Do bass traps produce noticeable audible difference? - Page 8 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 12Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-11-2016, 04:20 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick98761 View Post
So I just moved and I am using this spare bedroom for my home theater. It's small, but is working well. I've asked advice in a few threads around here, and in quite a few they tell me to look at treating the room at some point. This is where we get into the point of home theater that I am totally uncomfortable with and know nothing. Where should I start with figuring what and where I need treatments? Here are some photos of my room. For what is it worth the sub is no between the center and front right speaker. It was behind the couch in this photo. The equipment is in the closet by the right front. I am considering making a cutout in the wall and making the equipment accessible from the main room.
One of my dealers spent a rumored quarter-million dollars (sans equipment) on a specifically designed room (by a renowned room guy) and it really sounds bad requiring extensive treatments. I'd listen first. If the room sounds good, you're done! If it sounds crappy, and it might given the close proximity of the speakers to the walls, I'd use two absorbers or diffusers along the walls--one per side. The rest is hard to predict. That big soffit on the projector wall worries me but the again, maybe it helps break up reflections. Listen and decide. It's very hard to predict from photos.
fmalitz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-11-2016, 04:20 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick98761 View Post
So I just moved and I am using this spare bedroom for my home theater. It's small, but is working well. I've asked advice in a few threads around here, and in quite a few they tell me to look at treating the room at some point. This is where we get into the point of home theater that I am totally uncomfortable with and know nothing. Where should I start with figuring what and where I need treatments? Here are some photos of my room. For what is it worth the sub is no between the center and front right speaker. It was behind the couch in this photo. The equipment is in the closet by the right front. I am considering making a cutout in the wall and making the equipment accessible from the main room.
One of my dealers spent a rumored quarter-million dollars (sans equipment) on a specifically designed room (by a renowned room guy) and it really sounds bad requiring extensive treatments. I'd listen first. If the room sounds good, you're done! If it sounds crappy, and it might given the close proximity of the speakers to the walls, I'd use two absorbers or diffusers along the walls--one per side. The rest is hard to predict. That big soffit on the projector wall worries me but the again, maybe it helps break up reflections. Listen and decide. It's very hard to predict from photos.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 04:23 PM
Senior Member
 
rick98761's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmalitz View Post
One of my dealers spent a rumored quarter-million dollars (sans equipment) on a specifically designed room (by a renowned room guy) and it really sounds bad requiring extensive treatments. I'd listen first. If the room sounds good, you're done! If it sounds crappy, and it might given the close proximity of the speakers to the walls, I'd use two absorbers or diffusers along the walls--one per side. The rest is hard to predict. That big soffit on the projector wall worries me but the again, maybe it helps break up reflections. Listen and decide. It's very hard to predict from photos.

It sounds good to me now, but I honestly don't have a trained ear in the least bit, so I have no idea what I may be missing.
rick98761 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 04:26 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1453370/do-bass-traps-produce-noticeable-audible-difference/120_60#post_23044011" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>amirm</strong> <a href="/t/1453370/do-bass-traps-produce-noticeable-audible-difference/120_60#post_23044011"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br><b>Nothing is being said about small rooms automatically invalidating RT60 measurements</b> since he himself uses this measurement.</div>
</div>
<br>
since i've quoted Toole a multitude of times and you still won't accept it (who are you to argue against toole) ... let's quote Ted Schultz (of which Toole himself cites <i>repeatedly</i>):<br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/163042/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="163042" data-type="61" src="http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/163042/flags/LL" style="; width: 648px; height: 463px"></a><br><br><br>
so not only are you attempting to argue against Toole, but you're also going against Ted Schultz (and Leo Berenek, as he also concurred). <img alt="rolleyes.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.avsforum.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif"><br><br>
and not only that, but you are <i>also</i> attempting to imply there exists a critical-distance (at 3.2ft, mind you!!!) in your home theater! utterly laughable.<br><br>
if only as much time and energy were spent on actually learning acoustics as is spent on googling and copy-pasting out of context word searches in some frantic and desperate attempt to find contradictions. <img alt="rolleyes.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.avsforum.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif"><br><br><br>
what do you think, amir ... is Ethan's use of RT60 in a 37.75 by 22.5 by 14.5 inch box acceptable use?<br>
<a href="http://www.realtraps.com/art_surfaces.htm" target="_blank">http://www.realtraps.com/art_surfaces.htm</a><br><br>
and it's any wonder then, while in attempt to determine whether RTxx would be acceptable use in his garage, that i have <i>repeatedly</i> asked Ethan to provide clarity on whether a critical-distance exists in his garage - of which he has blatantly ignored any such response to me. the silence is deafening. maybe we should go through his published book to determine how and when he uses RT60, for clarity.
This might be a bit off-thread but I've argued with Toole who believes in omni-directional speakers with flat response as the formula for a good speaker design. He'd be welcome at Bose. Floyd is a lovely man--a kindly uncle-type. Unfortunately, he's not a great designer. None of the designers I've worked with agree with him.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 04:36 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick98761 View Post
It sounds good to me now, but I honestly don't have a trained ear in the least bit, so I have no idea what I may be missing.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, remedies are hard to come by. I certainly would not trust most of my dealers opinions! Like reviewers, they're just people not geniuses. That's why those of us with access to free stuff can experiment! In your case, experimentation costs money. The guys here made some good suggestions but just try to dampen that first reflection off the side walls. Make an absorber yourself. Look on line. The screen is already destructive. Can you move the speakers forward a foot or so and move the couch back the same amount? It might help.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 04:44 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan P View Post
Along with the great advice Mike has already given, I just wanted to point out that the distance setting that your auto-setup routine determines is best for your speakers is usually correct. Most times, this will jive with the actual physical distance...but many times it will not, and this is perfectly normal. The auto-setup will take into account reflections, electrical delay and the speaker's interaction with the room and adjust distances accordingly so that all sounds arrive at your ears at the same time.

Point being; I wouldn't mess with the speaker distance settings*.

*Unless you have the ability to measure your response to make sure you aren't doing anything destructive.


Now, the sub distance setting...that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.
I'm not very convinced of the mic's accuracy. It also wanted to set all my speakers to large. My speakers are matching Klipsch; R26F, R25C, R15M and SVS PB2000 as my sub. On my sub setting it placed it at +10, I had to tone it down a bit but maybe that's a matter of preference. From what my ears tell me I have a much more balanced surround sound after my adjustments were made. Before the adjustments I had a dead spot between the fronts and side surrounds now it feels much more filled in. I really do appreciate the advice though amigo. I'll try it again tonight just to make sure.


Cheers
mighty5 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
rick98761's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmalitz View Post
Fair enough. Unfortunately, remedies are hard to come by. I certainly would not trust most of my dealers opinions! Like reviewers, they're just people not geniuses. That's why those of us with access to free stuff can experiment! In your case, experimentation costs money. The guys here made some good suggestions but just try to dampen that first reflection off the side walls. Make an absorber yourself. Look on line. The screen is already destructive. Can you move the speakers forward a foot or so and move the couch back the same amount? It might help.

Thanks. Unfortunately I can't move the couch. It is already as far back as I can go without making the left surround end up in front of the listener. I can mess with the front speakers though.
rick98761 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 06:59 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Well, that might smooth out the bass at the expense of a bit of output. You'll be the judge. Have confidence and enjoy the experiment. Remember, try the absorbers!
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 08:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 385 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
I'm not very convinced of the mic's accuracy. It also wanted to set all my speakers to large. My speakers are matching Klipsch; R26F, R25C, R15M and SVS PB2000 as my sub. On my sub setting it placed it at +10, I had to tone it down a bit but maybe that's a matter of preference. From what my ears tell me I have a much more balanced surround sound after my adjustments were made. Before the adjustments I had a dead spot between the fronts and side surrounds now it feels much more filled in. I really do appreciate the advice though amigo. I'll try it again tonight just to make sure.


Cheers
It even wanted to set that center to large? That's either a sign of some incredible boundary reinforcement or bad readings on the part of the mic (or its in a very weird position as far as bass goes). How much did you change the distance? Where did you settle on crossovers (& what options does the receiver provide)?

As far as the +10, I would try to turn the gain on the sub itself up and rerun the calibration (and then adjust as needed afterwards) to keep the sub trim at or below 0. This is just to prevent the signal from clipping.

Edit: also, make sure the mic is at least two feet from any walls. If the mic is within two feet of a wall, it may be getting bad readings.
Alan P and mighty5 like this.
dkfan9 is offline  
Old 01-12-2016, 08:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Can someone explain (or post a link to reading materials), how can for example, those corner bass traps do anything for frequencies below lets say...150 Hz. I saw two types: one looks like big fat triangle that goes in the corner (so there is no empty space) and other one is usually 4 inch thick or so retcangle trap with lots of airspace behind (because of corner placement). So, how can any of those traps do anything for 50 Hz frequency since quarter wavelength of 50Hz is 5'8 and thickness of trap (+air gap if exists) is a much smaller? Same goes for 100 Hz frequency.
I have particularly nasty issues from 50-150 Hz and I am not sure how can corner placement help any of it?
donktard is online now  
Old 01-12-2016, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 6,181
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
Can someone explain (or post a link to reading materials), how can for example, those corner bass traps do anything for frequencies below lets say...150 Hz.
Small foam bass traps are not useful at low frequencies. In fact, they're not really useful at any frequencies because they're so small. Now, if you have a lot of them they can help some. But to target low frequencies effectively you need large traps made from robust materials. However, corners and especially tri-corners are useful places for bass traps.

You asked for more reading material, and there's a ton of articles and videos all over my company's web site:

RealTraps Articles
RealTraps Videos

If you'd rather have a quick but accurate introduction, start here:

Acoustic Basics

---Ethan
mighty5 likes this.
Ethan Winer is offline  
Old 01-12-2016, 01:09 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkfan9 View Post
It even wanted to set that center to large? That's either a sign of some incredible boundary reinforcement or bad readings on the part of the mic (or its in a very weird position as far as bass goes). How much did you change the distance? Where did you settle on crossovers (& what options does the receiver provide)?

As far as the +10, I would try to turn the gain on the sub itself up and rerun the calibration (and then adjust as needed afterwards) to keep the sub trim at or below 0. This is just to prevent the signal from clipping.

Edit: also, make sure the mic is at least two feet from any walls. If the mic is within two feet of a wall, it may be getting bad readings.
Yes, it wanted to set all of my speaker to large. I have my mic placed around 7 feet from the front wall and 5 feet between the side walls right at prime listening position. The mic was off by about 2 or three feet. I think what's happening is my speakers are against walls which is causing some odd readings to occur. I'm so limited on space in my room but was able to bring them around 6 inches away from the wall and I have since placed a few dampening tiles behind them which helped some. My crossover is set at 80hz for my center and fronts, my surrounds are set at 90hz. So when I calibrated my sub I have the volume at half power, your saying I should raise the volume up more until the mic sets it around 0? What is clipping? Thanks for the pointers mate.


Cheers
mighty5 is offline  
Old 01-12-2016, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alan P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 8,100
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3910 Post(s)
Liked: 2626
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
I'm not very convinced of the mic's accuracy. It also wanted to set all my speakers to large. My speakers are matching Klipsch; R26F, R25C, R15M and SVS PB2000 as my sub. On my sub setting it placed it at +10, I had to tone it down a bit but maybe that's a matter of preference. From what my ears tell me I have a much more balanced surround sound after my adjustments were made. Before the adjustments I had a dead spot between the fronts and side surrounds now it feels much more filled in. I really do appreciate the advice though amigo. I'll try it again tonight just to make sure.


Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkfan9 View Post
It even wanted to set that center to large? That's either a sign of some incredible boundary reinforcement or bad readings on the part of the mic (or its in a very weird position as far as bass goes). How much did you change the distance? Where did you settle on crossovers (& what options does the receiver provide)?

As far as the +10, I would try to turn the gain on the sub itself up and rerun the calibration (and then adjust as needed afterwards) to keep the sub trim at or below 0. This is just to prevent the signal from clipping.

Edit: also, make sure the mic is at least two feet from any walls. If the mic is within two feet of a wall, it may be getting bad readings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty5 View Post
Yes, it wanted to set all of my speaker to large. I have my mic placed around 7 feet from the front wall and 5 feet between the side walls right at prime listening position. The mic was off by about 2 or three feet. I think what's happening is my speakers are against walls which is causing some odd readings to occur. I'm so limited on space in my room but was able to bring them around 6 inches away from the wall and I have since placed a few dampening tiles behind them which helped some. My crossover is set at 80hz for my center and fronts, my surrounds are set at 90hz. So when I calibrated my sub I have the volume at half power, your saying I should raise the volume up more until the mic sets it around 0? What is clipping? Thanks for the pointers mate.


Cheers
What AVR are you using? I ask because +10 on the sub trim may be the upper limit...if that is the case, you don't know if the AVR wanted to set it higher (say, +15 or +20).

Regardless, I would follow dkfan's advice and recalibrate until you get a sub trim in hte negative numbers. -8dB to -6dB is ideal as it leaves you plenty of room to bump up the sub trim without going over 0dB.

If you happen to have an AVR with Audyssey, here is my quick-n-dirty sub setup procedure (even if you don't have Audyssey, most of this still applies):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Set the gain on the sub to around 12:00-2:00 (just a starting point, gain structure can vary greatly from one manufacturer to another). Set phase to "0".

1. Connect sub and place it at the MLP
2. Do the sub crawl to determine the best location
3. Place sub in that location
4. Run Audyssey, first mic position only and "calculate"
5. Look to see where Audyssey has set your sub trim, you want it to be around -6db to -8db ideally
6. Adjust the gain on the sub up or down as needed
7. Repeat 4-6 until you get the sub trim around -6db to -8db
8. Run the full Audyssey calibration
9. Bump up the sub trim by 3db to 6db to your preference
10. Enjoy!
Alan P is online now  
Old 01-12-2016, 02:31 PM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan P View Post
What AVR are you using? I ask because +10 on the sub trim may be the upper limit...if that is the case, you don't know if the AVR wanted to set it higher (say, +15 or +20).

Regardless, I would follow dkfan's advice and recalibrate until you get a sub trim in hte negative numbers. -8dB to -6dB is ideal as it leaves you plenty of room to bump up the sub trim without going over 0dB.

If you happen to have an AVR with Audyssey, here is my quick-n-dirty sub setup procedure (even if you don't have Audyssey, most of this still applies):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Set the gain on the sub to around 12:00-2:00 (just a starting point, gain structure can vary greatly from one manufacturer to another). Set phase to "0".

1. Connect sub and place it at the MLP
2. Do the sub crawl to determine the best location
3. Place sub in that location
4. Run Audyssey, first mic position only and "calculate"
5. Look to see where Audyssey has set your sub trim, you want it to be around -6db to -8db ideally
6. Adjust the gain on the sub up or down as needed
7. Repeat 4-6 until you get the sub trim around -6db to -8db
8. Run the full Audyssey calibration
9. Bump up the sub trim by 3db to 6db to your preference
10. Enjoy!
So my initial setup on my sub, I set phase to 0 and I did put power at half way (12:00) and crossover all the way up on sub and set my AVR's crossover at 80hz . I'm using Sony's 750 7.2. AVR with DCAC mic. So what I'm understanding is I need to raise the sub volume until the mic sets it in the -6 range after auto calibration? So I'm guessing by doing that I will have more room to calibrate my sub. Thanks!


Cheers

Last edited by mighty5; 01-13-2016 at 10:19 AM.
mighty5 is offline  
Old 01-13-2016, 11:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmalitz View Post
This might be a bit off-thread but I've argued with Toole who believes in omni-directional speakers with flat response as the formula for a good speaker design. He'd be welcome at Bose. Floyd is a lovely man--a kindly uncle-type. Unfortunately, he's not a great designer. None of the designers I've worked with agree with him.

Have any of the designers you've worked with as familiar with the findings of acoustics and psychoacoustics research as Dr. Toole is?

Speakers with flat on- and off-axis response (measured in an anaechoic chamber) is what Toole advocates. I seriously doubt Bose models qualify.
krabapple is offline  
Old 01-14-2016, 01:22 AM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Have any of the designers you've worked with as familiar with the findings of acoustics and psychoacoustics research as Dr. Toole is?

Speakers with flat on- and off-axis response (measured in an anaechoic chamber) is what Toole advocates. I seriously doubt Bose models qualify.
To be truthful, I've never been brash enough to interrogate the designers I've worked with about their qualifications. The list includes Jim Thiel, David Day, Vance Dickason, Dana Hathaway, Michael Kelly, Bob Carver, Vince Bruzzese, Amar Bose (!) and, most recently, Andrew Jones--a new and rewarding relationship. Yes, I also represented Infinity which brought me into contact with the most gracious Dr. Toole. I left off Ken from M&K since I have no way of knowing how much he contributed to M&Ks designs beyond using off-the-shelf components at the outset.

Virtually all the above admit Peter Walker's original Quad electrostatic to be a holy grail and Bob Carver even wrote a white paper on the speaker, merely out of respect. Jon Dahlquist told me he purposely made the DQ10 look like his beloved Quads!

The irony here is the Quad's characteristics would be criticized by Dr Toole. Simple courtesy prevents me from quoting friends speaking in confidence, but my own discussions with designers with truly proven track records agreed with my assessment based on gentle debate in the good Doctor's lab. There's a telling consistency.

Re: my reference to Bose; I was making an apparently poor attempt at sarcastic humor. My apologies. I guess, at this point, I should also apologize to Dr. Toole. He knows far more than I. It's apparent to me, however, that different designers listen differently. This is very serious. There are multiple yardsticks; dynamic range; frequency linearity; imaging; depth, openness and envelopment. Add in a few more and it's easy to see that the hierarchy may not be the same for everyone.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-14-2016, 01:22 AM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Have any of the designers you've worked with as familiar with the findings of acoustics and psychoacoustics research as Dr. Toole is?

Speakers with flat on- and off-axis response (measured in an anaechoic chamber) is what Toole advocates. I seriously doubt Bose models qualify.
To be truthful, I've never been brash enough to interrogate the designers I've worked with about their qualifications. The list includes Jim Thiel, David Day, Vance Dickason, Dana Hathaway, Michael Kelly, Bob Carver, Vince Bruzzese, Amar Bose (!) and, most recently, Andrew Jones--a new and rewarding relationship. Yes, I also represented Infinity which brought me into contact with the most gracious Dr. Toole. I left off Ken from M&K since I have no way of knowing how much he contributed to M&Ks designs beyond using off-the-shelf components at the outset.

Virtually all the above admit Peter Walker's original Quad electrostatic to be a holy grail and Bob Carver even wrote a white paper on the speaker, merely out of respect. Jon Dahlquist told me he purposely made the DQ10 look like his beloved Quads!

The irony here is the Quad's characteristics would be criticized by Dr Toole. Simple courtesy prevents me from quoting friends speaking in confidence, but my own discussions with designers with truly proven track records agreed with my assessment based on gentle debate in the good Doctor's lab. There's a telling consistency.

Re: my reference to Bose; I was making an apparently poor attempt at sarcastic humor. My apologies. I guess, at this point, I should also apologize to Dr. Toole. He knows far more than I. It's apparent to me, however, that different designers listen differently. This is very serious. There are multiple yardsticks; dynamic range; frequency linearity; imaging; depth, openness and envelopment. Add in a few more and it's easy to see that the hierarchy may not be the same for everyone.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 09:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
u

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmalitz View Post
To be truthful, I've never been brash enough to interrogate the designers I've worked with about their qualifications. The list includes Jim Thiel, David Day, Vance Dickason, Dana Hathaway, Michael Kelly, Bob Carver, Vince Bruzzese, Amar Bose (!) and, most recently, Andrew Jones--a new and rewarding relationship. Yes, I also represented Infinity which brought me into contact with the most gracious Dr. Toole. I left off Ken from M&K since I have no way of knowing how much he contributed to M&Ks designs beyond using off-the-shelf components at the outset.

Virtually all the above admit Peter Walker's original Quad electrostatic to be a holy grail and Bob Carver even wrote a white paper on the speaker, merely out of respect. Jon Dahlquist told me he purposely made the DQ10 look like his beloved Quads!

The irony here is the Quad's characteristics would be criticized by Dr Toole. Simple courtesy prevents me from quoting friends speaking in confidence, but my own discussions with designers with truly proven track records agreed with my assessment based on gentle debate in the good Doctor's lab. There's a telling consistency.

Re: my reference to Bose; I was making an apparently poor attempt at sarcastic humor. My apologies. I guess, at this point, I should also apologize to Dr. Toole. He knows far more than I. It's apparent to me, however, that different designers listen differently. This is very serious. There are multiple yardsticks; dynamic range; frequency linearity; imaging; depth, openness and envelopment. Add in a few more and it's easy to see that the hierarchy may not be the same for everyone.

I see a lot of name dropping and nostalgia and reference to 'proven track records' here...but no reference to science. Yes, there is a consistency there.

The shockingly poor measured response of some expensive loudspeakers, perhaps even some designed by those with a 'proven track record', is interesting. So too is the connection between measured response and listener preference...when the listener isn't aware of the 'reputation' they are listening to.

Personally I'm glad we've (hopefully) moved beyond the days when a loudspeaker had a 'British sound' or the like, as if that was an OK thing for a transducer to have. One would have thought the goal should be to it have no 'sound' of its own. But perhaps that would take too much fun (and profit) out of 'audiophilia'?
krabapple is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 09:34 AM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
I see a lot of name dropping and nostalgia and reference to 'proven track records' here...but no reference to science. Yes, there is a consistency there.

The shockingly poor measured response of some expensive loudspeakers, perhaps even some designed by those with a 'proven track record', is interesting. So too is the connection between measured response and listener preference...when the listener isn't aware of the 'reputation' they are listening to.

Personally I'm glad we've (hopefully) moved beyond the days when a loudspeaker had a 'British sound' or the like, as if that was an OK thing for a transducer to have. One would have thought the goal should be to it have no 'sound' of its own. But perhaps that would take too much fun (and profit) out of 'audiophilia'?
First of all, I don't consider mentioning people I've actually worked with name dropping in the negative sense but rather references to sources I've learned from. Second, you seem to have missed my point in your asking for science. The science isn't there! If it were, we'd have little to talk about. There'd be an illusion of vocals and instruments performing in a believable space available to everyone. There are optical illusions but the only audible illusions I've experienced first hand, so far, was the original quads, a Sennheiser binaural record in that made me spin around in response to a human voice that I was certain to be real--a startling experience, and I almost thought a tenor was standing between and slightly behind the big Soundlabs yet these were rare occurrences. My point is we need more science. At this time, real speaker design is still cloaked in art. That was my entire point. The reference to Toole was a tangent. I, so far, believe getting the room out of the equation is a good idea. Some of the very best loudspeakers are beamy. Floyd told me he believes in basically, an omni-directional speaker, hence my Bose reference. He also told me as you have implied, that flat frequency response is desirable. I agree but we need to codify measurment techniques. Read on.

By the way, the British sound was often more true to nature. The ultimate brand in sheer quality of manufacturing and beauty of cabinet was, for many years, JBL's large floor standers--basically PA speakers in a formal gown. The Brits brought fresh air to the table. Yes, there were exceptions--the AR3a and so forth but most US-made and all Asian-made speakers had too much coloration despite measuring flat!

As far as the profit motive, how do you explain the Elac speakers designed by Andrew (oops, I dropped a name)? Many feel they were near the top of the heap both at Rocky Mountan and CES shows and they're from $250 to $500 a PAIR--retail. In any case, no one is forced to buy high priced components. Listen and decide.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 09:34 AM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
I see a lot of name dropping and nostalgia and reference to 'proven track records' here...but no reference to science. Yes, there is a consistency there.

The shockingly poor measured response of some expensive loudspeakers, perhaps even some designed by those with a 'proven track record', is interesting. So too is the connection between measured response and listener preference...when the listener isn't aware of the 'reputation' they are listening to.

Personally I'm glad we've (hopefully) moved beyond the days when a loudspeaker had a 'British sound' or the like, as if that was an OK thing for a transducer to have. One would have thought the goal should be to it have no 'sound' of its own. But perhaps that would take too much fun (and profit) out of 'audiophilia'?
First of all, I don't consider mentioning people I've actually worked with name dropping in the negative sense but rather references to sources I've learned from. Second, you seem to have missed my point in your asking for science. The science isn't there! If it were, we'd have little to talk about. There'd be an illusion of vocals and instruments performing in a believable space available to everyone. There are optical illusions but the only audible illusions I've experienced first hand, so far, was the original quads, a Sennheiser binaural record in that made me spin around in response to a human voice that I was certain to be real--a startling experience, and I almost thought a tenor was standing between and slightly behind the big Soundlabs yet these were rare occurrences. My point is we need more science. At this time, real speaker design is still cloaked in art. That was my entire point. The reference to Toole was a tangent. I, so far, believe getting the room out of the equation is a good idea. Some of the very best loudspeakers are beamy. Floyd told me he believes in basically, an omni-directional speaker, hence my Bose reference. He also told me as you have implied, that flat frequency response is desirable. I agree but we need to codify measurment techniques. Read on.

By the way, the British sound was often more true to nature. The ultimate brand in sheer quality of manufacturing and beauty of cabinet was, for many years, JBL's large floor standers--basically PA speakers in a formal gown. The Brits brought fresh air to the table. Yes, there were exceptions--the AR3a and so forth but most US-made and all Asian-made speakers had too much coloration despite measuring flat!

As far as the profit motive, how do you explain the Elac speakers designed by Andrew (oops, I dropped a name)? Many feel they were near the top of the heap both at Rocky Mountan and CES shows and they're from $250 to $500 a PAIR--retail. In any case, no one is forced to buy high priced components. Listen and decide.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmalitz View Post
First of all, I don't consider mentioning people I've actually worked with name dropping in the negative sense but rather references to sources I've learned from. Second, you seem to have missed my point in your asking for science. The science isn't there! If it were, we'd have little to talk about. There'd be an illusion of vocals and instruments performing in a believable space available to everyone. There are optical illusions but the only audible illusions I've experienced first hand, so far, was the original quads, a Sennheiser binaural record in that made me spin around in response to a human voice that I was certain to be real--a startling experience, and I almost thought a tenor was standing between and slightly behind the big Soundlabs yet these were rare occurrences. My point is we need more science. At this time, real speaker design is still cloaked in art. That was my entire point. The reference to Toole was a tangent. I, so far, believe getting the room out of the equation is a good idea. Some of the very best loudspeakers are beamy. Floyd told me he believes in basically, an omni-directional speaker, hence my Bose reference. He also told me as you have implied, that flat frequency response is desirable. I agree but we need to codify measurment techniques. Read on.

'The' science isn't there? What about all the science that *is* there? Is that all just chopped liver?

Read on
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

This fellow also has some interesting thoughts on the topic.


And surely the science marches on....last I heard, JAES , JAS, etc., were still active journals published peer-reviewed research.


Quote:
By the way, the British sound was often more true to nature. The ultimate brand in sheer quality of manufacturing and beauty of cabinet was, for many years, JBL's large floor standers--basically PA speakers in a formal gown. The Brits brought fresh air to the table. Yes, there were exceptions--the AR3a and so forth but most US-made and all Asian-made speakers had too much coloration despite measuring flat!
Anecdote noted.

Quote:
As far as the profit motive, how do you explain the Elac speakers designed by Andrew (oops, I dropped a name)? Many feel they were near the top of the heap both at Rocky Mountan and CES shows and they're from $250 to $500 a PAIR--retail. In any case, no one is forced to buy high priced components. Listen and decide.
Many feel many things.
krabapple is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 06:01 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
'The' science isn't there? What about all the science that *is* there? Is that all just chopped liver?

Read on
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

This fellow also has some interesting thoughts on the topic.


And surely the science marches on....last I heard, JAES , JAS, etc., were still active journals published peer-reviewed research.




Anecdote noted.



Many feel many things.
Geez. I'll have to repeat my point in a different way. We can kick some types of cancer into remission but we cannot cure it. Sadly, the science is incomplete.

We can identify and eliminate a truly bad speaker design but we lack the science to design a great speaker. Some are terrific and science helped but for every one that's truly wonderful, there's a hundred that are ordinary and every damn one of them has some science involved in the design.

Let me tell you a story that sums this up in a nutshell: I was in the car with the president of Apogee. He went to great lengths to tell me how painstakingly they approach design. I looked at him and told him there are 250 speaker manufacturers who might sit in my passenger seat and tell me the same story!

Two more: during my visit to McIntosh Labs in NY state, they went through an endless litany of scientific tests "proving" how great their speakers were. Unfortunately, they sucked. Next, the engineers at the now-defunct Deltalab argued in favor of the compact disc (vs the LP). Since this was in the mid-eighties when digital was dreadful, I wondered if they actually did coparisons empirically. They replied that they didn't need to; the science was there. Ha.

Krabapple, I've heard this all my carreer. Designers are proud of their methods and accomplishments or they would get a different job. Yes, the science is there but it's incomplete. Drive around to some high-end retailers and listen to their wares. None will be perfect. Most all will have flaws. Eventually, science will minimize these flaws but it ain't happened yet.
fmalitz is offline  
Old 01-15-2016, 06:02 PM
Member
 
fmalitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hawthorn Woods, IL USA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
'The' science isn't there? What about all the science that *is* there? Is that all just chopped liver?

Read on
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

This fellow also has some interesting thoughts on the topic.


And surely the science marches on....last I heard, JAES , JAS, etc., were still active journals published peer-reviewed research.




Anecdote noted.



Many feel many things.
Geez. I'll have to repeat my point in a different way. We can kick some types of cancer into remission but we cannot cure it. Sadly, the science is incomplete.

We can identify and eliminate a truly bad speaker design but we lack the science to design a great speaker. Some are terrific and science helped but for every one that's truly wonderful, there's a hundred that are ordinary and every damn one of them has some science involved in the design.

Let me tell you a story that sums this up in a nutshell: I was in the car with the president of Apogee. He went to great lengths to tell me how painstakingly they approach design. I looked at him and told him there are 250 speaker manufacturers who might sit in my passenger seat and tell me the same story!

Two more: during my visit to McIntosh Labs in NY state, they went through an endless litany of scientific tests "proving" how great their speakers were. Unfortunately, they sucked. Next, the engineers at the now-defunct Deltalab argued in favor of the compact disc (vs the LP). Since this was in the mid-eighties when digital was dreadful, I wondered if they actually did coparisons empirically. They replied that they didn't need to; the science was there. Ha.

Krabapple, I've heard this all my carreer. Designers are proud of their methods and accomplishments or they would get a different job. Yes, the science is there but it's incomplete. Drive around to some high-end retailers and listen to their wares. None will be perfect. Most all will have flaws. Eventually, science will minimize these flaws but it ain't happened yet.
fmalitz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 
Thread Tools


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