lack of energy on my side. I never really got back on my feet like I was supposed to, leading to a higher percentage of disability and most probably, lots of days with a shorter fuse.
But lets talk more about the audio. That second concept is only clashing a little with some of the things you find in Toole's book. Clashing isn't even the right term for it, what it is, is more of a deviation on the theme.
That's where studies into human perception come into play. So far my biggest 'aha' moments have come from reading a lot of what David Griesinger has written (and told in video's for those that like that kind of presentation). But it's still following science, the objectives are different, that's all.
I guess I got fed up that the followers on ASR including their "Bossman" that can't accept that the second version of enjoying audio isn't clashing with science in any way, so I said I would leave. Next thing I know I got banned
. This is what I was facing:Ah well, I never really felt at home there and often had clashes with those that don't allow any wiggle room, "our guru has spoken and you may not deviate from that".
The real reason I got fed up has more to do with a lack of energy on my side. I never really got back on my feet like I was supposed to, leading to a higher percentage of disability and most probably, lots of days with a shorter fuse
.But lets talk more about the audio. That second concept is only clashing a little with some of the things you find in Toole's book. Clashing isn't even the right term for it, what it is, is more of a deviation on the theme.
That's where studies into human perception come into play. So far my biggest 'aha' moments have come from reading a lot of what David Griesinger has written (and told in video's for those that like that kind of presentation). But it's still following science, the objectives are different, that's all.
Hah, yeahGuess where I belong...
I also think that 90% of what makes into "high fidelity" is in the spatial stuff and main goal to pursuit.I associated the phenomenon to Griesingers proximity quite soon I perceived it, but of course cannot be sure about it because its a new phenomenon to me
and small room phenomenon while he talks about concert halls, auditoriums and stuff like that. I first time noticed it with DIY speakers, and its a new room (apartment) I didn't have speakers before, so multiple things could be wrong, or right. Anyway, just something I've noticed and trying to encourage anyone figuring out their listening environment to pay attention to the listening distance, and perhaps try zone in where the image is sharp and nice and where it flattens out. I'm not sure if this happens to others so, curious about it The transition was spooky at one point, literally one step closer to speakers was like stepping into the sound, and one step back like stepping out from the sound. Quite sharp transition.
Last edited:
^^ yeah Griesingers work makes very much sense. I've personally started approaching audio from philosophical perspective few years ago, for example assuming that best sound is when most of your senses are tingled, capturing full attention of brain and giving maximum emotional impact, a sensation. One of the core point on the Griesingers proximity talk is about capturing attention.
The more I read stuff on the net and slowly test them out by my on trying to understand what it is that I perceive and how it connects to stuff I've read, the more I understand that all we read is just concepts without base in reality because no audio perception is triggered while reading a text. Its very hard to connect concept in text to perceived audio unless there is earlier experience on the audible phenomenon that has stuck on you as mystery. So, all we have to do is listen carefully in our own environment with our own systems and try to understand what we perceive, try to be conscious about what is it that we hear.
It is very helpful if one has read enough about the stuff so it gets possible to start connecting the dots, at some point. Then one starts questioning what means what, whats more preferable to me, what do I like, how does the room affect, what do I hear, how to listen to some problem, do I have a problem, perhaps multiple problems? how to improve then? What happens if I toe-in, stand up, rotate, change damping, play with xo etc. Or is this is, is this the best sound ever? Whats the best sound I've ever heard? where was it, what the system was, what the qualities were that made the memorable feeling and so on Developing understanding through experience. Formulate a context against which its possible to understand texts of others without confusion, make reasoning and so on. Get far enough and one is able to question some of the studies.
So, what ever you or I write, or what Griesinger says, or any studies say, is not very meaningful to anyone else but those who have enough personal experience so that they are able to relate to it somehow, understand the context and how it relates to their own
Studies are good basis though, because trying to improve system by listening only without extensive experience its just shooting in dark, too much variables.
The more I read stuff on the net and slowly test them out by my on trying to understand what it is that I perceive and how it connects to stuff I've read, the more I understand that all we read is just concepts without base in reality because no audio perception is triggered while reading a text. Its very hard to connect concept in text to perceived audio unless there is earlier experience on the audible phenomenon that has stuck on you as mystery. So, all we have to do is listen carefully in our own environment with our own systems and try to understand what we perceive, try to be conscious about what is it that we hear.
It is very helpful if one has read enough about the stuff so it gets possible to start connecting the dots, at some point. Then one starts questioning what means what, whats more preferable to me, what do I like, how does the room affect, what do I hear, how to listen to some problem, do I have a problem, perhaps multiple problems? how to improve then? What happens if I toe-in, stand up, rotate, change damping, play with xo etc. Or is this is, is this the best sound ever? Whats the best sound I've ever heard? where was it, what the system was, what the qualities were that made the memorable feeling and so on
Developing understanding through experience. Formulate a context against which its possible to understand texts of others without confusion, make reasoning and so on. Get far enough and one is able to question some of the studies.So, what ever you or I write, or what Griesinger says, or any studies say, is not very meaningful to anyone else but those who have enough personal experience so that they are able to relate to it somehow, understand the context and how it relates to their own
Studies are good basis though, because trying to improve system by listening only without extensive experience its just shooting in dark, too much variables.
Last edited: