Comparison of small room acoustic models for home listening spaces - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 09:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
So we seem to keep sidestepping this question/problem just a bit. It is mentioned in various degrees of obliqueness in various threads both past and present, sometimes saying it is the first problem to be addressed before any real work to treatment can begin, and sometimes saying it is a minor concern in that the model is "whatever you prefer..."

Well, I don't recall seeing a discussion that really addresses this here on AVS. Some on other forums like gearslutz gets close, but the context is a bit different.

The question/problem: If we have the measuring tools and targeted treatments available to implement a chosen small room acoustic response model in a home listening environment, out of the many "vetted" models that have been developed over the years, which should we choose and why?

I know some assumptions/constraints have to be applied to even approach this question, so allow me to insert my own preferences that I imagine will suffice for many other forum members. Specifically, I'm talking about a multichannel playback environment meant for movies and multichannel sound playback in a modest size home room (say, anything from 15x15 to 30x30, if this must be constrained). Multichannel as in both discrete and extracted via processing such as Logic 7/Q, ProLogic, Neo, Trifield, etc. Multichannel as in minimum 5 or 7 channels, but extended to include 9, 11, and beyond.

From a practical standpoint, if I have a room stripped, isolated, and ready to begin installation, measurement, and targeted treatment... what am I treating to achieve? It is of no use to respond "whatever you prefer" due to the practical issues this raises. How is one to configure, evaluate, and compare various room models given but one room? If the metric is personal preference, I don't think this can be reasonably established without real time access to two identically sized and equipped rooms which follow differing response models. Even then it would be difficult for a single listener to concretely establish his personal preference due to memory persistency issues, etc. More easily accomplished would be sufficiently powered trials to establish "general population" preferences, but then whether that sampling of the population represents the specific user is always in question.

Pieces of this have been addressed by Toole and others. i.e., do listeners prefer on average reflective vs absorptive first specular reflection treatments, etc. But even he touches on some of the issues regarding trained music professionals such as mixing/mastering engineers having different tolerances and differing requirements, listeners preferring a more utopic experience vs more resolving of whatever detail exists, etc. And he comments that as more channels are added, isolated high gain specular reflections are likely (in his opinion?) to become less and less important, contrary to much forum discussion I've seen over the years that assumed as more channels are added the room should become more and more absorbent as it becomes less important to maintain acoustic energy secondary to processing handling ambience, etc. Is that even true? Does the processing from Harmon, Dolby et al available accomplish the same goals with respect to ISD-termination, etc. as the various room models? Discrete multichannel? And the real question... is there any real data on preference for the various models?

Historically, most of the literature and forum discussions for LEDE, RFZ, ambiechoic, AE et. al are addressing recording/mixing environments, often for two channel playback. There may be differences in goals, listener experience/preference, room size, number of playback channels, number of listeners, etc. Can we extrapolate any data on listener preferences from that perspective to a home environment meant for multiple listeners and largely multichannel reproduction?

Again, my problem is that from the perspective of a single listener, how do I choose a room model to use as a goal? If it can't for practical reasons be based on my own personal preferences due to inability to fairly evaluate various room models in the actual target room, and if there is no good data on general listener preference in home multichannel environments, where do we even start the discussion?

If it is on technical grounds comparing the goals of the various models, well established research on how users perceive certain isolated effects, how those effects are approached by the various models, how these models are likely to perform in home multichannel environments, with extrapolation of bits and pieces to listener preference with data where available, ala Toole's work on lateral reflections, so be it. Where do we begin? We, you, I tell people to measure and surgically treat to achieve the desired target response (following a chosen model). How do we help them, and me, choose a model?

Bigus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 10:14 AM
Member
 
xiv_R_A_I_D_E_R_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
you can't you just laugh at them for falling into the same trap you did.how are a you supposed to know how a certain individual perceives things?you can only give general ideas it's up to them to to put them to work.some people like a graph to tell them it sounds good some people like their senses to tell them it sounds good ect... I'm pretty sure this question flew over my head though I think

It's all about those Oakland Raiders
P.S Fix Socom Zipper
xiv_R_A_I_D_E_R_ is offline  
post #3 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 306
I'm flying back from japan, surfing AVS via iPhone, stuck at DFW till 2:30pm flight to DTW, looks like interesting thread. Thx for starting it, I'll follow and participate.

I had a chance to partially read a few acoustic books during my trip.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #4 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 12:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
It isn't a trap, its a very practical question. And it isn't just that we can't know what a listener will prefer... how can that listener know what he will prefer? The problem is that the thing under evaluation is an entire treated room that takes lots of time to implement. It is uncertain whether a fair comparison could be made even if time and resources weren't practical constraints.

If we can't rely on our own preferences to make a choice, what do we turn to? Does the body of research and development of the various models over time give us insight into the specific application I've outlined?

Bigus is offline  
post #5 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Pieces of this have been addressed by Toole and others. i.e., do listeners prefer on average reflective vs absorptive first specular reflection treatments, etc.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

On the other hand, you have folks who have read and remembered only a few out of context statements from folks like Toole who “believe early reflections are good”, while not bothering to read the rest of his papers specifically addressing acceptable speaker behavior where he goes to GREAT lengths to define an acceptable speaker .

Ironically, these conditions happen to be a prerequisite for a speakers use in his room…namely that the speaker MUST exhibit strictly a defined Q and polar dispersion. A polar dispersion that is so controlled as to literally create a lack of early reflections – aka a Reflection Free Zone as defined by D’Antonio - where the use of controlled Q/dispersion speakers minimize energy incidence with the boundary, thus rendering high gain early incident sparse reflections a moot issue, and as a result rendering treatment unnecessary and high gain early arriving indirect specular energy absent. …So much for the nexus between his words and his actions.

that distinction re: Toole and "early reflections" really needs to be understood.

and Bigus,
"first-order reflections" are not necessarily "early reflections"...
localhost127 is offline  
post #6 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 03:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Ratman is offline  
post #7 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

...
and Bigus,
"first-order reflections" are not necessarily "early reflections"..

Of course not. Later in the post I spefically referred to lateral reflections when mentioning toole's work. I'm sure we could all stand to be more precise with our word choices, but clarifying definitions while useful doesnt address the main question.

In fact, I think it was you who started a thread not long ago addressing the need to utilize the ETC and surgical treatments to reach the desired room response. But without being able to advise the average forum member on which room model to target, what good is a working knowledge of the remainder of the process? If we can't discuss how to approach step 1, we can't dance.


Quote:


that distinction re: Toole and "early reflections" really needs to be understood.

.

Well, maybe you think this is a decent starting point? I think toole's quote on the subject in the Harmon thread adequately summarizes the common misperceptions. IMO that simply frees us from the overly strict conclusions drawn by some, such as forum troll aj, which might otherwise direct us away from certain treatments. i.e., the understanding you refer to simply maintains that all room model options are still on the table. It doesn't help narrow the choices, so we are still stalled at step 1.

Have you read in discussions about or descriptions of the origins of various room models correlation to listener preferences which might apply in a multi listener multichannelenvironment?

Bigus is offline  
post #8 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
I think the key question to ask and answer is "How am I phrasing the question?" In this case "I" is anyone who's asking. The "question" must be about the room, equipment (or at least speakers), and treatments to achieve "I's" preference.

1. At a certain point, "I" might ask, "I have speaker A and room B, how do I treat the room to get it to sound the way I want?"

2. Or, "I" might ask, "I have room B and treatment C, what speaker do I buy to get the sound the way I want?"

3. In another situation, "I" might ask, "I have speaker A and treatment C, what room do I put them in to sound the way I want?"

HT fans use these approaches all the time, and depending on the constraints imposed on them, they make compromises somewhere along the line.

In #1, "I" has some favored brand name speakers--old favorites or brand new purchases--and a room of a certain size, and neither of those will change. "I" puts the speakers in the room and AWK! "I" cannot listen to them. So "I" embarks on a journey of room treatments to "fix" the interaction of the the speakers, their placement, and the room. "I" may have to measure, move, measure, move, measure, move dozens of times to tweak things into place.

In #2, "I" has a room of a certain size and some treatments--bass traps, rugs, wall hangings, whatever (given, found, purchased based on advice, brought from another house, etc.)--and neither of those will change, so "I" tries to find speakers that will interact with the status quo in a pleasing and satisfying way. "I" may have to audition dozens of speakers to find "the one."

In #3, "I" has some favored speakers and some treatments that are in search of a room--a room "I" is going to build (or rebuild). The speakers and treatments will not change, so "I" computer generates room after room after room looking for golden ratios and geometric variations and wall materials, etc. Then "I" builds it, and it's not quite right, so "I" modifies it a bit, then a bit, then a bit more. "I" may make dozens of modifications to tune it to "just right."

But wait, there's a fourth way (and probably more, just sayin').

4. "I" might ask, "If I think of this as a complete system, what speakers, what room, and what treatments would work in synergy to become an integrated system that sounds the way I want?"

After years, nay decades, of effing around with 1, 2, and 3, number 4 is the question "I" should have been asking all along.

(Remember, "I" is anyone who's asking, not just me personally.).

What I can afford, when I can afford it...
filecat13 is offline  
post #9 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 04:37 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
SierraMikeBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Hi Bigus,

I'll throw my hat in the ring FWIW. To address your question, there IS no really accurate model that is held in high regard at this time. I have a few models, some written by me, others by folks I know who are good in languages I am not, but they all have their limitations....namely calculation time. In order to get a reeeeally good model, we need an enourmous amount of computer power...more than is readily available to the general consumer. There are some nifty commercial programs available that do use the right mathematics (and some that don't), but in order to get a highly accurate model of your specific room considering all the variables, it would take on the order of weeks, months or even years to calculate. In order to truncate that, we start cutting a lot of stuff off. Now, the trick with these models is, to know their limitations backwards and forwards, and realize that what they are spitting out as a result may or may not be correct for your room, but probably is within the ball park.

Addressing the treatment...there is some physics and some art we are addressing here. We know certain waves will reflect off the boundaries and maintain enough amplitude in the reflection to interfere with primary waves due to phase differences. So, we need to address those issue. Once we address all of the "physical" issues, this where the artsy stuff comes into play. We are now looking at shaping the sound. That, often comes with experience. You will find many acousticians have a "preference" or a specific sound they are after, which is often pleasing to the person they are assisting. In addition, acousticians will also keep in mind what preferences the client may like as well. You just need to know how to achieve what it is you are looking for and you have to know what you are looking for in the first place. There are wrong answers and there are right ones, but there are also answers in between. I know that is more confusing to you than it is to me, but again, that's just how I have experienced it. In addition, every room will sound a bit different, but there is often a point where a happy place is reached in every room.

Shawn Byrne
Erskine Group
CEDIA Certified Professional EST II - HAA Level III Certified -THX Certified Professional

Design-Video & Audio Calibration Information

The original Pro Theater Layout
SierraMikeBravo is offline  
post #10 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kiwi2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Specifically, I'm talking about a multichannel playback environment meant for movies and multichannel sound playback in a modest size home room. Multichannel as in both discrete and extracted via processing such as Logic 7/Q, ProLogic, Neo, Trifield, etc.


Good point. I think it is important to distinguish between a room for 2ch playback or multichannel playback, and is something I would like to learn more about.

I have a rather small room with a fair amount of absorption panels at the first reflection points and behind the speakers etc. The wall behind my listening position is 75% covered in heavy drapes. Wall to wall soft carpet.

Music playback in 5.1 is wonderful. Large deep and wide soundstage with excellent localisation of individual instruments in that soundstage with space between them.

However 2ch playback sounds a bit 'boring' in comparison.

I like multichannel playback so much more so that I use my AVR's surround sound mode for 2ch material. (each additional channel can be adjusted from 0 to 100 in 1% increments, so it is very tunable to get the amount of ambients one desires)

Occasionally I remove all the absorption panels to see if indeed I am heading in the right direction. The sound in my room without the panels becomes a little more harsh and undefined. Panels back in is a smoother sound with more definition. But this is with 5.1 playback. It is quite possible I would create a different room setup if I was strictly using 2ch playback.
kiwi2 is offline  
post #11 of 415 Old 10-14-2011, 11:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Dragonfyr, you'll have to forgive me if I have no idea what personal attack you are referring to. Started the thread with one? In the first post? Or are you referring to the quote addressed to localhost? Where I simply recalled the topic of a recent thread he started, and in which he provided a wealth of information that was sorely needed here? If so, my only intent in recalling that he started that thread was to reinforce the premise that the practical means with which one gets from desired response model to in room implementation has been rather well discussed as of late compared to my question of how we arrive at a desired response model to begin. Localhost, if you somehow felt personally attacked by my mention of that discussion, my apologies.

And I'm not sure how we got on the tangent of simulations. I find them fascinating, having developed many various models over the years in areas of stress analysis, fracture mechanics, nuclear overpressure, vibration isolation, dynamic shock analysis, and occasionally even in the arena of computational fluid dynamics (what a beast of a problem that can be). That was my livelihood for years before the career uturn. But I certainly didn't have simulations in mind when using the phrase 'model' (which has been used extensively in the past few days without such confusion).

I feel that I should address many other points you made, and do have specific questions about some of your other points which you may or may not feel like answering without tossing out insults and condescension, but a point by point is a pain on a phone so it can wait.

Bigus is offline  
post #12 of 415 Old 10-15-2011, 12:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

I think the key question to ask and answer...

"I" might ask, "I have speaker A and room B, how do I treat the room to get it to sound the way I want?

Ah, but I'm asking an even more primative question. How do you know how you want the room to sound to begin with?

As stated in this very thread, if various response models may have somewhat differing goals, how do we choose which goals to adopt for a given room? By reading about their development? I might buy that, as it's the only option I've had so far. But that's only an educated guess, looking at what others have correlated to other's preferences in pieces, and inferring what we might prefer in totality. But how does an individual really know?

For all other decisions, the scientific and objective among us demand a higher standard. If the audibility is in question, an abx or other controlled test is first required to establish audibility. If audibility is established, controlled level matched comparisons can them begin to address preference. If that becomes difficult for an individual, whether logistically or financially, say in the case of speakers, we can at least turn to a great body of research that establishes certain population preferences as related to measurable attributes to help guide our choices. But when the choice is an approach to treating a room, and not just an approach but a goal that the approach is attempting to achieve, I'm left somewhat stranded. I can read about the options, what they are trying to achieve, how certain aspects of each approach fared in various listening tests over the decades, and make assumptions about what I might prefer for a certain situation, what goals I might find appropriate for my room, but they are just assumptions. And worse, assumptions based on psychoacoustic phenomenon which may have been tested and validated for two channel playback but not vigorously explored in multichannel systems, or approaches based on a single listener position when I have twelve, or even based on an erroneous belief that my ears are as good as a recording engineers when in fact they are barely better than simple on off pressure detectors.

Bottom line, any time we tell a forum member, myself included, something like... There are a few well researched acoustic models which might be suitable, it's up to you to study them and..... This seems vacuous unless we have some practical advice on how to actually decide. So what is it?

Bigus is offline  
post #13 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

In fact, I think it was you who started a thread not long ago addressing the need to utilize the ETC and surgical treatments to reach the desired room response. But without being able to advise the average forum member on which room model to target, what good is a working knowledge of the remainder of the process? If we can't discuss how to approach step 1, we can't dance.

yes - as there are many on the forums who think the "mirror-trick" is an acceptable "tool" for analyzing and identifying the performance of their broadband specular absorbers. pardon me for recommending the very tool for the job (that is also part of the free measuring suite: room eq wizard). you also have people using thin absorption for specular reflections and/or covering entire boundaries - which will remove the HF energy from the room and allow lower end of the specular region to persist. the push for people to use the proper tool for the job is so that they can 'see' what issues exist and to also verify the issue is solved once 'treatment' has been procured and installed. the mirror-trick is nice for a novice to understand how specular energy behaves (eg, angle of incident = angle of reflection) - but it does not give the user any measured information about the energy state (gain in dB) or arrival time delta between the reflection and the original signal.

before any decisions on 'treatments' are made, the room is analyzed and if one so desires - a specific room model is chosen of which to emulate. room models designed around psycho-acoustic principles...and unless those principles have been invalidated by newer research (of which i am not aware of), then they are still valid. you cannot ask for directions ("how to treat") if you do not know your final location (end state response). it's not my decision to tell someone what model (if any) they should choose. however, since we already have a fair number of people attenuating early reflections, it is important to note that while they may have not conscientiously chosen a room model, they are already implementing the first step of a specific one. the problem with that is, the user attenuates the early reflection(s) - and then stops. they may understand some of the root issues within small acoustical spaces, and what problems the attenuation of early reflections solve - but they do not complete the room model of which the following steps are just as crucial (regarding the very psycho-acoustic effects that the room model was designed around!). namely, the termination of the ISD and the decay. the user is more than willing to attenuate the early reflections (creating the ISD), but there is no afterthought put in place as to how energy will eventually be re-introduced to the listening position to terminate the ISD. the termination (time and gain) is equally as important - as is the decay (rate of decay, lateral arriving, densely diffused, etc).

it's not so much the choosing of a room model for a user, but more of the fact that many people who attenuate early reflections are unaware that they are in fact already implementing the first steps of a very specific room model!

the specular region is dealt with in regards to the time-domain. too many on this forum still cling to the frequency-response, even when measuring the effectiveness of their broadband absorbers! i think the first step is getting people to understand the right tool for the job (in context of specular energy), and also to understand that the time-domain takes precedence.

without an understanding of that, it is difficult to understand why certain models exist with regards to the psycho-acoustic principles of which they were founded.
localhost127 is offline  
post #14 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 09:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
localhost, why do you care what anyone else does with their room?

If someone wants a padded cell for a room and likes the sound then they should not have you posting condescending remarks towards their choices. They are not posting telling anyone else to do it.

Yes, its easy to recommend when people START adding treatments that they first add 'First reflection" treatments and to determine that they can START with the SIMPLE mirror trick to figure out where to place a couple of 2'x4' 2" panels.

Why is that so bad???

You post 100 times it seems that anyone suggestion or doing that is a complete moron but the differences in the measurements and the audible conclusions state that it has a very high probability of improving sound. You also keep posting 1st step and unaware....I think people are smarter then you give them credit. People are looking for initial improvements. Very few people in the world look for perfection or care for it. Even you admit that you are bound by the size of house you have, etc. Instead of posting reminding us that we are just ignorant fools to you maybe just posting real examples of room changes, examples of using real tools is far more useful. Your DIY posts on doing RPG is what should exist more (Awesome stuff there!!! ).

You assume way too much on what people look forward to using and adding to their rooms, sometimes just doing the 1st step is all they wanted to enjoy their setup.

Sometimes we do not need to learn how to build an atom bomb to use and enjoy fireworks.
handsaw and Saril like this.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #15 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 09:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Bottom line, any time we tell a forum member, myself included, something like... There are a few well researched acoustic models which might be suitable, it's up to you to study them and..... This seems vacuous unless we have some practical advice on how to actually decide. So what is it?

Yeah, there is a huge disconnect from thinking most people enjoy reading any sort of research paper/white paper/tech paper. Not many actually enjoy doing anything remotely like some PhD. Studying isnt something most people want to do, to assume people actually want to do it is a little silly to me.

Practical advice, dumbed down solutions/examples get a lot more traction. There is a reason "Dummies Guides " To whatever sell millions every year. Just a small percentage of all audio hobbiest want to educate themselves enough to become acoustical experts. We all just want exact solutions and we want to be told how to do it...down to the product to buy and the position to install that product in our rooms. We want it all and we want it for free


I for one think all those models and the discussions that surround them are a waste of time. Since again, the audible differences between doing the COMMON room treatments and trying to follow some model isnt meaningful enough to bother with. In a weekend we can create superior room without a single "model". We can have people go "WOW" thats impressive. There are only so many ways to treat any room so what really is the fuss all about?

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #16 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I for one think all those models and the discussions that surround them are a waste of time. Since again, the audible differences between doing the COMMON room treatments and trying to follow some model isnt meaningful enough to bother with. In a weekend we can create superior room without a single "model". We can have people go "WOW" thats impressive. There are only so many ways to treat any room so what really is the fuss all about?

would you mind please elaborating on the certified LEDE, RFZ, ambechoic, etc rooms that you have been in to be qualified to make such a statement? -or which 'room models' you have been exposed to yourself?
localhost127 is offline  
post #17 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:14 AM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

localhost, why do you care what anyone else does with their room?

He's with the "brutal accuracy" police. Respect his authoritah! (despite him being completely silenced when asked "accurate to what exactly????").

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

If someone wants a padded cell for a room and likes the sound

Hey, that's my line.
I've always figured it's more of a need than a want.
But who am I to tell someone that their completely faked stereo construct sound isn't the bee knees compared to reality?

cheers,

AJ

p.s. Going to bring a pair of my M1's to Greg B's studio in Orlando one upcoming weekend if you're down with a listen. Probably heavily treated too
AJinFLA is offline  
post #18 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:18 AM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

would you mind please elaborating on the certified LEDE, RFZ, ambechoic, etc rooms

Which one of those is the "brutally accurate" one again?
Using what speakers?
At what coordinates to your binaural hearing/HRTF??
Specifically, with what recording?
AJinFLA is offline  
post #19 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

(edited)

1. Ah, but I'm asking an even more primative question. How do you know how you want the room to sound to begin with?

2. But how does an individual really know?

3. This seems vacuous unless we have some practical advice on how to actually decide. So what is it?

1. Ok, got it.

2. The individual has to do some work, like auditioning and asking some simple questions, but you're right that it does not require Ph.D. level reading. Hanging around here (AVS) would be a good place for many to start, though most people don't even want to do that. "Just tell me what I need so I can get on with it" is the mantra of the average person. Just telling them is often enough to convince them that it's "right" even if they'd like something else better if they heard it.

It might be helpful to generate some simple guides for folks who want simple, just-tell-me-what-to-do guidance. You know, "Answer these questions and here are some recommendations" kind of thing.

3. I'm still going to write that we don't do enough systems thinking, and that wastes time. For those who like to tweak, twiddle, and test, systems thinking might be seen as too much compromising, since it cuts out all that "My system is better because I spent months and months researching and auditioning and piecing together every conceivable component, interconnect, cable, and transducer to get the maximum synergy allowed by the Laws of Physics and God" thinking.

The genesis of this systems thinking idea (with apologies to Peter Senge) comes from my visits to Harman/JBL's Northridge CA facility to see the integrated approach they take to research and development, and in particular JBL's Synthesis® line of products. Getting past the marketing fluff, these are systems that include the electronics (SSP, PEQ, Active XO, Amps), the interconnects, the speakers, the calibration, and even recommendations for room size (in cubic volume) and desired or intended use, etc. Sure, it's an expensive proposition, but it's straightforward once it's selected, and the results are very predictable.

Oftentimes, someone will say, "I want those speakers" and take them home to put them in an entirely different room that is more likely to be too big or too small than to be just right. Then it's, "I want that receiver (or amp) and take it home for a room that's more likely to be too big or too small rather than just right. Then they'll have a room with a wood or tile floor, lots of glass, whatever, and it's "Why does my system sound so horrible?" when in fact the room is part of the system, not an afterthought.

Yeah, this is getting long-winded, but the point I'm trying to make is that the best practical advice is to stop piecemeal thinking and get folks on board with the notion that a system is equipment, room, placement, and treatment. Integrating a system-centric approach could be as simple as as a series of yes/no questions that lead to a general conclusion or recommendation, with the option to follow up with specific inquiries to fine tune the process if needed.

I use keys all the time to identify plants, animals, rocks, etc, but I start with my preference already in place: I want to get to this thing in my hand. Perhaps there's a way to get the audio questioner to figure out where he/she wants to go as well.

What I can afford, when I can afford it...
filecat13 is offline  
post #20 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

He's with the "brutal accuracy" police. Respect his authoritah! (despite him being completely silenced when asked "accurate to what exactly????").

I respect incredible rooms and setups, The rest is just hand waving online

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #21 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

localhost, why do you care what anyone else does with their room?

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You post 100 times it seems that anyone suggestion or doing that is a complete moron.


do you have sources for these attacks on me? quotes? anything?

you should really provide better substance when making such sweeping claims about another user of this forum. i haven't "told" anyone how to treat their room; haven't suggested that anyone is a "moron". if a user is asking questions or advice, i can share my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You also keep posting 1st step and unaware....I think people are smarter then you give them credit. People are looking for initial improvements. Very few people in the world look for perfection or care for it.

suddenly, adhering to psycho-acoustic concepts is chasing "perfection". good to know. so, not only does penngray speak for the 'entire forum', but he also defines what 'perfection' is, and is in a position to catch-all the requirements of all users on this forum.

just like this quote from today:

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

There is useful science and there is science that is purely for acedemic handwaving.

There really isnt any rocket science in improving your room to a point where the extra hand scientific waving won't really matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I respect incredible rooms and setups, The rest is just hand waving online

penngray, why do you feel the need to be the authoritative figure on where the bar is placed for all topics? -and now what determines an "incredible room and setup"?

on one hand, any commentary above your knowledge level is "acedemic handwaving" and attempted to be considered 'moot' by yourself. on the other hand, you think the "mirror trick" is fully acceptable and refuse to recommend user's using a simple measurement tool to actually verify the issue before procuring treatments to address.
localhost127 is offline  
post #22 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

would you mind please elaborating on the certified LEDE, RFZ, ambechoic, etc rooms that you have been in to be qualified to make such a statement? -or which 'room models' you have been exposed to yourself?


You first

have you ever built a custom room? I have built 2 for myself and helped with 5 total but Im definitely not an expert, Im not in the industry (no $$ in it) but I do have friends and family enjoy something they have never owned before.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #23 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

i haven't "told" anyone how to treat their room....

Really???

Your posts are not suggestion everyone is doing it wrong and why?? Hint: That is "telling" people how they should be doing it.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #24 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You first

no. i called you out on your statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I for one think all those models and the discussions that surround them are a waste of time. Since again, the audible differences between doing the COMMON room treatments and trying to follow some model isnt meaningful enough to bother with. In a weekend we can create superior room without a single "model". We can have people go "WOW" thats impressive. There are only so many ways to treat any room so what really is the fuss all about?

---and now you are unable to list any of the certified rooms (based on the listed room models) that you have been in to validate your above statement. got it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Really???

suddenly, recommendations are now tantamount to "telling" someone what they must do. hmm.
localhost127 is offline  
post #25 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 11:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
No calling out needed..I have no need for a certified place.

I have experience and measurements to know what changes a room needs and what matters the most.

I have my own room to do experimentation with.

If you really do not think your long posts are void of "telling" people what they are doing wrong then I really do not see an discussion here. Theory can be a great discussion on its own. You would be better off by sticking to that instead of trying to tell everyone how they went about their "OWN" rooms the wrong way when you have never ever had a custom room.

You keep posting that your method is the only correct method of treating a room. Do you have data to back that opinion up? Do you have data proven that all of our "crude" methods do not improve the room?? Honestly I do not even know what your method is.....in the end I think you would recommend the same treatments everyone else does but you took $$$$ and time to analyze just to get back to the same answers. (btw, my time is $200/hr when I do not like doing something, enjoyable DIY time is free).



You posted this
Quote:


before any decisions on 'treatments' are made, the room is analyzed

I say why bother before?? What are you really gaining over basic treatments? Do you have any case studies that show basic starting treatments shouldn't happen?

Do you also realize that when a person builds a room they pretty much do not have the ability to measure before hand. Treatments, customization are all done at build time. No chairs/couches/carpets or anything else that drasctically effects the in room response is installed. Measurements at that point are useless.

Measurement analysis comes after bass traps and first reflection treatments are installed anyways. Since they are ALWAYS installed and always improve the response. We can then measure to find out what other issues we have then add proper treatments.

Measurement analysis is always repeated throughout the process (if the people CHOOSE to go that far).

We also are probably thinking about different applications. I think in terms of building rooms (new room or finishing basements). You might think of someone wanting to improve a family room (which seldom can be done at all with WAF).

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #26 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

No calling out needed..I have no need for a certified place.

ill quote you again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I for one think all those models and the discussions that surround them are a waste of time. Since again, the audible differences between doing the COMMON room treatments and trying to follow some model isnt meaningful enough to bother with. In a weekend we can create superior room without a single "model". We can have people go "WOW" thats impressive. There are only so many ways to treat any room so what really is the fuss all about?

you gave the impression you had been in such spaces:

to be clear - you have not actually been in any of these rooms that adhered to a specific room model that is the very discussion of this thread.

if this is not true, then please simply state the name of the certified room that you have been in so we know whether your statement above holds water or if it needs to be discarded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You keep posting that your method is the only correct method of treating a room.

another slanderous comment with no source or quote to back it up. keep it up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

You posted this


I say why bother before?? What are you really gaining over basic treatments? Do you have any case studies that show basic starting treatments shouldn't happen?

if someone has the equipment, then why wouldn't you want to see your starting point? why wouldn't you want to first, identify issues via measurements - and then choose appropriate treatment BASED on the identified issue - and then verify the treatment has addressed the issue based on re-measurements?

like the earlier example - if someone had tightly controlled speakers, and the off-axis energy is below the human detection threshold, then the user wouldn't need specific treatment to address that particular issue. and in such a scenario, you would have blindly told the user to go off and purchase products that they otherwise may not need!

you can offer suggestions without measurements. that is fine. i will choose not to. i don't feel comfortable suggesting someone to buy 'treatments' without first understanding what the original problem is meant to solve. that's my opinion. you are free to offer the user your own suggestions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Do you also realize that when a person builds a room they pretty much do not have the ability to measure before hand. Treatments, customization are all done at build time. No chairs/couches/carpets or anything else that drasctically effects the in room response is installed. Measurements at that point are useless.

you've changed the scenario to fit your argument. not everyone here is building their room from scratch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Measurement analysis comes after bass traps and first reflection treatments are installed anyways. Since they are ALWAYS installed and always improve the response. We can then measure to find out what other issues we have then add proper treatments.

again, you make general assumptions. eg, assuming all "bass traps" are made of broadband porous material. if a user is using pressure-based bass traps - then you most certainly need measurements BEFORE the trap can be designed and built to the trouble frequency(ies).
localhost127 is offline  
post #27 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 12:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:


you've changed the scenario to fit your argument. not everyone here is building their room from scratch.

Nope, always only cared about custom room designs. Never changed my position once but I figure you forgot so I know to remind you once in awhile. This can only be about custom rooms since they are the only rooms we have complete control over.

I do not think about treating rooms that have multiple purposes because its bad WAF and the looks of the room matters. Silly treatments just for audio screams...weird in the world I live in so I just never consider it.

Someday, if you ever have change to build a room. I will definitely help you figure it out. That is a promise

btw, I have been to facilities that you might just dream about actually, I have lived a little Where have you been though? Im very curious since you seem to think it matters.



Quote:


you can offer suggestions without measurements. that is fine. i will choose not to. i don't feel comfortable suggesting someone to buy 'treatments' without first understanding what the original problem is meant to solve. that's my opinion. you are free to offer the user your own suggestions.

But You feel comfortable about chastising others for offering very common treatment suggestions that have a very high probability of success. Very interesting

The bold part is funny Its definitely not "fine" with you considering all the recent threads you have been posting on against "mirror" tricks, 2" OC703 panels at first reflection points and basic bass absorption.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #28 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

btw, I have been to facilities that you might just dream about actually, I have lived a little Where have you been though? Im very curious since you seem to think it matters.

and which of these facilities are certified RFZ, LEDE, etc rooms? -to expand on your comment about that you don't feel these "room models" are "anything to bother with" compared to common treatments?


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

But You feel comfortable about chastising others for offering very common treatment suggestions that have a very high probability of success. Very interesting

you don't understand the concepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

The bold part is funny Its definitely not "fine" with you considering all the recent threads you have been posting on against "mirror" tricks, 2" OC703 panels at first reflection points and basic bass absorption.

you must have a magical mirror if it can detail you the same information found via the ETC response.
localhost127 is offline  
post #29 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 12:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:


you don't understand the concepts.

lmao, What concepts?? So you shouldn't post you are okay with others posting suggestions....just say it!!

Having a great custom room? Check!

Having incredible speakers untouched by consumer brands? Check!

Having a subwoofer systems? Check!

Knowing measurements inside out? Check!

Did I miss a test somewhere?

Since, Im okay with posting who I am online (unlike you)

I Grew up in Ontario had friends in Ottawa. Enjoy several trips to the Canadian Research Council's acoustic testing facilities in Ottawa. So tell me more about the real you?? What do you do and what facilities have you enjoyed.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #30 of 415 Old 10-17-2011, 12:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Oh...I missed this

Quote:


again, you make general assumptions. eg, assuming all "bass traps" are made of broadband porous material. if a user is using pressure-based bass traps - then you most certainly need measurements BEFORE the trap can be designed and built to the trouble frequency(ies).

Never posted anything about fixing trouble frequencies actually so you assume too much. If there are problems then you build more subs. That is the right way to fix it. Everything else is just a compromise to me. Others can fuss over hemlotz type devices (or others) to try and fix the problem. Im a Toole/Welte/Geddes/Parham guy when it comes to having the best bass response.

if you can not fit more subs, get a bigger room

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off