Stirling Trayle, and here's his website:
Audio Systems Optimized | Petaluma | High End Audio Set-Up
Audio Systems Optimized | Petaluma | High End Audio Set-Up
Are there any published measurements available anywhere of the results of this placement method?
What makes you think that? I had never heard of Stirling Trayle until John Curl posted his SF Audio society meeting notes and Zung's subsequent review post.
There is a contact page on Stirling's website, which is why I suggested you just contact Stirling direct.
With my recent experience with the Kef LS50 (with and without sub) I'm more and more convinced of the low correlation between measured response curves and listening impressions when speakers assemblies are in concern.
While those little speakers shows, in my room, a descending frequency curve, my auditive impression is in total opposition.
The way the speakers react to the micro-dynamic, their speed of rise, their temporal tailings, their variations of group delay, the way they "push" the air depending of their diameter, their various distortions with frequencies, all this has an influence on our feelings about frequencies "linearity".
Not to mention that our brains are able, in a certain way to compensate the room effects, basses apart, that a mike is not able to do.
I do not know anyone who would have the means, the courage and the time to engage himself in real objective and complete studies, a whole range of complex measurements, simply to optimize his system in his listening room, while it is so simple to trust what we perceive, with your own experience and requirements and try to make the listening more agreeable and accurate.
If the comparison between the response curve measured in free field and that measured in situation can help us reduce the main acoustic defects of our listening room, it seems to me vain to flatten this curve using a microphone placed at the listening position with an equalizer: it leads to a horror.
Can-we remove a problem by acting on other effects ?
While those little speakers shows, in my room, a descending frequency curve, my auditive impression is in total opposition.
The way the speakers react to the micro-dynamic, their speed of rise, their temporal tailings, their variations of group delay, the way they "push" the air depending of their diameter, their various distortions with frequencies, all this has an influence on our feelings about frequencies "linearity".
Not to mention that our brains are able, in a certain way to compensate the room effects, basses apart, that a mike is not able to do.
I do not know anyone who would have the means, the courage and the time to engage himself in real objective and complete studies, a whole range of complex measurements, simply to optimize his system in his listening room, while it is so simple to trust what we perceive, with your own experience and requirements and try to make the listening more agreeable and accurate.
If the comparison between the response curve measured in free field and that measured in situation can help us reduce the main acoustic defects of our listening room, it seems to me vain to flatten this curve using a microphone placed at the listening position with an equalizer: it leads to a horror.
Can-we remove a problem by acting on other effects ?
Last edited:
Then I suggest you have a look at wesayso's thread. Although since I'm on your ignore list you won't see this post. Oh well, one tries to help..........
But as you already know, their rebuttal is, not everything we hear can be measured because our ears are far more complex than any measuring tools out there so trust your ears (while doing sighted comparison).
Bob is a well respected acoustician in the studio world. I have been in several of the rooms he has designed and or treated. Simply put, job well done.
The person they were talking about is into getting the best out of existing rooms, not what Bob does at all. Or rather Bob does it by adding/removing or changing room treatment. Or he starts at the beginning and designs the room with you.
Cheers
Alan
That makes more sense, Stirling doesn't tune the room, in fact he told me that he removed a significant amount of the acoustic treatment from a client's room
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.