[AJinFLA]

Tell me what part of Before and After is not clear and to you I'll be glad to elaborate.

The room shown in those graphs is 16 x 11.5 by 8 feet high. Full details here:

Hearing is Believing

--Ethan

 . I slogged through that infomercial to the point "With the room empty..."
As expected. Complete bogus silliness. A completely empty "living room" is hardly typical, outside of an institution.
Like I said at the beginning Ethan, I not against sensible acoustic solutions in living/listening rooms. But 99% of it doesn't involve mattresses on the ceilings and padded cell walls, when "furniture", "decor" and other such esoterica, seem a bit more prudent starting point.
Oh...and listening rooms and recording studios, are two different environments entirely. You ought to read and understand Toole sometime. Especially if you are going to give credence to the rigors of perceptual blind testing and preferences, of which you will have none of.

cheers,

AJ

[JLM]

Sorry A.J. But I'll take Toole over you when comes to room acoustics.

As far as dipoles go most musical sources (and every microphone I know of) does not generate sound in a dipole manner. It's just not natural to have out of phase back waves.

[AJinFLA]

Mirage is no longer in business.

Thanks. Sorry to see them go, have good memories of some of their early stuff.

I can give a demo of the benefits to any of you that just want to call me.  651-330-9871 if you want to hear this yourself. 

You're starting to scare me here Frank. Acoustic benefits via telephone??? I'm having flashes of Geoff Kait beating a pie pan to teleport goodness into my room....

The only down side is that my cat can climb it (Spidercat) and once in a while he brings a panel down in a heap on top of him.  Fortunately easy to put back up and fix too.

Frank Van Alstine

Ok, I confess, the real reason I eschew the iso-ward walls, is that I have three "spidercats". 

Sorry A.J. But I'll take Toole over you when comes to room acoustics.

Yep, we all have our preferences and appeals.

As far as dipoles go most musical sources (and every microphone I know of) does not generate sound in a dipole manner. It's just not natural to have out of phase back waves.

Actually, it far more "natural" to have delayed random phase reflections in room. You are using (incorrect) intuition (again), not psycho-acoustics. There is nothing "natural" about stereo constructs.

cheers,

AJ

[grsimmon]

Tell me what part of Before and After is not clear and to you I'll be glad to elaborate.

The room shown in those graphs is 16 x 11.5 by 8 feet high. Full details here:

Hearing is Believing

--Ethan

I'll ignore the tone of your post and simply say.....in your post with the graphics, you didn't provide any helpful details.  None.  What speakers, what sized room,  what type of treatments were used, how did you measure,  etc etc. hence my comment.

More importantly,  if you are the OWNER of the company that SELLS acoustic treatments,  you really need to change your avatar subtitle to "Industry Participant."   You really make yourself look, well.....

[JohnR]

As far as dipoles go most musical sources (and every microphone I know of) does not generate sound in a dipole manner. It's just not natural to have out of phase back waves.

Um...  Well, I'm not sure that trying to reproduce an orchestra in a living room is "natural" either...

With regard to microphones, there are plenty of dipole microphones available. They are commonly referred to as "figure 8" microphones. They are required for Blumlein Pair and Mid-side stereo recording.

With regard to musical instruments, a bass drum is obviously a dipole. I'd assume that anything that is large and flat is probably one too. The relevance of this to loudspeaker design is unclear to me though....

I've wondered for a long time what would happen if you recorded individual instruments and then arranged them in a listening room in the same arrangement as the instruments - one loudspeaker per instrument.

[JohnR]

. I slogged through that infomercial to the point "With the room empty..."

Argh, I couldn't even get that far.

Ethan Winer: in future please provide specific and helpful non-commercial information WITHOUT linking to your website or videos if you care to continue posting in non-commercial circles. Thank you.

[JLM]

AJ, I can't believe you'd put yourself in the same league as Floyd E. Toole or pass off a comparison in terms of "preferences or appeals".   

JohnR, thanks for the microphone info but I wonder how often those mikes/techniques are used ("plenty", really?).  Yes there are a couple examples of musical instruments that are dipolar, but the vast majority aren't.  How mixes properly translate into playback can IMO be best answered by looking at what the professionals do (use near field monitors).  I'm not aware a single studio professional who uses dipoles at home.  I know this goes back again to relating recording and playback and brings up pros vs. audiophiles, but in general I know whose opinion I'd trust first (the same one who recorded/mixed the music I enjoy listening to).

[bpape]

The best one can do with speaker design is to try to have a design where the speaker either uses the room or tries to not be sensitive to boundary interactions the best it can.  No speaker design can eliminate out of phase reflections, cross channel reflections, ringing over time, etc. 

When you get farther from boundaries, gain is reduced somewhat. However, SBIR can/will still exist but the bigger the difference in direct vs reflected path length, the lower in frequency the interactions will occur.

One can certainly help with frequency response issues with careful seating and speaker placement.  One cannot address decay time via speaker/seating placement. 

[rollo]

  So can we now agree that the room properly designed and treated for a particular speaker's dispersion pattern is the best option ? If you choose the speaker first design the room around it. If you design the room first without speaker chosen are we fooling ourselves ? IMO no the room comes first. What you say ?  I say hire Bpape. 


charles
   
 

[AJinFLA]

AJ, I can't believe you'd put yourself in the same league as Floyd E. Toole or pass off a comparison in terms of "preferences or appeals".   

Never claimed to be. That is a false dichotomy of your creation.
I am in far more agreement with Toole, than disagreement. Less amplitude distortion at LF is better. Agreed. I just don't fully agree on either the method or bandwidth to get there.
By preferences and appeals, I'm noting how you cherry picked LF, while completely ignoring his finding on smooth off axis and wide HF dispersion, with lots of reflections...with your main speakers.
See? I'm not the only one who cherry picks what they want out of his findings.

How mixes properly translate into playback can IMO be best answered by looking at what the professionals do (use near field monitors).

Oh, ignoring Toole on this one too I see.

I know this goes back again to relating recording and playback and brings up pros vs. audiophiles, but in general I know whose opinion I'd trust first (the same one who recorded/mixed the music I enjoy listening to).

...and that's obviously not Toole.

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

The best one can do with speaker design is to try to have a design where the speaker either uses the room or tries to not be sensitive to boundary interactions the best it can.

Hi Brian, agreed. IMO, three schools:
Use the room
Don't use the room
Room???...what's a room got to do with speakers?
 . The latter being my thoughts on about 90% of the market.

No speaker design can eliminate out of phase reflections, cross channel reflections, ringing over time, etc. 

Those are all scientifically established bad things perceptually, to binaural, adaptive hearing in living rooms?
Or...?

One can certainly help with frequency response issues with careful seating and speaker placement.  One cannot address decay time via speaker/seating placement.

When speaking of "living/listening" rooms, as opposed to "control", "production studio" or even "dedicated HT basement/attic", etc.....would "furniture", "decor" be addressable  factors also?

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

So can we now agree that the room properly designed and treated for a particular speaker's dispersion pattern is the best option ?

No.

Hi Charles, if we can agree that the room/speaker/treatment>audio preference is the best option, for that listener...then I'm all on board.

If you choose the speaker first design the room around it.
charles

I'd say treat them as inseparable. Most already have the room, somewhere in a house. Now pick the speaker that best suits it and your tastes simultaneously. Once you have listened to the room/speaker interface, if there are aurally (as opposed to "visually", "supposedly", etc.) perceivable "problems", start considering "treatments".
Otherwise, start enjoying music and stop fretting about a lot of the scary nonsense purveyed in acoustics circles.

cheers,

AJ

[bpape]

How the room is built, materials, furnishings, etc. all certainly play a part in what you hear.

Agree that you pick a speaker that works best in the room you have.  That does not then make treating the remaining problems that exist in pretty much all rooms 'nonsense'.  Not all people have that luxury though. Many people have their speakers that they like and have the room that they must use. 

Treating a studio vs a listening room is quite a different exercise with a very different set of design goals.  Not that a studio has goals and a listening room does not.  If you choose to not try to address speaker/room interactions and prefer to listen to your room vs your speakers, that's your choice.

[AJinFLA]

That does not then make treating the remaining problems that exist in pretty much all rooms 'nonsense'.

Exactly. We are in agreement Brian.
It is the pervasive (on audio, HT, etc. forums) presumption and belief that all rooms need to be "treated", without a single iota of perceptual "problem" evidence...that is nonsense. That all rooms will benefit, i.e., be "better" from some form of treatment. Never worse.
I wonder where people get these beliefs? Could be be from "common knowledge" on forums and scary videos...based on empty () rooms? Hmmmm....

cheers,

AJ

[bpape]

I have yet to be in a room used for listening that didn't benefit from some sort of treatment.  Not all rooms require the same things certainly.  Fact is that pretty much all untreated rooms have many of the same issues - reflections, long decay times, etc.

[AJinFLA]

I have yet to be in a room used for listening that didn't benefit from some sort of treatment.

Never worse eh?
Well, I suppose that is the nature of sighted preferences. We all have 'em  .

Fact is that pretty much all untreated rooms have many of the same issues - reflections, long decay times, etc.

Would you mind citing the small room acoustics blind studies that contradict Toole et al findings, regarding those same "issues" (which I assume have to be aurally perceptible in nature)?
Always open to updated science. TIA.

cheers,

AJ

[bpape]

I guess I'm blind    and I've studied.     Was Toole's research done blind?  What makes his research and opinion any more valid than anyone elses?  How about the BBC?  How about Harman Intl?  Not saying his research is not good and not beneficial, it is, just that it doesn't always work in every situation. Most of us don't live in perfectly symmetric spaces with no part of the structure that doesn't resonate, etc.  They're real rooms with real problems. 

Much of what I have seen from his research simply says that not all reflections are damaging and some can be used to your advantage. Nobody is disagreeing with that.  But to make blanket statements saying that every room all the time should never be treated in a certain way is not correct and I don't believe he ever said that, nor did I.  Just the same as saying that all rooms all the time SHOULD be treated in the same way.  How are you going to address a room that is open on one side but not the other?  Deal with the reflections and additional boundary gain from that side?  Fix the imaging always wanting to pull to one side? 

I just worked with a room of a person who used Toole's formulas and theory to set up his room. Turned out to be a pretty good starting point.  Guess what though, still had response issues and the decay time was still too long in the bass.  I asked him to move his mic/seating position.  His response was that it would just do X to move the problem in frequency as Toole predicts.  Guess what, it didn't, it got better.  Measured response did not map to what the formulas said.  Doesn't mean I'm a genius, just that theory is just that, theory.  Predictions.  Theory is great, measurements always trump theory. 

Never said you couldn't treat a room and make it sound worse.  Don't put words in my mouth - nice try though.  I've seen lots of rooms that were worse when done incorrectly with bunches of thin foam which further skews the decay time curve toward being too dead in the upper mids and highs yet leaves the bass out of control.  Rooms where people chop off corners to try to eliminate the corner buildup - when in fact just creating 2x as many corners and would not have impacted the decay time anyway. 

Once in a blue moon you'll find a room that is very good in terms of response, walls have been splayed to push reflections behind, setup can be done without regard to other furnishings, WAF, etc. with no treatment.  How many of us have that luxury?  Still doesn't address decay time.  Although many of the other common issue can then possibly be dealt with via diffusion.  Again, no one single way works for everything.

Never, always, none, and all very rarely are accurate ways to look at things.

[grsimmon]

Consider this:   every time a pet,  spouse,  child,  listening buddy (or more) enters or leaves the room,  the acoustics change.  The effect that 50 - 1000 lbs. of living matter (mostly water)  has on room acoustics is usually overlooked.  But it's real,  and no amount or type of acoustic treatment can keep pace with the ever-changing conditions of the typical living room.  Room correction might be an alternative,  but it doesn't change on-the-fly either (yet.) 

The solution?  Back to Linkwitz.  A properly designed loudspeaker.  Unfortunately for most of us,  Linkwitz says (and convincingly demonstrates)  that the vast majority of loudspeakers are not properly designed,  hence the need (?) for treatment.  They are just variations/cousins of front firing, box-type speakers that have origins in P.A. systems and studios.  Speaker types like open baffle dynamic and panel seem to have gotten a lot more attention in say the last 10 years, perhaps because more people are sick & tired of the inherent flaws in their launch pattern and subsequent need for room treatment.  The prevailing wisdom in that camp is:  let the room acoustics work with your figure 8 (or omnidirectional) speakers, instead of trying in vain to fight them.  I continue to maintain that Linkwitz is right:  get the speakers done right first,  then set them up correctly.   Don Morrison would then add,  get your music right (quality music and recordings),  and mess with the room last.   If you take care of this,  there is no need to have your living room look like the inside of a studio or spaceship.

[AJinFLA]

I guess I'm blind    and I've studied.    

Me, deaf and studied.
But I'll take that as a no. No blind perceptual room citations to contradict Toole et al.

Was Toole's research done blind?

That fact that you are asking, tells you're unfamiliar with his rather large compilation of work. Of course it was. I'm talking about perceptual science here, not visual biases and suppositions.

What makes his research and opinion any more valid than anyone elses?  How about the BBC?  How about Harman Intl?

Ummm, he started at the NRC way back, but Harman is where he ended up. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide why his robust scientific studies and subsequent opinions on living rooms is better than conjecture and marketing engineering.

They're real rooms with real problems.

i.e. "Rooms" synonymous with "Problems". Never a perceptual problem free room. In your experience of course.

Much of what I have seen from his research simply says that not all reflections are damaging and some can be used to your advantage. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

Actually, there is a caveat with that too...and that is the polar response of the loudspeaker, which matters also.

But to make blanket statements saying that every room all the time should never be treated in a certain way is not correct and I don't believe he ever said that, nor did I.

Any idea who did? I find the quote function feature very useful, to remove any ambiguity with such issues.

Just the same as saying that all rooms all the time SHOULD be treated in the same way.

Are you again saying all rooms can benefit from some form of "treatment"? Implying very clearly that all rooms have perceptual "problems", in need of some form of "treatment"?

How are you going to address a room that is open on one side but not the other?  Deal with the reflections and additional boundary gain from that side?  Fix the imaging always wanting to pull to one side?

Same way I dealt with it at CapFest 2012 iirc. Unusual, but there are always outliers.

I just worked with a room of a person who used Toole's formulas and theory to set up his room. Turned out to be a pretty good starting point.  Guess what though, still had response issues and the decay time was still too long in the bass.  I asked him to move his mic/seating position.  His response was that it would just do X to move the problem in frequency as Toole predicts.  Guess what, it didn't, it got better.  Measured response did not map to what the formulas said.  Doesn't mean I'm a genius, just that theory is just that, theory.  Predictions.  Theory is great, measurements always trump theory. 

Toole's formulas? I'm not familiar with them, could you please share the specific ones in question with us?

Never said you couldn't treat a room and make it sound worse.  Don't put words in my mouth - nice try though.

I asked a question. No need to get defensive.

Once in a blue moon you'll find a room that is very good in terms of response, walls have been splayed to push reflections behind, setup can be done without regard to other furnishings, WAF, etc. with no treatment.

You keep mentioning "response", etc.
Are you concerned with perceptual issues, or "response" and "reflection" and "decay" measurements? What exactly are you "treating" for?

Still doesn't address decay time.

Of what? Related to what perceptual issue?

Never, always, none, and all very rarely are accurate ways to look at things.

Well, maybe that's where we differ. I prefer to hear (problem) things first, before I looking for (problem) them. Rather than vice versa.

cheers,

AJ

[Rob Babcock]

Let's steer this back to acoustics.  Keep it civil or I'm locking this.  There's no place for ad homs or smart ass comments here.