Where is Audio Truth ?

[justM]

From a different point of view,

 

I come from a background in digital visual effects and at the very end of the production chain we apply a gamma correction to match the display that the media is intended for. If this display is correctly calibrated the picture will be displayed as the artist(s) has intended.

 

Could Digital Room Correction be seen as a gamma correction for audio. And can the flat curve response it takes for reference, be seen as an audio calibration truth?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Hi David,

 

 

 

 

My illusion with this thread is that you started it to discuss a workflow in finding this truth going through physical and non physical elements that creates the whole experience towards and answer (I assume) that is already widely accepted as the truth. " a recording should match the performance of the artist's and his/her artistic intentions, and a hifi system should present this recording in a transparent way matching the original performance.

This is just my thought process for joining this thread and finding the answers for myself. But I could be missing the point here.

 

Hi JustM, it seems so long ago that I started this thread I am no longer exactly sure why I started it,lol. I was hoping to discuss all things related to the final perception and enjoyment of music and in a spirit of comaraderie. I guess from my background I look at it from the more biological aspects and work backwards to the source (recording). I have certainly learnt a great deal from people here, not surprisingly from an audio technical viewpoint but also related to my own area.

 

If I am to be entirely truthful, when I started this thread, I was a little dismayed at reading many other threads where people appeared entirely entrenched in their viewpoints (on both 'sides') and I wanted to try and challenge some of these ideas. I know I have had my ideas challenged and have needed to change some of those views as I have become better informed, but thats a good thing.

 

As said I have learnt and enjoyed contributions by all who have shared ideas and hope others have too ! My thanks to all

 

Happy listening

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

Might not be the type of thing you were thinking of, Barry, but something those words bring to mind for me is what George Martin & son did with The Beatles' "Love."

 

Actually, what I was thinking of is utilizing the techniques of recording in real stereo and combining them with the ability to overdub and even add synthetic parts to the whole, while maintaining the ease and focus (and believability) of a real stereo recording.

 

In my view, its pluses and minuses aside, "Love" is merely taking a stitched together quilt, separating the parts, cutting them into smaller parts and restitching them into a new quilt. For my ears at least, whatever its other achievements, there is still "no suspension of disbelief". (I see it moving in the other direction.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi justM,

 

...Could Digital Room Correction be seen as a gamma correction for audio. And can the flat curve response it takes for reference, be seen as an audio calibration truth?

 

In my opinion, not at all. So-called "digital room correction" does not work on the room at all. Instead, it attempts to address time-based issues of the physical space by using amplitude-based techniques applied to the signal coming from the loudspeakers.

 

What it achieves, in my experience, is to take what might otherwise be fine loudspeakers and skew their frequency response. Instead of removing a problem, we've added a new one. Now the room still "sings" and all we've done is mess up the performance from the loudspeakers (which *will* be heard before one hears what the room is doing).

 

Room correction seeks to diminish the frequencies at which the room "sings", in effect diverting the listener's attention by weakening those frequencies. It --erroneously in my view-- assumes an algebraic summation of speaker response + room response (with no consideration of the longer decay times, which are what the problem *is*). As I suggested earlier, the listener will hear the direct (now skewed) sound from the speakers *first* -- unless speaker and listener position are already so bad there is no hope of proper reproduction anyway.

 

Clearly, not everyone feels this way, as can be seen by the large number of "room correction" devices and algorithms for sale. What I can say is all those that I've heard make a big difference in the sound. For many listeners, I imagine this is sufficient. The only thing is, for my ears, the difference, while quite plain to hear, is not a positive one.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[souptin]

From a different point of view,

I come from a background in digital visual effects and at the very end of the production chain we apply a gamma correction to match the display that the media is intended for. If this display is correctly calibrated the picture will be displayed as the artist(s) has intended.

 

"...as the artist intended" huh? So if I had my telly properly calibrated, would Miley Cyrus' twerking look classy instead of...

 

On a more serious note, but still completely off topic *yay!* - are there any tv calibration tools that a typical home user could get decent results from?

[bdiament]

Hi souptin,

 

"...as the artist intended" huh? So if I had my telly properly calibrated, would Miley Cyrus' twerking look classy instead of...

 

It was the word "artist" that got me first. Then the concept of classy twerking.

 

On a more serious note, but still completely off topic *yay!* - are there any tv calibration tools that a typical home user could get decent results from?

 

I've gotten surprisingly good results with the DVDs Joe Kane made years ago. (I believe there is probably a Blu-ray version by now too.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

 

 

Actually, what I was thinking of is utilizing the techniques of recording in real stereo and combining them with the ability to overdub and even add synthetic parts to the whole, while maintaining the ease and focus (and believability) of a real stereo recording.

 

In my view, its pluses and minuses aside, "Love" is merely taking a stitched together quilt, separating the parts, cutting them into smaller parts and restitching them into a new quilt. For my ears at least, whatever its other achievements, there is still "no suspension of disbelief". (I see it moving in the other direction.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Mostly so, yep - after all, it's the soundtrack for a Cirque du Soleil show. But some pieces I really like didn't come from the old quilt; they are alternate takes with less production around the voices. Examples are the Love versions of Strawberry Fields and While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which have John and George's voices, respectively, relatively straightforward and unadorned compared to the originally released versions.

[Superdad]

Mostly so, yep - after all, it's the soundtrack for a Cirque du Soleil show. But some pieces I really like didn't come from the old quilt; they are alternate takes with less production around the voices. Examples are the Love versions of Strawberry Fields and While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which have John and George's voices, respectively, relatively straightforward and unadorned compared to the originally released versions.

 

I was skeptical of the "Love" soundtrack when I first heard about it after my wife and daughter went to the actual show and came home raving. Then I listened to it and really dug it. Perhaps a large part of why it works so well (and it is just beautifully woven together) is that we are so familiar with the original Beatles recordings.

 

I find that to be the case with a lot of live or demo rereleases. The semi-spontaneos improvisations in live versions--even if it just subtle emphasis on some vocal or instrumental phrasing, or even a leaving out of elements entirely--work so well, and sometimes surpass the original studio version, precisely because we are so familiar with the "plain" version. Our brain fills in with the original licks and digs on the new variations. In fact, I find that my music-loving daughter does not always "get" the awesomeness of some of my favorite live recordings (some Talking Heads comes to mind as I rarely play the original studio versions) until she becomes a bit familiar with the artist's original conception of the same piece.

 

Sorry if this is off-topic.

I've really been enjoying the last couple of day's posts in this thread. David, your last post makes it sound like you are going to be leaving the discussion that you started. Please don't go! You have been inspiring.

 

Cheers,

ALEX

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

Mostly so, yep - after all, it's the soundtrack for a Cirque du Soleil show. But some pieces I really like didn't come from the old quilt; they are alternate takes with less production around the voices. Examples are the Love versions of Strawberry Fields and While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which have John and George's voices, respectively, relatively straightforward and unadorned compared to the originally released versions.

 

Those incorporated pieces just came from a different (perhaps previously unreleased) "quilt". ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Guidof]

 

Clearly, not everyone feels this way, as can be seen by the large number of "room correction" devices and algorithms for sale. What I can say is all those that I've heard make a big difference in the sound. For many listeners, I imagine this is sufficient. The only thing is, for my ears, the difference, while quite plain to hear, is not a positive one.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry:

 

Your point is well taken: it's the speaker, not the room that's being " corrected." But why is this always a bad thing? In the real world, most of us deal with less than ideal listening rooms. I recently moved from a large house to a smaller one in which my 'music room' is only 9'-6" x 14'-6". In spite of room treatment (absorption and diffusion), the standing waves in this room would make it impossible to maintain a decent tonal balance were it not for the correction applied by a DSPeaker Dual Core (below 500Hz). Yes, it skews the speaker's response, but the uncorrected speaker response *in this room* is far from being flat anyway -- and would be pretty unlistenable without correction.

 

But if your point is that one should correct the room first, I could not agree more. It has made a significant difference in my experience, regardless of room.

 

Regards,

 

Guido F.

[bdiament]

Hi Guidof,

 

Hi Barry:

 

Your point is well taken: it's the speaker, not the room that's being " corrected." But why is this always a bad thing? In the real world, most of us deal with less than ideal listening rooms. I recently moved from a large house to a smaller one in which my 'music room' is only 9'-6" x 14'-6". In spite of room treatment (absorption and diffusion), the standing waves in this room would make it impossible to maintain a decent tonal balance were it not for the correction applied by a DSPeaker Dual Core (below 500Hz). Yes, it skews the speaker's response, but the uncorrected speaker response *in this room* is far from being flat anyway -- and would be pretty unlistenable without correction.

 

But if your point is that one should correct the room first, I could not agree more. It has made a significant difference in my experience, regardless of room.

 

Regards,

 

Guido F.

 

Actually, I think "altered" is a more accurate word than corrected as my feeling is the application of such ruins whatever capabilities the speakers might have had. I don't favor this approach because does not (and *can* not) remedy the problems with the room, which are based on the room's "holding onto" certain sounds after they have already "finished" coming from the speakers.

 

There is no electronic means in my experience that can shorten the decay time in the room. Diminishing the level of the frequencies that tend to excite the room means the direct response from the loudspeakers (which is what we hear first and what determines much of the tonal character of the sound) is filled with dips at those frequencies -- and quite possibly, if not quite likely, time domain disturbances in the speakers' performance too.

 

I would not be surprised if absorption and diffusion do nothing about standing waves or other similar room issues because absorption and diffusion are treatments for treble issues and standing waves and the like are bass issues. Those standing waves don't even "see" the absorption and diffusion. The only way I've heard these successfully dealt with is through the use of cylindrical type trap designs, placed where the issues originate -- in corners (i.e., where boundaries meet) and at the half and quarter points along boundaries. Even "econo" traps made from individually crumpled sheets of newspaper, tightly stuffed into stacked cardboard boxes can work. These will change the "Q" of the room's resonances and thus, tighten bass, *increase* bass "punch and restore silence between the notes, allowing low level detail from the recording to be heard. Even with the system off, regular conversation in the room becomes easier to hear.

 

I have often likened so-called "room correction" to an attempt to fix a broken arm by wearing a different hat. To fix the arm, the arm must be addressed directly. To fix the room, the room must be addressed directly. The problem(s) must be addressed where they occur or there is no hope of a remedy. The best that can be achieved is to redirect the attention by creating a different (additional) problem. One can insert some significant dips in frequency response (and commensurate distortions of time response) and the result will be the peaks and "woofiness" of the standing waves is diminished in level too. Some folks will prefer the skewed response from the speakers to a non-skewed response combined with a boomy room. However, astute listeners will notice the smear is still there in the bass and perhaps more (musically) significant, what bass remains is *still* out of tune with the record. The room is still "singing" at its own "notes", regardless of the bass pitches in the program material. And all low level detail (where instrumental harmonics and stereophonic spatial cues reside) is obscured because the "silence" between the notes is *still* filled in by the singing room -- even if it is singing at a somewhat lower level.

 

Speakers to rooms are very much like video projectors to screens. In the case of audio, the speakers are the projector and the room is the screen. To get the correct video performance, the projector must be set up opposite the screen or the result will be (at best) a skewed, distorted picture. Same with audio: unless the speakers (projector) and room (screen) are set up in the correct relationship *to each other*, the best the can result is a skewed, distorted "picture".

 

If my car was constantly pulling to the left, I would address the steering system and check the wheel alignment, etc., I would not get a new transmission or replace the radio. ;-} I think it is exactly the same with room problems but emphasize, as always, this is just my own point of view.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Paul R]

I like the Love album quite a bit, but it seems more like the soundtrack to the performance than the performance itself, if that makes any sense. (Of course it does, since the real performance is a Cirque de Soliel show, but I meant it in a more general sense.

-Paul

 

Mostly so, yep - after all, it's the soundtrack for a Cirque du Soleil show. But some pieces I really like didn't come from the old quilt; they are alternate takes with less production around the voices. Examples are the Love versions of Strawberry Fields and While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which have John and George's voices, respectively, relatively straightforward and unadorned compared to the originally released versions.

[Blake]

Clearly, not everyone feels this way, as can be seen by the large number of "room correction" devices and algorithms for sale. What I can say is all those that I've heard make a big difference in the sound. For many listeners, I imagine this is sufficient. The only thing is, for my ears, the difference, while quite plain to hear, is not a positive one.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

I had considered purchasing a room correction device in the past. During a phone call I had with Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade concerning unrelated matters, the topic of room correction devices came up and I mentioned my thoughts about buying something to correct for room issues. Pierre is of the same view as Barry. Pierre strongly dislikes dsp/room correction devices and mentioned many of the same issues noted by Barry.

 

Disclaimer though, I have never personally tried any such device. Obviously there are many who have these devices and are quite happy with the results.

[justM]

"...as the artist intended" huh? So if I had my telly properly calibrated, would Miley Cyrus' twerking look classy instead of...

 

On a more serious note, but still completely off topic *yay!* - are there any tv calibration tools that a typical home user could get decent results from?

 

I fail to understand your first comment, but that is probably because you are talking about a music video while I am talking about a film production where the director is the artist.

 

For your second comment, the easiest and cheapest way to start is as bdiamant said to buy a Joe Kane disk and do the calibration yourself with the settings available to you. There automated tools available or as explained on Joe Kane's disk a professional might be able to access hidden or locked setting on your TV to push things further

[Jud]

Interesting that Pierre and Barry both produce very well regarded recordings. If anyone should be familiar with how to reproduce the actual sound of a recording/performance....

[justM]

I see your point.

This word timing is starting to pop up more and more, the more I read about audio.

 

When building acoustic treatment in an audio room I assume there are some measurements being applied in doing so. A lot of hifi stores are selling of the shell acoustic panels but I get the idea that no room measurements are involved.

 

I recently bought some cheap "acoustic eggshell foam" from ebay to play around with in my living room. I assume that this stuff is about absorption and diffusion to a certain extend.

This is all without measurements but I like to address the harsh sound in my wide open living room with wooden floors and gyprock walls with no curtains in front of the windows.

I don't expect a miracle here but I like to try DIY before buying from the hifi store. $100 for a 50x50cm panel can become quite the investment, one that I would like to save for a dedicated audio room that I once hope to achieve some day.

[mayhem13]

There's some excellent DIY options for self damping/treating a room. Particularly great stuff to use and easy to work with is Roxul and the various panels made from recycled denim.

 

......that being said, without measuring your in room response, treating is at best a shot in the dark and will be very cumbersome with trial and error. I do agree that there's full measure replacement for room treatment.....but I would assert that a combination of proper treatments and DSP will produce the better results than either on its own.

 

Now choosing the right speaker for your space is half the battle with some of today's waveguide systems producing exceptional directivity and removing most of the room's effects above the cutoff freq. There was a post earlier where someone mentions poor choice and performance from corner speaker systems........a poor generalization as if the dimensions are correct, a corner speaker can and will outperform almost every other freestanding speaker.....but the room needs to be of the right dimensions. As for speaker placement, there is no steadfast rule as there's far too many variables to develop an adequate equasion( algebra 101)........it's either trial and error using your ears as the primary measurement or a functional measurement rig with adequate software.

 

I find it oddly frustrating to see audiophiles that will spend hundreds if not thousands on cables but won't invest $2-300 on a measurement suite. Not much 'truth' in that method AFAICS.

[Guidof]

Hi Guidof,

 

 

 

Actually, I think "altered" is a more accurate word than corrected as my feeling is the application of such ruins whatever capabilities the speakers might have had. I don't favor this approach because does not (and *can* not) remedy the problems with the room, which are based on the room's "holding onto" certain sounds after they have already "finished" coming from the speakers.

 

There is no electronic means in my experience that can shorten the decay time in the room. Diminishing the level of the frequencies that tend to excite the room means the direct response from the loudspeakers (which is what we hear first and what determines much of the tonal character of the sound) is filled with dips at those frequencies -- and quite possibly, if not quite likely, time domain disturbances in the speakers' performance too.

 

I would not be surprised if absorption and diffusion do nothing about standing waves or other similar room issues because absorption and diffusion are treatments for treble issues and standing waves and the like are bass issues. Those standing waves don't even "see" the absorption and diffusion. The only way I've heard these successfully dealt with is through the use of cylindrical type trap designs, placed where the issues originate -- in corners (i.e., where boundaries meet) and at the half and quarter points along boundaries. Even "econo" traps made from individually crumpled sheets of newspaper, tightly stuffed into stacked cardboard boxes can work. These will change the "Q" of the room's resonances and thus, tighten bass, *increase* bass "punch and restore silence between the notes, allowing low level detail from the recording to be heard. Even with the system off, regular conversation in the room becomes easier to hear.

 

I have often likened so-called "room correction" to an attempt to fix a broken arm by wearing a different hat. To fix the arm, the arm must be addressed directly. To fix the room, the room must be addressed directly. The problem(s) must be addressed where they occur or there is no hope of a remedy. The best that can be achieved is to redirect the attention by creating a different (additional) problem. One can insert some significant dips in frequency response (and commensurate distortions of time response) and the result will be the peaks and "woofiness" of the standing waves is diminished in level too. Some folks will prefer the skewed response from the speakers to a non-skewed response combined with a boomy room. However, astute listeners will notice the smear is still there in the bass and perhaps more (musically) significant, what bass remains is *still* out of tune with the record. The room is still "singing" at its own "notes", regardless of the bass pitches in the program material. And all low level detail (where instrumental harmonics and stereophonic spatial cues reside) is obscured because the "silence" between the notes is *still* filled in by the singing room -- even if it is singing at a somewhat lower level.

 

Speakers to rooms are very much like video projectors to screens. In the case of audio, the speakers are the projector and the room is the screen. To get the correct video performance, the projector must be set up opposite the screen or the result will be (at best) a skewed, distorted picture. Same with audio: unless the speakers (projector) and room (screen) are set up in the correct relationship *to each other*, the best the can result is a skewed, distorted "picture".

 

If my car was constantly pulling to the left, I would address the steering system and check the wheel alignment, etc., I would not get a new transmission or replace the radio. ;-} I think it is exactly the same with room problems but emphasize, as always, this is just my own point of view.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry:

 

Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful explanation. I have considerable sympathy for your main argument, that is, for privileging correcting the room, for example by installing corner bass traps. But effective as these are, they don't necessarily eliminate all the negative effects of standing waves. That's where DRC can help.

 

I don't consider myself a particularly "astute" listener (to use your term), but with sixty years of listening to recorded music and, more important, equally as lengthy exposure to the sound of real musicians in the concert hall and opera house, I feel that I am an experienced one. As such, I don't detect any "smear" attributablbyte my DSPeaker. On the contrary, there is undeniable smear when it's switched to "bypass." Would I prefer to have an acoustically ideal listening room that required no DRC whatsoever? Of course. But given the room I have, I'm grateful that DRC allows me to come as close as possible to the 'suspension of disbelief' stage.

 

Your analogies hardly seem to fit the situation. There is no relationship between my broken arm and my hat wearing habits, or between my car radio and my car tendency to bear left. But there are quite close and complex interactions between speakers and room.

 

Best regards,

 

Guido F.

[bdiament]

Hi justM,

 

I see your point.

This word timing is starting to pop up more and more, the more I read about audio.

 

When building acoustic treatment in an audio room I assume there are some measurements being applied in doing so. A lot of hifi stores are selling of the shell acoustic panels but I get the idea that no room measurements are involved.

 

I recently bought some cheap "acoustic eggshell foam" from ebay to play around with in my living room. I assume that this stuff is about absorption and diffusion to a certain extend.

This is all without measurements but I like to address the harsh sound in my wide open living room with wooden floors and gyprock walls with no curtains in front of the windows.

I don't expect a miracle here but I like to try DIY before buying from the hifi store. $100 for a 50x50cm panel can become quite the investment, one that I would like to save for a dedicated audio room that I once hope to achieve some day.

 

The good news is that room acoustics and the issues that arise have been well known for a long time. In truth, there really isn't anything to measure. You can take a frequency response but it won't reveal the time-based issues that room problems are about. Time-based measurements are more difficult but even if you took them, the approach to fixing a given room's issues is the same in any enclosed space one might find in a domestic environment. (When the space gets to be auditorium sized, the story is different but so are the issues one encounters.)

 

Room modes in the bass need to be addressed where they occur -- in the corners and at the half and quarter points along room boundaries. Early reflections need to be absorbed and late reflections need to be diffused. That's it. It has worked in every single room I've treated, with no need to take out a microphone or start up any software applications. (Of course, if you want to know which frequencies at which the room had its issues, you can measure them or you can calculate them based on room dimensions. On the other hand, if you simply want to fix the problems rather than look at them, my experience has been that there is no need to do anything but address them.)

 

Aside from the common frequency response measurement being good only to show *some* of the many symptoms of room issues, a number of assumptions are made which in my view, are not conducive to fixing the problems. First and foremost, is the assumption that a microphone placed at the listening position will "hear" the way a human would. I believe this would be supportable IF the human had an extraordinarily narrow head with a single ear in the middle of their face. Outside of that, I would not make any bets. ;-}

Much better, in my view, would be time-based measurements -- if one really wants to measure something. These will show the real problems and not merely one or two of the many resulting symptoms.

 

Acoustic eggshell foam will do nothing at all for diffusion. If soft enough, it can be used as an absorption medium for early reflections. If not soft, it only contributes to the problem. Absorption can be easily dealt with using *any* soft material placed at the early reflection points. (There will be one early reflection point per speaker, per room boundary, so in a two speaker system, there will be two such points on every room boundary -- each of the walls, the ceiling and if not covered by a carpet or rug, the floor.)

 

We often see photos of diffusive materials placed near the speakers. What this does is guarantee the early reflections (which should be absorbed) will reach the listener's ears. Diffusion is properly used to promote *late* reflections.

The greatest issues are the resonant modes in the bass, along with the first and second harmonics. I have heard these addressed successfully only by the cylindrical type traps such as Harry Olsen's "functional sound absorber". There is also an "econo" solution, though of course, it doesn't work to the same degree -- and that is to crumple individual sheets of newspaper and stuff them as tightly as possible into cardboard cartons, which are then stacked to make columns vaguely like the cylindrical traps. While some sell flat panels as bass traps, my experience is they don't work in the bass (regardless of the claims) and are merely more expensive early reflection absorbers.

 

For a bit more about treating a room, see Setting up your monitoring environment.

I hope it proves of interest and of some help.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Guidof]

 

.......but I would assert that a combination of proper treatments and DSP will produce the better results than either on its own.

.

 

+1!

 

Guido F.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

David, your last post makes it sound like you are going to be leaving the discussion that you started. Please don't go! You have been inspiring.

 

Cheers,

ALEX

thanks Alex.yeh still here reading and learning.my main pc has bellied up so needing to source some parts.....i forgot how fiddly it is to place the heatsink fan assemly over the cpu.....bloody hell lol.

[bdiament]

Hi Guidof,

 

Hi Barry:

 

Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful explanation. I have considerable sympathy for your main argument, that is, for privileging correcting the room, for example by installing corner bass traps. But effective as these are, they don't necessarily eliminate all the negative effects of standing waves...

 

The effects of a room's resonant modes go well beyond standing waves, which are only one of many issues that arise. To be clear, while I recommend proper corner traps, that is far from the full extent of what I recommend to fully treat a room. Trapping all four corners will indeed fully eliminate the negative effects of the standing waves resulting from the room's *fundamental* resonant modes but will not address those resulting from the first and second harmonics of those modes. This is where half point and quarter point traps work. With a full complement of traps, the standing waves are history.

 

 

I don't consider myself a particularly "astute" listener (to use your term), but with sixty years of listening to recorded music and, more important, equally as lengthy exposure to the sound of real musicians in the concert hall and opera house, I feel that I am an experienced one. As such, I don't detect any "smear" attributablbyte my DSPeaker. On the contrary, there is undeniable smear when it's switched to "bypass." Would I prefer to have an acoustically ideal listening room that required no DRC whatsoever? Of course. But given the room I have, I'm grateful that DRC allows me to come as close as possible to the 'suspension of disbelief' stage.

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said. I never suggested a smear would result from DSP but rather that it would not eliminate the smear engendered by the room's resonant modes. It can certainly redirect the listener's attention by diminishing the loudness of some of the peaks that are symptomatic.

 

Not every is going to hear the smear, the loss of low level detail (harmonic complexity, spatial cues) and dynamic punch, along with the out of tune bass that result from room issues. Some will, if given the opportunity to hear the same room without these issues.

 

Certainly, I would never argue with what gives anyone listening pleasure and if you enjoy the sound you have with DSP, I think that is a good thing. I'm just saying it isn't for me. We all hear differently. The key is to get the sound you seek.

 

 

Your analogies hardly seem to fit the situation. There is no relationship between my broken arm and my hat wearing habits, or between my car radio and my car tendency to bear left. But there are quite close and complex interactions between speakers and room.

 

Best regards,

 

Guido F.

 

Again, perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote, for which I apologize. It was precisely my point that that wearing a different hat (not habit) would do nothing for a broken arm and changing my car radio would do nothing for a tendency to steer to the left. I said this to illustrate my feeling that using DSP to alter the sound coming from the loudspeakers will do nothing to fix room problems. This is a separate issue from any given listener *liking* the results of using DSP. My point was that with the many DSP systems I've heard, in a good number of rooms now, I found the difference in sonics to be quite apparent, quite easily heard. I just didn't think the differences were, for my ears, positive ones. I understand you may feel differently.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[4est]

A big +1

Hi Guidof,

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said. I never suggested a smear would result from DSP but rather that it would not eliminate the smear engendered by the room's resonant modes. It can certainly redirect the listener's attention by diminishing the loudness of some of the peaks that are symptomatic.

 

Not every is going to hear the smear, the loss of low level detail (harmonic complexity, spatial cues) and dynamic punch, along with the out of tune bass that result from room issues. Some will, if given the opportunity to hear the same room without these issues.

 

Certainly, I would never argue with what gives anyone listening pleasure and if you enjoy the sound you have with DSP, I think that is a good thing. I'm just saying it isn't for me. We all hear differently. The key is to get the sound you seek.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Don Hills]

Rather than just say "+1", I'd like to say: Heed Barry's advice. Please. Money spent on room treatment is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than money spent on cables.

 

A few random notes in support:

 

- Low frequencies are hard to treat in a living space, as distinct from a single-purpose music listening room or studio. You don't generally have the freedom to place traps where they need to go, to say nothing of the decor considerations. Fortunately, DSP is most effective at low frequencies. For each mode (resonance) there is a filter which will counter it. In the past a few resonances could be treated with manually adjusted parametric filters. Modern DSP allows treating many resonances at once. It's only a partial fix, because the mode still exists in the room even if you're not exciting it. You can reduce the "boom", but you still have the "suckout" if you happen to be sitting at an anti-node.

 

- Higher frequencies can be treated by more unobtrusive means. Wall absorbers can look like art works and diffusers can masquerade as architectural features - a quadratic diffuser can look striking if properly lit. And, as Barry points out, you don't have to spend a lot of money while you're working out the best positions etc - you can use cheap (but ugly) materials for experimenting and save your money for good-looking permanent fixtures when you know what you need.

 

One useful tool for determing where early reflections might be a problem is the "calibrated acoustic string". I've tried it, it works.

Mc Squared System Design Group, Inc. - Calibrated Acoustic String Measurement System

It's much cheaper but slower than a room analysis system:

Computer Audiophile - Acourate Digital Room and Loudspeaker Correction Software Walkthrough

 

(Back in analogue TV days, I also used to use the string method to work out where ghost-causing signal reflections were coming from, so as to use an appropriately designed and positioned antenna to reduce them.)

[Paul R]

While in general I agree with the sentiment that money spent on the room can produce very great benefits, you cannot forget the other side either. Garbage fed into even the best treated room will still sound like garbage, you have to have components of good quality to make treating the room worth it.

 

Like everything else, you have to balance all the factors to get the best results. Very few of us can afford to spend what it takes to just have the best of everything. Those few that can have truly spectacular systems though!

 

Paul