Well, i have observed that to people with some kind of professionnal involvement into audio, it is common wisdom that direct sound is everything while reverberated only poisonous soup to be brought down to noisefloor if possible.
I disagree, might be true in cinemas and with most PA situations, but i believe that at home for listening music, reberberated sound can dominate the direct one without this being a problem in itself. Especially classic music or acoustic programs are not really so demanding on room acoustics, quite the contrary: where opera really sucks is in cinemas THX / DOLBY / ATMOS and the wailers certified: Night (mares) at the Met!
When domestic rooms, and most places, really become to suck is when trying to record music there without acoustic treatments...
Last edited:
Yes, my conditions are indeed very different. I have been playing breefly with your 1rst impulse yesterday and frankly do not notice much change.
Maybe we are speaking about different problems. Mine is that i need to try make the loudspeakers disappear at the sides because when their overbrightness dominates, phantom images suffer. Maybe these issues have some relation...
Yes, my conditions are indeed very different. I have been playing breefly with your 1rst impulse yesterday and frankly do not notice much change.
Maybe we are speaking about different problems. Mine is that i need to try make the loudspeakers disappear at the sides because when their overbrightness dominates, phantom images suffer. Maybe these issues have some relation...
Now I wonder how that can be.... the loudspeakers don't disappear? Strange huh? Could it be those early reflections you like so much that do this?
Just a guess, but anyone who has tried to avoid or treat first reflections and has speakers without too much diffraction problems of their own most probably doesn't have that problem. Yet they just might relate to the original post. They might even have to listen for it as it probably isn't something that every song demonstrates in an equally strong way.
Just treating the first reflections (absorbing them in my case) made my loudspeakers disappear into the sound field. I cannot point at them by listening alone. I have a rock solid center ever since I absorbed those early reflections. Why do you insist this is a weird thing or strange choice to do so.
Have you ever tried it? Personally, I love to have a few reflections though, timed somewhere between 17 and 25 ms (of which I can determine the content, including some late reverb). It brings a sense of envelopment, usually not heard/experienced in smaller rooms. But that's a whole different subject.
Can you even assume or guess what it is we hear without experiencing it yourself? An honest question, I don't see any direction or usable content in your posts on this subject. You're shooting left and right without any aim or target. (shooting blanks might even be more appropriate) Just my opinion of coarse.
(lol) I had noticed that. It's not uncommon for me to be stubborn too. Even though I try and keep an open mind (at which I fail very often).
The thing I don't get is all those generalizations you post. If anyone has worked on their speakers AND room to avoid early reflections, this might be a very interesting discussion for them. I see a lot of common knowledge in all kinds of theories that could be strongly related to this particular discussion.
I actually am very curious if this is the main reason of a difference of opinion between Dr. Geddes and Toole on the subject of early reflections. Not having heard what they hear in their preferred environment I can only guess at it though.
Could you enlighten me as to why you're following and contributing to this subject?
The thing I don't get is all those generalizations you post. If anyone has worked on their speakers AND room to avoid early reflections, this might be a very interesting discussion for them. I see a lot of common knowledge in all kinds of theories that could be strongly related to this particular discussion.
I actually am very curious if this is the main reason of a difference of opinion between Dr. Geddes and Toole on the subject of early reflections. Not having heard what they hear in their preferred environment I can only guess at it though.
Could you enlighten me as to why you're following and contributing to this subject?
Last edited:
I imagine for the same reasons as most contributors here, excepting Mr Geddes, because my system sucks and need to fix that!
Fair enough, but it has been stated (both in the original paper and separate posts) that reducing early reflections is part of the reason for the perceived tonal differences.
In other words, if you don't have that part right it probably won't work as advertised. Agreed?
By the way, I've seen several discussions where people worked very hard to either avoid or reduce their early reflections, only to be very disappointed by the results. We all seem to "like" some room in our listening environment. Bringing in some reflections a bit later in time (but within the Haas limit) can actually cure that i.m.h.o. And as a whole lift the entire listening experience to a higher level.
The direction of those later reflections might be of importance, as well as some other factors such as frequency range and balance etc.
In other words, if you don't have that part right it probably won't work as advertised. Agreed?
By the way, I've seen several discussions where people worked very hard to either avoid or reduce their early reflections, only to be very disappointed by the results. We all seem to "like" some room in our listening environment. Bringing in some reflections a bit later in time (but within the Haas limit) can actually cure that i.m.h.o. And as a whole lift the entire listening experience to a higher level.
The direction of those later reflections might be of importance, as well as some other factors such as frequency range and balance etc.
For the record, I recently talked with Floyd on this exact point. I believe that he has softened his position (although he claims that people misquoted him and that he was never fixed in his opinion on early reflections.) It appears now that he and I both agree that Very Early Reflections (VER) are a compromise. While they add spaciousness, envelopment and enhance ASW, they will degrade imaging on more dry studio type recordings. Floyd now recommends the ability to either have VER or not with adjustable side curtains. Since my listening is almost 100% studio work, I do not see the need to have "options". Floyd is virtually 100% large venue recordings and hence his earlier beliefs that enhanced spaciousness was a major benefit.
So basically this discussion about VER has no real resolution as it entirely depends on what one is looking for and not everyone will be the same. Suffice it to say that if orchestral pieces recorded in a large venue are your goal then you will want wider directivity and/or more reflective side walls. If studio work with precise imaging is your goal then narrower directivity is beneficial to avoid VER without the need for side wall absorption. If your speakers do not have controlled and narrow directivity and you want good imaging then absorptive side walls are probably essential.
You know, what this points out is the difficulty of designing a speakers for "the market". What market is that? The vast studio work market? or the relatively tiny classical market? I will admit that my speakers, room and setup works exceptionally well for studio work, but I am always disappointed with classical recordings. This could be two things: either the recordings are all bad; my setup does not do classical very well; or there is simply no way to achieve realism of a large venue in a small room. I don't know the answer here, I only know that I don't enjoy classical recordings as much on my system. But then I don't enjoy classical music all that much anyways. I find that 20-25 violins on a stage just blends into a slurry of sound with no precise localization - even live. I tend to agree with George Martin who once said that "Using more instruments than necessary to make the sound that is desired only results in muddying up the end result." - I could not agree more.
Don't loose your valuable time trying to sell me stuff i will never buy you Wesayso: i am very stubborn...
Hey, this one changed
Making my previous answer look less coherent. Anyway, I'm not trying to sell any of you anything. I'm trying to share a little of my experiences and thoughts here though. You can all decide for yourself what to do with that. Or just tell me to shut up.
It just seemed strange, to talk and talk some more about this without even trying any of it and disagreeing from day one. Not specifically you, GDO, you weren't the first and no doubt you won't be the last.
I'd like this thread to move on to the original subject again to try and get or find a better solution together, that's all.
It seems what is proposed here as a possible/viable solution isn't clear enough for many as far as it's inner workings are concerned, of what it does or tries to accomplish.
I hope we can focus on the shuffler again and/or other solutions for the original problem outlined in the first posts without bringing in all the non related stuff up again and again. We all have our preferences. But it's pretty clear from the start of this thread that this one relates to setups with low (very) early reflections. Lets not try to make it about early reflections and their benefits. That would be a better discussion for another, seperate thread.
Most of us DIY-ers are lucky enough to only have to try and please ourselves. Good point non the less.
Last edited:
Hey, this one changed
Making my previous answer look less coherent. Anyway, I'm not trying to sell any of you anything. I'm trying to share a little of my experiences and thoughts here though. You can all decide for yourself what to do with that. Or just tell me to shut up.
It simply happens that, as anybody, i have made up through years some idea of what my tastes and needs are, and when i read others, also make an idea about what might be their own tastes and needs.
So that i, and you, and all, though moved by curiousness, will to share and learn, also have to filter the informations and experiences we come across, because we cannot and probably should not give a try to everything. Choices must be made guided by common or self wisdom, whatever good or bad these migtht be.
And in this "market", you and I definitely seem to be quite different "prospects."
Last edited:
I have personnally pratically lost interest for symphonical material for similar reasons. But classical is a whole world in itself. Opera and chamber music are "simpler" materials easier to enjoy.
But maybe you don't like either the acoustic of live events of these in real theaters or concert halls, since sound is often slurry, images recessed and diffuse, localization difficult, and more notes are simply lost in the air than packets on a USB audio interface...
I know we differ, and have no problem with that. I just don't think you're as interested in a good working shuffler or any other solution we can come up with that covers the problem outlined in the first few posts. I might be wrong though.
I may have been partially responsible (just a little) for getting this thread started. As it was discussed first on another thread and I asked about it and Pano made this new thread to follow up on that discussion: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-1286.html#post4395155
In the same sense I think the points you bring up for discussion here could be "better served" in their own thread... Unless I am the only one that doesn't get the relevance of your points to this subject.
I'm hoping we can actually start to (talk about) shuffle(rs) again!
I may have been partially responsible (just a little) for getting this thread started. As it was discussed first on another thread and I asked about it and Pano made this new thread to follow up on that discussion: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-1286.html#post4395155
In the same sense I think the points you bring up for discussion here could be "better served" in their own thread... Unless I am the only one that doesn't get the relevance of your points to this subject.
I'm hoping we can actually start to (talk about) shuffle(rs) again!
Hey, i passed page 20 and have tested Pano's 1st filter...
Was that the shuffler in post #3? Or the RePhase based versions...
They are (and act) very different to me. The first generation causing my speakers to no longer disappear(!) and they were mimicking early reflections (in a way).
The later ones only causing some slight timing differences to move around/shift the comb nulls. These work way better for me, my speakers still disappear as before. So which one was it? What was the name? The one to try would be: RePhase Shuffle-2.wav. At least I'd recommend that one.
Last edited:
The very first one. Will test the others to, but it's not plug and play for me, have to convolve with the eq filters i use on brutefir, etc...Takes some time.
Absolutely, there are classical works and presentations that I love. For example on a recent cruise to Alaska there was a Ukrainian pair just piano and violin. I was entranced with the music totally engulfed. I watched them every night. So its not the musical composition but the vastness and muddiness of a large orchestra. I purchased their DVD and I love it. Solo piano also comes off very well on my system, but the larger the mass of instruments the less I like it for several reasons. It would thus go without saying that "imaging" is my prime motivation.