[ctviggen]

I've been really pleased over the past few years to see folks finally start to understand that having good room acoustics is more important than pretty much anything else, including even which loudspeakers you use.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as speakers (i.e., Bose v. any speaker on this board), but I do think that traps such as Realtraps provide much more bang for your buck than, for instance, interconnects, power cords, speaker wire, and the like.  Every time I've changed interconnects/speaker cable/power cords/power, I've either noticed no difference or a subtle difference.  By contrast, I was playing my stereo as I was putting together the Realtraps (i.e., putting them on stands) and placing them into corners, and the difference was immediately apparent.  Similarly, my dealer brought over some 8th Nerve stuff; we listened to some portions of songs, then we put in the 8th Nerve stuff, and I turned on the song I just listened to a minute ago.  The difference in bass was immediately apparent.  And, this is from a guy who spent about two hours comparing my SqueezeBox/Ack Dack combo with my Shengya CDP (the former won, though it was much closer than my Proceed PMDT into my Proceed AVP). 

[Daygloworange]

I've been really pleased over the past few years to see folks finally start to understand that having good room acoustics is more important than pretty much anything else, including even which loudspeakers you use.

Uhhh,...No.

I'm a firm advocate to treating a room. I've had bass traps and absorptive panels for over 15 years. I've recently been experimenting with diffusers,( primitive root,Schroeder type, wedge type) and the effect on room acoustics is undeniable. Masking, smear, comb filtering, flutter echo, standing waves are all anomalies that affect the sound we hear, and diffusion, bass trapping, and absorption all reduce these anomalies.Without treating a room, you are basically handicapping your systems full potential.

But y'know the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

Cheers

[Ethan Winer]

Wayne,

> Don't the mini traps have the foil coating on the reflective side and are ok (that side out.. ) except for first-reflection points? <

That last part is the key. We offer most of our panels in two styles. One type favors bass trapping and intentionally absorbs less at higher frequencies, and the other absorbs mids and highs as much as possible but at the expense of a little less bass absorption. But the "standard" type meant for bass trapping still absorbs a controlled amount at higher frequencies, and the curve is about ideal for most rooms.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Bob,

> I'm not sure I'd go as far as speakers <

I should have included the qualifier "reasonably competent" because you're correct that some speakers are junk. But in the context of this group and the level of the participants, I can't imagine anyone here benefitting more from new speakers than from adding bass traps.

> I do think that traps such as Realtraps provide much more bang for your buck than, for instance, interconnects, power cords, speaker wire, and the like. <

Right - our stuff actually makes a difference.

--Ethan

[Daygloworange]

I should have included the qualifier "reasonably competent" because you're correct that some speakers are junk. But in the context of this group and the level of the participants, I can't imagine anyone here benefitting more from new speakers than from adding bass traps.

I'm glad you qualified that better Ethan. Yes, in that context I'd agree.

I do think that traps such as Realtraps provide much more bang for your buck than, for instance, interconnects, power cords, speaker wire, and the like

Personally I'd agree with that as well. I'd also add that while experimenting with cables and IC's and power cords, It can get very expensive, as well as the myriad of combinations you could go through to yield potentially marginal results.

Treating a room properly will yield substantial results, the more care and effort you put in, the more substantial they'll be. This one is a no brainer.

Cheers

[Rob Babcock]

I agree that B(l)ose might be going a bit overboard, but it's almost impossible to overstate the importance of good acoustics.

[PhilNYC]

Thought I'd revisit this topic, because a lot has changed since I first posted.  Well, actually, only a little bit changed...I moved my speakers forward 2".

I can now hear differences in my transports (specifically, the Oracle CD1000 vs. the Transporter, as I haven't tried anything since moving the speakers).  The differences are not dramatic, but they are pretty easy to hear.  Which is better?  Hard to say...I had two people here this morning at different times.  The first guy said he liked the Oracle better (listening to an acoustic guitar track from Leo Kottke), and the second said he liked the Transporter better (listening to an acoustic guitar track from Tommy Emmanuel).  Both cited "more realistic tone" as their reasoning...

Also, I am hearing more difference between my Dodson DAC (fed by Transporter) vs. the Transporter's analog out.  I had been puzzled by some peoples' comments about the Transporter sounding on the analytical side, but now I can understand where that comes from. 

So once again, a somewhat surprising turn of events, that such a small movement in speaker placement can really make a difference...

[Ethan Winer]

I moved my speakers forward 2" ... I can now hear differences in my transports ... such a small movement in speaker placement can really make a difference.

I agree completely that moving anything in a room only two inches can make a big change. Though maybe not the ability to hear a difference between two competently designed transports. At the risk of offending a bunch of people, HERE is my take on that. I may have posted this earlier, but I'm too lazy to search.

--Ethan

[Daygloworange]

PhilNYC,

I would focus more on auditioning well recorded vocals than acoustic guitar to do critical evaluations. Way more effort goes into producing a good vocal sound as opposed to an acoustic guitar sound. There maybe pleasant guitar sounds out there, but I've never heard one that I would consider worthy of using for a critical evaluation.

Of course you need something that's going to emphasize the upper and lower octaves as well. I've been to audio shops and sat in when people were auditioning speakers, and they'll bring along their favorite CD's. Very often I noticed, they would ask for a certain track to be played. It was always a track that showcased a cymbal or acoustic guitar that was somewhat isolated. They would then base their decision on whether that speaker was to their liking. Their whole evaluation was based on one or two, or three short passages of these elements. Whether these were stellar sonic samples of these or not.

It almost seemed like they read somewhere that that was the way to properly evaluate a speaker. I would caution anyone that this might be a misleading way to try and evaluate a component.

I always bring along quite a selection of stuff. I want hear the mid-range, yes, but I want to hear lower mids articulated cleanly, and not slurred, I want to hear the transient response of lower mids, and low frequencies. Highs are a little trickier. They are the area that gets emphasis most times. Either on the hot side, or rolled of. Lows as well. Mids you can't muck around with as much, because the ear is more easily offended there.

Personally I would like to hear more involved and complex music, with more instruments, preferably ones recorded with natural ambience as opposed to artificial reverbs. Stuff with percussion is a must. It's sharp attack, and quick decay ducks out of the way, so you can hear the early reflections and echoes of the hall or room. This is a real good indicator of how well a component reproduces audio.


Anyways, just some thoughts. Since you're already in the experimenting mood, give it a try and post back here. I'd like to hear you thoughts.

Cheers

[PhilNYC]

PhilNYC,

I would focus more on auditioning well recorded vocals than acoustic guitar to do critical evaluations. Way more effort goes into producing a good vocal sound as opposed to an acoustic guitar sound. There maybe pleasant guitar sounds out there, but I've never heard one that I would consider worthy of using for a critical evaluation.

Of course you need something that's going to emphasize the upper and lower octaves as well. I've been to audio shops and sat in when people were auditioning speakers, and they'll bring along their favorite CD's. Very often I noticed, they would ask for a certain track to be played. It was always a track that showcased a cymbal or acoustic guitar that was somewhat isolated. They would then base their decision on whether that speaker was to their liking. Their whole evaluation was based on one or two, or three short passages of these elements. Whether these were stellar sonic samples of these or not.

It almost seemed like they read somewhere that that was the way to properly evaluate a speaker. I would caution anyone that this might be a misleading way to try and evaluate a component.

I always bring along quite a selection of stuff. I want hear the mid-range, yes, but I want to hear lower mids articulated cleanly, and not slurred, I want to hear the transient response of lower mids, and low frequencies. Highs are a little trickier. They are the area that gets emphasis most times. Either on the hot side, or rolled of. Lows as well. Mids you can't muck around with as much, because the ear is more easily offended there.

Personally I would like to hear more involved and complex music, with more instruments, preferably ones recorded with natural ambience as opposed to artificial reverbs. Stuff with percussion is a must. It's sharp attack, and quick decay ducks out of the way, so you can hear the early reflections and echoes of the hall or room. This is a real good indicator of how well a component reproduces audio.


Anyways, just some thoughts. Since you're already in the experimenting mood, give it a try and post back here. I'd like to hear you thoughts.

Cheers

Thanks for the comments.  I do agree with you that critical evaluations should be done with a wide range of music...but this morning's listening sessions weren't really meant to be critical evaluations of gear; we were just enjoying some music, listening to some tracks, and I happen to want to show off some features on the Transporter, so we turned it on and played a few tracks on it that we had played on my Oracle transport earlier.  And I think part of my point about posting here is that these differences were pretty readily heard...we didn't really have to concentrate all that much to notice the changes.

As far as guitar recordings, tho, check out the last track of Tommy Emmanuel's "Endless Road" as well as a couple of tracks on Leo Kottke's "Sixty Six Steps" (this actually has some vocals in it as well).  You'd be surprised at how rich and extended some of these tracks are...

[Daygloworange]

As far as guitar recordings, tho, check out the last track of Tommy Emmanuel's "Endless Road" as well as a couple of tracks on Leo Kottke's "Sixty Six Steps" (this actually has some vocals in it as well).  You'd be surprised at how rich and extended some of these tracks are...

Cool, I'll check them out for sure. I've heard of both, but never heard them or peoples thoughts on them. I have a really cool one I bought a little while back, it's by Michael Hedges. I forget the name of the actual CD, but it's really cool, he's quite eclectic and plays solo acoustic guitar but they're custom made with extra drone bass strings and stuff. It's really cool, very rhythmic and percussive and goes down very low.

I can now hear differences in my transports (specifically, the Oracle CD1000 vs. the Transporter, as I haven't tried anything since moving the speakers).  The differences are not dramatic, but they are pretty easy to hear. 

At the beginning of this thread you mentioned having trouble discerning differences between transports, even though you were pretty excited about the sound after repositioning your speakers. You seem to be able to hear the differences better now. What would you say did that? Did you become accustomed to the sound? Or did you do some more changes? You said you were baffled before, what are your thoughts and observations now?

Cheers

[PhilNYC]

At the beginning of this thread you mentioned having trouble discerning differences between transports, even though you were pretty excited about the sound after repositioning your speakers. You seem to be able to hear the differences better now. What would you say did that? Did you become accustomed to the sound? Or did you do some more changes? You said you were baffled before, what are your thoughts and observations now?

Well, actually two things changed.  The first I alluded to that I moved my speakers forward about 2".  The second, which I didn't mention but now I'm thinking about it, is that I moved my Dodson DAC to its own shelf in my rack (previously, I had the Transporter sitting on top of the Dodson on the same shelf).  It's possible that the wi-fi signal from the Transporter might have been interfering with the electronics in the Dodson?  (even tho the critical parts of the Dodson are covered in a faraday cage).  Or maybe the weight of the Transporter were affecting the vibration characteristics of the Dodson's chassis?  There were no other changes in components, cables, room treatments, etc...

[Daygloworange]

PhilNYC,

Did you aim them differently?

I honestly haven't experimented with equipment placement that much lately, and probably won't be as I will be going to a simple SB (hopefully straight to amp) set up.

Cheers

[PhilNYC]

Did you aim them differently?

No.  Basically I had a piece of duct tape to mark where the speakers go.  On a whim, I moved the speakers from the back edge of the tape to the front edge, so the direction of the speakers remained identical.

I honestly haven't experimented with equipment placement, and probably won't be as I will be going to a simple SB (hopefully straight to amp) set up.

I have one of those in my den 

[Daygloworange]

Nice set up, man!

 Are those Focus Audio's? What are you using to drive those?

Cheers

[PhilNYC]

Nice set up, man!

 Are those Focus Audio's? What are you using to drive those?

Thanks!  Yes, those are Focus Audio FS-68SE monitors in Purple Tiger Eye finish (they are darker in person...the flash on my camera is lighting them up a little in this picture).  Am using a Bel Canto Pre3/S300 setup to drive them, fed by a Squeezebox 2...

[Daygloworange]

Yes, those are Focus Audio FS-68SE monitors in Purple Tiger Eye finish

They're beautiful. I love the minimalist thing, both sonically, and visually! I can hardly wait get my Bolder SB and then I want to experiment with amps. I'm quite happy with mine, but doesn't hurt to compare.

Cool!

Cheers

[BobRex]

Ethan,

I read through the comb filtering "paper" and yeah, I'll accept that to a degree....  I have 2 issues:

1) There have been a few tests where cable changes were tested via headphones.  I'm thinking of a power cord test that appeared on head hi-fi.  Now, I would think that given the possible change in distances between the ear and a headphone transducer, comb filter affects would be either mitigated or shifted to the highest frequencies.  So, what's the mechanism there?

2) Given the comb affects and the fact that nobody (well. practically nobody  ) listens with their head in a vise, I would expect the audio experience to change by the minute.  Given that, how can anyone truly define the sound of their system?  This theory alone invalidates any (and all) subjective listening tests, since no listening session could ever be truly repeated.

No, I think there's more to it than comb filtering.

[ZooDog]

Ethan,

I read through the comb filtering "paper" and yeah, I'll accept that to a degree....  I have 2 issues:

1) There have been a few tests where cable changes were tested via headphones.  I'm thinking of a power cord test that appeared on head hi-fi.  Now, I would think that given the possible change in distances between the ear and a headphone transducer, comb filter affects would be either mitigated or shifted to the highest frequencies.  So, what's the mechanism there?

You bring up a good point, I'd think headphone listening would be immune to the comb filtering effects that Ethan mentioned.  However, that power cord test on head-fi was not performed in a scientific way, so I can't accept any of the tester's conclusions. 

I'll admit that I am not a cable guy.  I think that many cable manufacturers pray upon those with "audiophilia nervosa", and make outlandish claims that are the audio equivalent of intelligent design.  It seems like every day there is a new outfit hawking cables on audiogon.  First was speaker cables, then interconnects, then they went after power cords, and now they want to replace your power outlets!  It's just crazy to me.  Don't even get me started on the Machina Dynamica stuff. 

[bpape]

IMO, there are a couple of differen things at work here.

- Moving them 2" forward changed the SBIR
- Even though you didn't change the angle they pointed, you did slightly change the off-axis nature of your head to the speaker axis.

Now, why would either of those not change all other things equally?  No idea.  It should be an across the board change - unless the SBIR was masking some things.

Bryan