[jsgrise]

In the past 2 weeks I have been treating my room with DIY panels and bass traps:

- 4x kind of bass traps 16"W X 70"H x 6"D (+2" gap) front corners and rear wall (doors opening constraints)
- 4x absorption panels 32"W X 63"H x 3"D (+2" gap) on first and 2nd lateral reflexion points

All Roxul 3" Safe & Sound.

All in all, the sound quality has been drastically improved. The sound is a lot clearer, where I can pick up many details and cues that I couldn't before due to reverberations and echoes. The bass is punchier and cleaner, specially in the 100-200Hz range and again, I can hear many bass details that I never picked up.

My only complaint is that when listening to stereo in Pure Direct (as I always do), I begin to find the sound too clear in the HF, even painful and aggressive. Is it due to improper treatment or is it the speakers who are starting to show their real colors?

I did a head to head comparaison with my cousin's Boston Acoustic bookshelf M-Series and I found the sound to be a lot less harsh, warmer, but not clear enough.

Equipment list:

Klipsch WF Series
WF-35 Fronts
WC-24 Center
WS-24 Surrounds
HSU VTF-15H (Front)
Paradigm PW2200 (Back)
Denon AVR-X4100

 

[Alan P]

Without frequency response measurements, it's hard to say....but more treatments should NOT make the HF more shrill, that's for sure.

 

[jsgrise]

Without frequency response measurements, it's hard to say....but more treatments should NOT make the HF more shrill, that's for sure.

Thanks,

I'll get a soundcard this week to take REW measurements and will post it afterward.

 

[RayDunzl]

My only complaint is that when listening to stereo in Pure Direct (as I always do), I begin to find the sound too clear in the HF, even painful and aggressive. Is it due to improper treatment or is it the speakers who are starting to show their real colors?

Is the Volume knob at the same position it was before treatment?

 

[Alan P]

Maybe don't listen in Pure Direct....??? Personally, I prefer Stereo because you get the sub(s), but to each their own.

 

[gregoryperkins]

What is you reason for using pure direct? It defeats the purpose of Audessy.

How does it sound straight?

 

[nexxest]

Pure Direct? That's stupid. Your AVR has XT32, use it.

 

[Alan P]

Pure Direct? That's stupid. Your AVR has XT32, use it.

While I agree with you, there's no need for insults.

 

[nvidio]

It's the speakers that are starting to show their real colors.

 

[IKM]

Without frequency response measurements, it's hard to say....but more treatments should NOT make the HF more shrill, that's for sure.

I agree with this statement; however, i will add that masking effects can be directly affected by over absorption. Once you get your test gear, a few easy tests will sort it out and fast.

let us know when you're ready to move forward.

 

[nexxest]

While I agree with you, there's no need for insults.

Indeed. I apologize. I have a co-worker that is a "audiophile", using pure silver cables, vibration dampers, Pure Direct etc. Every time I hear a phrase "Pure Direct" 1% of my braincells die.

 

[Greenwood Ave]

I would also suggest trying Audyssey before you change anything. You paid for the best version. I'd also suggest looking at the Audyssey FAQ if you haven't already. The directions that come with your AVR are likely next to useless.

 

[jsgrise]

Is the Volume knob at the same position it was before treatment?

More or less yes, but Audyssey did increased the fronts level from -5.5dB to -4.5dB.

Maybe don't listen in Pure Direct....??? Personally, I prefer Stereo because you get the sub(s), but to each their own.

What is you reason for using pure direct? It defeats the purpose of Audessy.

How does it sound straight?

Pure Direct? That's stupid. Your AVR has XT32, use it.

It is a personal preference I guess, I don't really like what Audyssey brings for music listening in my room. I also prefer the more subtle bass from the speakers rather than the front and back subs. For TV and Movies, it is another story!

It's the speakers that are starting to show their real colors.

That is what I believe, especially after listening to the Boston Acoustics.

I agree with this statement; however, i will add that masking effects can be directly affected by over absorption. Once you get your test gear, a few easy tests will sort it out and fast.

let us know when you're ready to move forward.

Thanks, I should be able to get it done in a couple days. I'll get back to you guys afterward.

I would also suggest trying Audyssey before you change anything. You paid for the best version. I'd also suggest looking at the Audyssey FAQ if you haven't already. The directions that come with your AVR are likely next to useless.

I run Audyssey like suggested here and make sure the bass management is properly setup. It sounds close to perfection in movies, but music not so much. I'm starting to believe that it is the reality of these speakers.

For Movies, I have yet to hear a better setup. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are many many better setup out there, but didn't have the chance to witness one yet.

 

[zgeneral]

Indeed. I apologize. I have a co-worker that is a "audiophile", using pure silver cables, vibration dampers, Pure Direct etc. Every time I hear a phrase "Pure Direct" 1% of my braincells die.

Replace audiophile with another a word and that's what you have. Nothing wrong with Pure Direct. It's just bypassing some processing. Not everyone likes what room correction does.

Pure silver cables. Hahaha. You might need to add dumb before that a word.

 

[koturban]

In the past 2 weeks I have been treating my room with DIY panels and bass traps:

- 4x kind of bass traps 16"W X 70"H x 6"D (+2" gap) front corners and rear wall (doors opening constraints)
- 4x absorption panels 32"W X 63"H x 3"D (+2" gap) on first and 2nd lateral reflexion points

All Roxul 3" Safe & Sound.

All in all, the sound quality has been drastically improved. The sound is a lot clearer, where I can pick up many details and cues that I couldn't before due to reverberations and echoes. The bass is punchier and cleaner, specially in the 100-200Hz range and again, I can hear many bass details that I never picked up.

My only complaint is that when listening to stereo in Pure Direct (as I always do), I begin to find the sound too clear in the HF, even painful and aggressive. Is it due to improper treatment or is it the speakers who are starting to show their real colors?

I did a head to head comparaison with my cousin's Boston Acoustic bookshelf M-Series and I found the sound to be a lot less harsh, warmer, but not clear enough.

Equipment list:

Klipsch WF Series
WF-35 Fronts
WC-24 Center
WS-24 Surrounds
HSU VTF-15H (Front)
Paradigm PW2200 (Back)
Denon AVR-X4100

One possibility is the panels have eliminated some cancellations that have been giving you a less harsh sound. Like AlanP said, without some before and after measurements, it's hard to say for sure.

 

[PrimeTime]

I would suggest just playing with the EQ for a while. You will have to leave Direct or Pure Direct and turn MultiEQ off to use it.

Try adjusting the 4 kHz and 8 kHz levels down a bit.

 

[ronny31]

While I agree with you, there's no need for insults.

I like when people point out when I'm doing something stupid, its not the same as someone actually calling me stupid. The first is a polite if direct way of helping someone, the other is what the stand your ground law would make into a duel.

And on topic: Some frequencies can hide other frequencies inside the ear, so it was likely always like that only you didn't hear it. Now you've removed some of the superfluous sound at low levels in particular. If you have X db across the spectrum then its really a PSI pressure difference against the senses in your ear between each peak of the sound wave in each frequency. If you then have for example 0.0002 psi positive pressure above atmospheric pressure at 40hz, you have 40 little peaks in each second where the ear experiences 0.0002 psi above atmospheric pressure and 40 dips where it experiences 0.0002 psi under atmospheric pressure. Then put a 4000hz sine wave on that signal and you get a tiny increase in psi 4000 times each second, but half of these fall between the peaks of the 40hz sine wave, giving the audible effect of less high frequency sound than there actually is.

 

[PrimeTime]

Then put a 4000hz sine wave on that signal and you get a tiny increase in psi 4000 times each second, but half of these fall between the peaks of the 40hz sine wave, giving the audible effect of less high frequency sound than there actually is.

What you are saying is that, in effect, the 40 Hz signal is modulating the 4000 kHz signal.

This is only possible in the presence of a non-linear medium. Air, though not a perfect gas, doesn't become significantly nonlinear until quite high SPLs (e.g., phase plugs of compression drivers).

Eardrums can be driven into nonlinearity in a similar fashion. However, it requires levels typically found in the interiors of exhibition-class crankitup cars.

 

[ronny31]

What you are saying is that, in effect, the 40 Hz signal is modulating the 4000 kHz signal.

I tried and failed using a short way to make the point I wanted to make. So here goes the full thing, be warned:

The amount of information the brain actually receives from the ears is huge. It arrives is the form of neurological signals (essentially a digital signal, signal or no signal, aka on or off). Frequencies A come through neurons A and frequencies B come through neurons B, each from auditory sensory cells group A and group B. The auditory sensory cell itself in each group of cells gives out a short "on" signal after a certain threshold of change in air pressure (as well as a set of certain conditions in Ph levels, heat, energy content of the various bits of the cell at that exact point in time, etc. So it can't give out one huge continuous signal, because the sender bit needs some time to accumulate the energy to send a signal each time, almost like a small biological capacitor). So each group produces signals of lots of individual short "on" signals, the amount from "nearly zero" to "a lot" of such "on" signals from each group then gets sent to the brain. Then the brain takes this huge amount of essentially digital information and somehow, someway, the brain converts this into a conscious auditory experience. Neuroscientists assume that the brain does this with a certain eye to evolutionary success, since it is assumed that the brain has evolved over millions of years where the by-happenstance-better-brains survived longer and produced more offspring, so their genes spread. The consciousness that was conscious of sounds that lead to increased survival ability, had slightly more offspring than the consciousness that weren't conscious of those sounds. Thus today, our brain only lets through the evolutionarily important sounds in any one auditory experience. This means under some songs the brain ignores some frequencies and sounds while focusing on others, the ignored sounds don't enter our conscious mind. So when you have echoes and whatever sounds in addition to the music you want to recreate, you have more information, and as a side-effect the brain will treat some of these extra sounds as important, instead of the sounds we're actually trying to create. That is how you can perceive certain bits as very "attention grabbing" (aka uncomfortably loud/gnawing) in some situations and then at other auditory experiences find other bits standing out instead. We should really have a different EQ for every song to adjust this effect so the brain lets what we deem important through the filter instead of what the brain happens to be set up to treat as important in that song, but that's still not going to happen for a while. For now we'll have to make due with the fact that composers try to EQ the song for us, but this entails we reproduce practically a studio environment for a portion of songs that we tend to treat poorly neurologically with any sort of noise around us.
Wouldn't dream of claiming I know how we'd adjust the EQ in each song to accomplish this task etc etc etc lots of disclaimers to avoid having to waste years discussing this further. Because that's just how complicated it is if we want to discuss it at anything but purely conceptual levels. I get a headache just thinking about digging up citations for this.

 

[jsgrise]

So when you have echoes and whatever sounds in addition to the music you want to recreate, you have more information, and as a side-effect the brain will treat some of these extra sounds as important, instead of the sounds we're actually trying to create. That is how you can perceive certain bits as very "attention grabbing" (aka uncomfortably loud/gnawing) in some situations and then at other auditory experiences find other bits standing out instead.

In this order, after room treatment, shouldn't I have less emphasis on mid-high - high frequencies coming from the speakers instead of more?