My problem with the idea of very early reflections adding, lets call it, some 'spice' to the recording, is that it adds the same spice to everything you play whether it is warranted or indeed even appropriate.
Would you add a particular cooking spice intended for fish to everything you ate even if it was a bar of chocolate or a peanut butter sandwich ? No.
For me, a good part of the enjoyment of listening to a good stereo system and recording is being transported to the acoustic illusion present in (many) recordings. Every recording has the potential to sound different, to offer a different environmental illusion (since it is just an illusion with two channels) and that can be quite intoxicating in some really well done recordings.
If there is too much coloration from the room, everything is just going to sound like my room, and I don't want that.
Like you I prefer studio recordings for stereo listening - the idea that you can truly capture a live experience with just two channels seems unlikely to me.
I've heard some live stereo recordings that sound quite enveloping and enjoyable even in two channels, (a lot of that comes from the low frequency ambience I think, but you lose that completely unless your speakers can go down to at least 30Hz) but I'm under no illusion that it sounds close to actually being there. Enjoyable and engaging, but not a replica of the real thing.
On the other hand a studio recording is an artificial construct and is whatever the engineer chooses to make it - if you ignore the circle of confusion and the differences between mixing room and living room acoustics and speakers it is, at least in principle possible for a recording engineer to create a soundscape and for you to hear a very good reproduction of that in your home, and thus hear what the artist (engineer) intended.
You say "field" recordings may be subjectively improved by VER - but are you just lumping in all acoustic (live, minimal mic) recordings together or do you specifically include concert hall classical type music with long reverberation times...
If the latter I'm not sure I agree. If you have strong VER then these have very short delay times - much shorter than the first reflection in an actual concert hall which has comparatively long first reflection delays and a very long tail.
In my opinion mixing in strong VER or any of the reverberation in a small room for that matter does not enhance this kind of recording and will tend to disguise and overpower the longer reverberation in the recording.
I've always found this kind of recording sounds more "real" and natural with a somewhat dead listening room (and moderately directional speakers) that lets what ambience is on the recording shine through.
If you're talking about "field" recordings that are live recordings of say a small jazz band in a room then the characteristics of the listeners room would more closely match the characteristic of the room the recording was made in and thus blend more naturally, although I would argue if the balance of ambience in the recording was correct, unnecessarily.
I'm not sure that a reasonable compromise isn't possible.
If you have a very dead room recordings with a lot of recorded ambience will sound fantastic but many other recordings with little or no ambience will sound dead and lifeless as if the singer was speaking into your ear or you were listening on headphones, on the other hand if the room is too live it adds a signature of its own to every piece of music and will overpower the ambience in many recordings ruining them.
However I believe you can have just enough ambience in the room to "spice up" otherwise dead recordings, (the listening room ambience dominates) but at the same time for it to not be enough to overpower the ambience in recordings that do have a lot of ambience. (the recording ambience now dominates)
This is what I try to do. My current room is a little bit on the live side but I've had rooms in the past that came a lot closer to this elusive balance between the two.
Last edited:
yes, the articles is the repeated studies of Toole.
personally I aim for a at absorbing all early reflections, and let all secondary reflections run wild, but early reflections are just that, measuring wise detrimental
ime, in small rooms, to state that removing the side panels should improve the sound is absolutely detrimental to the SQ ime.
i prefer no coloration.
Last edited:
First, I think that we are almost entirely in agreement, but let me back up and say this. It is difficult in a small paragraph to be accurate about the nuances of what is saying. I am old and lazy and write as succinctly as possible, often just leaving out details. There is, of course, a continuum between the extremes of "studio work" and orchestral "field" recordings of a large hall, but if one has to make the two ends apparent then these two examples are what are required. A small jazz group in a small club would be almost exactly in the middle as it can have the "studio" level of imaging and yet actually be done in the "field".
What you say about the negative role of VER goes against almost everything that Toole has shown, as has been pointed out here. I too have always disagreed with Floyd on this point, but knowing Floyd and Sean as I have for several decades, I cannot so easily discount their work, which is always of exemplary quality. However, in much of their studies they would specifically ask about "spaciousness" and the listeners preference for it, but not ask about "image" and its quality. This, to me, biased the whole body of work one way.
I should point out that I agree with Floyd almost 95% of his position, but disagree on the role of VER. Floyd appears to have softened his position here, but I have not read his latest book, nor listened to his talks. The only place that Floyd and I would disagree is on how wide the constant directivity should be. Virtually everything else we are in complete agreement on.
I have given Floyd's position a lot of thought, given that I disagree with it and my position on the "they are here" versus the "you are there" illusion preference is the only way that I can resolve this difference. For example, in one of Floyd's studies he talk about how the playback enhanced the ASW - i.e. widening it. To me widening the source image is exactly the wrong thing to do. It just goes to show how what we are seeking can be vastly different things.
"I'm not sure that a reasonable compromise isn't possible." "Reasonable compromise", sure there is always such a thing depending on what you call reasonable. But a reasonable compromise is not what I seek. I want to maximize the playback of the "studio work" end of the spectrum, not the middle. Not everyone will want this, I accept that.
Basically my idea is the same as yours, to minimize the VER and maximize the later reflections for some significant room ambiance. This yields exceptional studio playback with very good medium "average" field/studio work, but lacks the Toole claim for "preference" of recording spaciousness and ASW.
Last edited:
I think that Floyd, once again, makes a good point here. Sound absorption on a wall is anything but effective broadband. To me one must avoid the VER with source directivity as that is the only real solution to this problem.
Thanks, but you said "Toole studies are out to lunch in my experience" and I took offense at this as Floyd is by far the most knowledgeable person on this subject that there is. You just cannot write off his claims.
Even in his publications links above, he admits that VER "widen" and blur the image, although this does not seem to bother him. It bothers me. That doesn't make either of us wrong, just different.
I'm not sure the 'I am there vs They are here' dichotomy actually exists, at least not for me.
The best stereo can provide in my experience is the audio equivalent to an open window into the recording space regardless if that space is a real hall or studio-crated.
I've never heard a stereo go beyond that regardless of them being omni directional or controlled dispersion. The only thing that changes is the amount of spatial detail from the recording venue (real or studio-produced) that is audible before it gets swamped by spatial information from the listening room.
To my ears controlled dispersion always wins out in that game. In practical terms that means to me that I can turn up controlled dispersion speakers to a higher volume than omnis before subtle spatial cues from the recording disappear in the mess reflected within my listening room.
The best stereo can provide in my experience is the audio equivalent to an open window into the recording space regardless if that space is a real hall or studio-crated.
I've never heard a stereo go beyond that regardless of them being omni directional or controlled dispersion. The only thing that changes is the amount of spatial detail from the recording venue (real or studio-produced) that is audible before it gets swamped by spatial information from the listening room.
To my ears controlled dispersion always wins out in that game. In practical terms that means to me that I can turn up controlled dispersion speakers to a higher volume than omnis before subtle spatial cues from the recording disappear in the mess reflected within my listening room.
well, I use 2x4 12 inch thick safe and sound. its absolutely effective.
Last edited:
SQ is greatly diminushed at the LP if the early reflections are not -15db within 20ms. isnt it a consensus in any studio in the world?
I really question his methodology in testing such things. how long are the test. did he made blind test removing and then inserting the side panels? how large are the rooms? ect
in small rooms, removing the side panels is by far a detriments.
Last edited:
Consensus in "any studio" does not mean that it is fact, and in-fact, Toole's results would contradict your claim. That's the point. He is very clear about his methods and you would need to review and critique them directly before it was fair for you to claim that they are wrong.
I have read Floyd's and others procedures and my big complaint is that they usually do not use studio recordings and "imaging" as a quality parameter is not included. To me that biases the results, but beyond that his methods are impeccable.
I declined to participate in Dave Clark's blind subjective tests of Mr. Linkwitz speakers reported somewhere here at DIY (he wanted to compare the dipoles with my speakers) because only "field" recordings were to be used. To me this invalidated his tests and would bias the results towards the dipoles.
I have read Floyd's and others procedures and my big complaint is that they usually do not use studio recordings and "imaging" as a quality parameter is not included. To me that biases the results, but beyond that his methods are impeccable.
I declined to participate in Dave Clark's blind subjective tests of Mr. Linkwitz speakers reported somewhere here at DIY (he wanted to compare the dipoles with my speakers) because only "field" recordings were to be used. To me this invalidated his tests and would bias the results towards the dipoles.
Again, you are clearly not familiar with the things you are criticizing. Toole is basing his claim partly on his own experiments, but also to a significant degree on the work of others. Here’s what he writes on one of the few studies to date that explicitly investigated how reflections impact imaging:
You are free to criticize that experiment, of course. Are the results valid for earlier reflections as well? Maybe not. But I really think people should stop rubbishing scientific work without knowing anything about what the experiments entailed.
Last edited:
Thank you, good paper...
My first thoughts were, ok, everyone points to the same center under either test, but I wonder how wide is the perception of the "beam" they are pointing to ... does that differ....
...you know, like looking at the center of a laser vs a floodlight...I can point to the same spot for both....
oivavoi
Thanks - I had thought about making the last point in Toole's discussion, the one about how the reflections tend to be modifications not absorption. It's a very important point. This is what happens to spectacular reflections at grazing angles.
The rest remains fairly concrete, but still a little bit concerning. "Less than ideal forward firing directivity. Sounds like they were using not-great loudspeakers.
Thanks - I had thought about making the last point in Toole's discussion, the one about how the reflections tend to be modifications not absorption. It's a very important point. This is what happens to spectacular reflections at grazing angles.
The rest remains fairly concrete, but still a little bit concerning. "Less than ideal forward firing directivity. Sounds like they were using not-great loudspeakers.
you seem to not understand something here.
the room where Toole base his conclusion is 24 feet wide. this is totally irrelevant when it comes to small room acoustic. and ive said from my first post in this thread that in small rooms, side walls are a source of early reflection.
in Toole room, the side walls are so far away from the LP that the early reflections may not be even considered early reflections. I fnd it very weird he doesn't show a waterfall plot of before and after treatment. he only states that the closer wall from say the right speaker, the early reflection arrive at 9ms, and the other 23 ms. he doesnt state how many db less within 9ms? why? a early reflection, by definition is a reflection that is not not say -10/-15db within 20ms AT THE LISTENING POSITION. those reflections are detrimental. in very small room, the early reflection may be only -5db within 20ms, that means the early reflection play along the source (speakers) almost as loud as the source.
in small room, which I specified in my first post, say a room of 12 x 14, you can be sure that the side walls reflections are not attenuated enough as they are so close to the LP and from the source (the speakers). You can also find in that study that Toole mention how damaging the ceiling and floor bounce is... why do you think? pretty evident.
if you have a 24 feet wide room, and my point was about small room, you may be able to get away without side wall treatment.
in studio, the rule is if your LP is about 3 or 4m (iirc) away from the back wall for example, the back wall is not considered a early reflection source anymore, and so no treatment is needed.
so the empty statement done in this thread like side wall reflection are beneficial is truly inadequate, a generalisation that is simply not true in all context.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.