[nathanm]

Cool, I stand corrected.  Thanks for the info.  (The guy went Full-Ass on the floor joists!)  It's just that whenever I see plain painted drywall in a photo I can imagine the reverb in there.  I guess the future installments of the article will address that.  So are those actually not regular, reflective walls in the photos?  Camoflaged absorbtion?  That's the holy grail of WAF seems like.

[PhilNYC]

Hi, everyone
 
This is a guy who's owning the best audio system set-up in USA
here is the link:
http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/2004_02_01.htm

I can't imagine need 5 people to set up that systems, unbelievable

Jeff has posted here on AC before:

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/search.php?search_author=Jeff+Fritz

Some of the guys from the NC area should get in touch with him to check out his rig...

[tianguis]

All:
      Last week, I heard the Goldmund Ultimate system just down the street from my place here in the Big Apple. It was the complete tower system, 8 surround speakers, 8 amps, CDP, 32 (?) channel digital-processing pre, projector, all Goldmund. To date, it's certainly the most "impressive" system I've ever heard.
       My listening time was short (about 5 minutes) but I thought it did everything right.
       The big towers are quite interesting, at 800 lbs. each. Several of the enclosures are adjustable on rails, for time alignment, in conjunction with the processor. Their fit and finish is impeccable, as one might suspect. The cabinets are the most acoustically dead cabinets I've ever hurt my knuckles on.
       In two-channel mode (which is what I listened to, about twenty feet from the speaks), in an untreated, semi-carpeted, bare  (BIG!) room, the stereo image was huge and non-beamy, even walking all over the place. I couldn't identify any glaring nodes or nulls in a brief tour.
       Bob Visintainer, of Rhapsody Music, is the Eastern USA dealer for Goldmund and some other less-than-mainstream lines. Since I was only there for a $50 purchase and it's the only time I've been in the place, I didn't feel like monopolizing his time for more than the half-hour I spent (Bob's a very gracious guy). I did listen to a couple of tracks form Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band, "Swingin' For The Fences" (thanks, Phil!) on a smaller system with Goldmund electronics and Hyperion 938's. Neat.

Regards,
Larry Welsh

[csero]

In two-channel mode (which is what I listened to, about twenty feet from the speaks), in an untreated, semi-carpeted, bare (BIG!) room, the stereo image was huge and non-beamy, even walking all over the place. I couldn't identify any glaring nodes or nulls in a brief tour....

In two channel mode an "untreated, semi-carpeted, bare (BIG!) room" is the only way to get half decent sound.
Forget about room treatments in a small room for stereo, you need a big, live room!

[_scotty_]

csero wrote

In two channel mode an "untreated, semi-carpeted, bare (BIG!) room" is the only way to get half decent sound.
Forget about room treatments in a small room for stereo, you need a big, live room boundries

I am unclear as to how following the recommendations contained in  the above statement  would result in the best quality 2ch playback .
Clarification of your assertion would be appreciated.
Scotty

[dave_c]

I'm finding that articles about room building can be a lot more interesting than equipment reviews themselves.  I think the Mike Lavigne Room Article was probably made me more jealous than any other article regarding Audio Gear that I've ever read.  Its one thing to be able to buy a piece of equipment, but being able to build a dedicated room for it is pretty much at the top of the audio dreams list.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue16/lavigneroom.htm

[csero]

I am unclear as to how following the recommendations contained in  the above statement  would result in the best quality 2ch playback .
Clarification of your assertion would be appreciated.
Scotty

Time to time somebody reports an expensive and/or esoteric system sounding unbelievably good in a huge, relatively untreated room. Without discounting the effort and knowledge went into these systems, these systems have an unfair advantage, the big room.

The big room usually has a not to loud, not too dense early reflection pattern and a benign, relarively long reverberant trail.

Why is it important? To  perceive a sound reproduction real you have to supply all the aural clues which were persent on at the original performance. Of these ambient information of the venue is one of the most important. It will not only define the perceived tonality of the instruments ( a single guitar will sound very different in a small live room, in a jazz club or in a cathedral), but also tells you about the room size, your position in the room, the musican's position in the room etc. and most importantly, supply these informations consistently in case of head movements.
 Stereo recording/playback focuses on capturing the direct sound of the instruments and sometimes adding a little extra ambience for spaciousness. It can not capture the whole ambience, because our ambience perception is also directional, so playing back the reflections originally coming from the rear throgh a front speaker pair would sound weird. So stereo records  have to be too dry compared to the original.

These records played back in a big room which have acoustic properties similar to the original venue will recreate more or less this missing ambience sometimes with spectacular result. Do not forget, when you are sitting farther than 3-4 feet from the speakers, you are essentially listening to the room, not the direct sound. The not to loud, not too dense early reflection pattern and a benign, relarively long reverberant trail of the room will enhance/complete the reproduction, not deteriorate it.

The only problem is when the room acoustics is far form the one on the record. It is a bit hard and expensive to build a room with an opera house or cathedral like acoustic properties at home, and even if would be possible, you'd need more than one room for different kind of music. But for jazz or small ensemble a modest size room is usually good enough. No wonder these are the "audiophile" music genres.

And what is the deal with the small rooms and treatments?
Small rooms - wich we all have compared to any real music venues - usually have very loud and dense early reflection pattern and short reverberant trails. These make the sound cramped and loud in the room. It makes the playback loud but still won't have the impact of the real.
If you start treating the room, the early reflections will not be as loud, but still too dense, and the reverberant trail is even shorter, moving the sound of the reproduction even farther from realistic.  There is no right amount of room treatment in a small room for stereo playback.
Some can argue than in a heavily treated room you can hear better "into" the record. It is true only in a sense that you get more direct sound, but that will be neither psychoacoustically complete, nor consistent. It is like watching tv in a dark room: of course you will get less disturbance from ambient light, but it will not make the tv picture any more 3D.

So next time you hear a good sound in a huge room, think about how much of it can be attributed to the room.  For us with the small playback rooms have not many choiches. Pretty much MCH is our only hope, but not in it's current form.

[JLM]

Well stated csero!

My dedicated room is relatively small (8 ft x 13 ft x 21 ft), so my solution has been to go nearfield ala Cardias (68 inch equalateral triange).  IMO that requires an full/extended/wide range driver to maintain coherency across the audible frequency range.

[PhilNYC]

csero,

Thanks for the great thoughts.  So for my poll here, I assume you would be in favor of the bigger room?

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=26471

[BrunoB]

Some can argue than in a heavily treated room you can hear better "into" the record. It is true only in a sense that you get more direct sound, but that will be neither psychoacoustically complete, nor consistent. It is like watching tv in a dark room: of course you will get less disturbance from ambient light, but it will not make the tv picture any more 3D. .

csero,

your post is an interesting reading. Have you ever had the chance to listen recorded music in an anacheoic environment?

I have a more than  heavily treated (small) room, I would say near anacheoic. I have visited several other AC members, but, IMHO,  I haven't heard a system that sounds better than mine yet (I have heard only one system in a big room).  I have a strong 3D effect. Imaging is amazing. With some recordings,  the music wraps around  the listener giving a lot of spaciousness. Yes, the sound I have is not realistic, but I love it. My point is that I don't have a big room, but nevertheless achieved a sonic performance that I enjoy very much thanks to heavy sound adsorption.



Bruno

PS: Surprisingly, I like watching TV (movies) in the dark ...