Where is Audio Truth ?

[mayhem13]

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

 

Can you define 'garbage'?.........wanna make sure I'm not wallowing in filth but instead, bathing in beautiful sound!

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

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

 

Makes perfect sense. Treating the fundamentals of the room's resonant modes in the bass, along with their first and second harmonics, absorbing the early reflections and diffusing the later ones will, in my experience, transform a room. The result is a listener can then hear their system --not just the components but how they are set up-- with much greater clarity as a (sonic) fog has lifted.

 

Now it becomes a matter of what the system itself is (or is not) doing. What it is doing well will become much easier to hear. What it is not doing so well will also become much easier to hear.

 

I would add that by the term "treating", I *not* referring to attempts via electronic means, which to my ears, merely hide one or two of the many symptoms while leaving the rest unaddressed and at the same time, distort the response from the loudspeakers. I am referring to addressing the problems at their source, to remedy *all* the symptoms, by placing physical devices in the locations where room problems occur. While the practical reality for many may make this difficult or impossible -- as does the practical reality when it comes to optimal speaker placement -- without this, one is, in my view, in the same position as not being able to place a projector directly opposite the screen. A skewed result is to be expected. One can apply electrical "correction", as with "keystone compensation" but the result, to my eyes, is much like the electronic "correction" applied to vocalists who cannot sing in tune -- it might measure "right" but something is seriously amiss. The only way to get maximum sharpness and all the rest the projector is capable of delivering is the place it where it needs to be placed. There is no getting around this without degrading the results.

(Just my perspective of course.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Don Hills]

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

 

You seem to be making my argument for me. As you say, very few of us have no budget restrictions. The rest of us have to prioritise. Given the choice of spending, say, $1000 on a USB cable (or even some analogue interconnects) and $1000 on room treatment, the room treatment will almost certainly bring a much greater objective improvement in sound quality. (Unless your room is exceptionally good to start with.)

 

The point is that, as you say, you have to balance all the factors to get the best results. In other words, improve the weakest link first. How many people here can look at their systems and honestly say that any upgrade money would be better spent on some other component than the room, or maybe the speakers? CD / media players, cables, DACs, amplifiers. All but the nastiest ones have performance orders of magnitude better than the speakers and the room.

[mav52]

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

 

Agree, garbage in , garbage out. I've seen it in action..Tiny speakers in a 5700 + sq ft room or mismatched amp and speakers. Or a person wondering why there music in their 20x24x12 room with a tile floor sounds like it's in a shopping mall. And then there is the poor recording to start with. Taking the time to know your equipment and it's limitations is a good place to start.

[Paul R]

Can you define 'garbage'?.........wanna make sure I'm not wallowing in filth but instead, bathing in beautiful sound!

 

Here's an example for you, though I am assured it measures very well!

 

DAV-DZ170 | BRAVIA® Theater System | Sony USA

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

Here's an example for you, though I am assured it measures very well!

 

DAV-DZ170 | BRAVIA® Theater System | Sony USA

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7498[/ATTACH]

 

Don't underestimate the value of this package. Under $200 for a full 5-channel system capable of delivering 1000 (count 'em) watts... at 1 kHz (no mention of the other 19,999 frequencies) and 10% distortion (no mention of what music sounds like at that level).

 

But there are 5 channels, not just 2.

And 1000 watts! (More than I have in the studio.)

 

I may have to consider trading in the system. =8-0

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[Don Hills]

... Don't underestimate the value of this package. Under $200 for a full 5-channel system capable of delivering 1000 (count 'em) watts... at 1 kHz (no mention of the other 19,999 frequencies) and 10% distortion (no mention of what music sounds like at that level). ...

 

I like the part where it says "1000 watts of home theater power." The FTC (music) rating is buried deep in the user manual. So is the fact that it plays SACDs.

On the topic of a "balanced system", I like this part: "Enough power to get the most from the included speakers and subwoofer." They got that right... years ago, your typical 3-in1 system used to have relatively good quality wooden boxes with crappy drivers. Nowadays you get relatively good drivers in crappy plastic enclosures or cardboard-thin chipboard.

 

... I may have to consider trading in the system. =8-0 ...

 

Don't quit your day job... I mean that most sincerely.

[bdiament]

Hi Don,

 

...Don't quit your day job... I mean that most sincerely.

 

;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[crisnee]

Although I agree with Barry and others re "fixing the room" as opposed to DSPing it, nevertheless DSP has a value where it comes to being unable to (for whatever reason) "fix the room." I find it highly preferable to negate a narrow frequency range via PEQ rather than put up with one note bass and the like. And though I will miss the: "low level detail (harmonic complexity, spatial cues) and dynamic punch" generated in the frequency range in question, it would have been blotted out by the one note bass anyway.

Chris

 

[sandyk]

And though I will miss the: "low level detail (harmonic complexity, spatial cues) and dynamic punch" generated in the frequency range in question, it would have been blotted out by the one note bass anyway.

 

Chris

IF that is the result of using DSP to correct one note bass, then the end result is that your system is badly compromised and far removed from "Audio Truth"

I suspect that you may have "piled it on with a shovel" in order to make a PRO DSP point ? (grin)

 

Alex

[crisnee]

Chris

IF that is the result of using DSP to correct one note bass, then the end result is that your system is badly compromised and far removed from "Audio Truth"

I suspect that you may have "piled it on with a shovel" in order to make a PRO DSP point ? (grin)

Alex

 

Yes indeedy, although I think you may have misunderstood a bit too. I wanted you to feel the thumping and then the relief as DSP came to the rescue. And "Audio Truth" wasn't the point here, I was only replying to recent posts.

 

So try this on. You have a choice.

 

1. A superb audio system, to die for mini monitors that however barely make it down to 65 hz, no DSP, and a room that sounds great except for at 50-55hz where you have a major hump in frequency response. No problem, your speakers don't go there. Problem? you don't have deep bass, or much spacial cuing, low level detail, etc. that is present in the deep bass.

 

2. A similarly superb system, but this one goes down to 16 hz, flat. Now you've got all the bass you could dream of, spacial cues etc. you want, but you've also got that nasty humpity bumpity of bass at 50-55 hz? But fortunately? you do have a band of PEQ available. You take out a narrow band of frequencies to pretty much flatten out the response in that 50-55 hz area, and eliminate a few window rattles and woolly sounding orchestras and possibly a bit of spacial cuing and low level detail. So now you've got most of the deep bass with a blemish? in the middle of it.

 

Which system do you choose?

 

Please no "that's not possible, no room/system will give you that." Of course it's possible. Let's even say that the room was specially built and corrected for that effect, if you think it's not possible naturally. The only thing you're not allowed to do is correct for that 50-55 hz bump by trapping or other room changes. In real life music rooms there are always limits, sometimes the limiters are significant others and at other times, well you know.

 

Chris

[sandyk]

Hi Chris

"spacial cues" at 50-55HZ ?

Many people use a mono subwoofer in that area, (sometimes doubling as a Coffee Table to humour SWMBO,) in order to augment tiny little monitors.

You can often greatly reduce problems like that with minor speaker repositioning, such as distance from rear and side walls etc. WITHOUT further degrading a high quality signal with digital pre-processing.

The problem here is that most of the DSP proponents appear to fall into the "bits are bits" crowd who insists that nothing you do to those 1s and 0s matters, as long as they are spat out in the same sequence. That is rubbish. Even the version of software player matters, as evidenced by contributions from Jud, Superdad and others.

I also find it interesting that those least likely to hear differences between software players etc. are those who promote DSP as the answer to most room and speaker problems.

YOU appear to fall into that 20% minority group judging by your poll reply ? (grin)

 

Alex

[justM]

I have been playing around with strings and measurements last weekend and have located 4 early reflection points on the walls which I have covered with a DIY acoustic panel. The sealing is still untreated and the coffee table found a temporary spot outside the living room. Doing so has given me the opportunity to fine tune speaker position and to sneak up the speakers a few more cm's into the living area. (Always a bit of a battle with the misses )

 

 

I always use this test track with 32 clicks of the castanets to position loudspeakers, and treating the early reflections has cleared up the image of the track allowing me to tune the loudspeaker position better than before. I still don't have the optimal position compared to the dimension of the room, and never will as long it is the living room, but at least if have got the golden triangle right.

 

 

There is still a lot to achieve when it comes to bass respond so I might try both an acoustic trap and DSP to tackle this issue. I can cover the DIY acoustic panels with some nice looking art work but I don't think my wife will like a couple of bass traps around the living room.

 

 

Using Roger Water's Amused to Death I hear the voices in the intro The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, nice and clear at the hight of my left ear a little to the back (I hope this is close to the truth). I did notice that by removing the panels when Roger plays the guitar strings in the same intro the sounds seems to travel further without the acoustic panels than with the acoustic panels. The track Three Wishes is a bit of a mess when it comes to the dark rumbling voice of the genie. The room acoustics will probably play up here, and I think the side firing woofers may play a part in it as well.

A small approvement but still an improvement.

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

...So try this on. You have a choice.

 

1. A superb audio system, to die for mini monitors that however barely make it down to 65 hz, no DSP, and a room that sounds great except for at 50-55hz where you have a major hump in frequency response. No problem, your speakers don't go there. Problem? you don't have deep bass, or much spacial cuing, low level detail, etc. that is present in the deep bass.

 

2. A similarly superb system, but this one goes down to 16 hz, flat. Now you've got all the bass you could dream of, spacial cues etc. you want, but you've also got that nasty humpity bumpity of bass at 50-55 hz? But fortunately? you do have a band of PEQ available. You take out a narrow band of frequencies to pretty much flatten out the response in that 50-55 hz area, and eliminate a few window rattles and woolly sounding orchestras and possibly a bit of spacial cuing and low level detail. So now you've got most of the deep bass with a blemish? in the middle of it.

 

Which system do you choose?

 

Please no "that's not possible, no room/system will give you that." Of course it's possible. Let's even say that the room was specially built and corrected for that effect, if you think it's not possible naturally. The only thing you're not allowed to do is correct for that 50-55 hz bump by trapping or other room changes. In real life music rooms there are always limits, sometimes the limiters are significant others and at other times, well you know.

 

Chris

 

Actually, this isn't going to happen. If a room has issues at 50-55 Hz, it would be more than an extraordinary case if it did not *also* have issues at 100-110 Hz and 200-220 Hz (for starters). So if your to die for mini monitors reach down as low as 200 Hz, your room will "sing".

 

With those mini monitors (never heard any I would refer to in the same sentence where I used the word "superb" ;-}) or the one that goes down to 16 Hz, you can use EQ to dip out the regions in question. Many folks will like the results and find them preferable to not applying these dips. I would never argue with what gives anyone their listening pleasure. (Some folks will also want to add 12 dB to the mid-treble. Again, if that is how they enjoy their music, I say they should do so.)

 

My experience of such a "remedy" though, is that:

1. When speakers are well placed in a room, the listener is going to hear the speakers before they hear the room. This means there are two separate "sounds". The one that arrives first - from the speakers - is going to determine the tonality. For my ears, those dips are a killer. I started with speakers with great potential and I have altered it in the amplitude domain to the point where if that was the response of the speakers themselves (prior to the EQ), I wouldn't have remotely considered spending money on them.

2. Further, the steep dips will be accompanied by time domain disturbances they engender. Now, in addition to skewing the frequency response of the speaker, timing information is smeared, obliterating low level detail and all the information carried therein.

3. Lastly, the room issues are still there! While just one of the many symptoms have been made less obvious to a casual listener, all the rest remain. The room is still filling in the "silences between the notes" further obscuring any low level detail (though this may be moot as the detail has already been squashed at the speaker). The room is still "out of tune" at the low end -- pitch definition in the bass has not been repaired in the slightest. If the record sounds an A, the room may still be singing (perhaps at a lower level but nonetheless still singing audibly) in B flat. Many will not notice this, if they are not sensitive to pitch. Those who are will sense the dissonance. And dynamic "punch" is still compromised.

 

So DSP, in my opinion, offers a "remedy" for one symptom (by creating one or two others, which are perhaps less immediately noticeable to some listeners) but leaves the fundamental problems unaddressed. To my ears, things get appreciably worse, so my choice would very easily be good speakers in an untreated room. Proper placement of the speakers and listening position will ensure the speakers are what get heard first and what determine the overall tonality. Yes, the room's issues will still be there: silences between notes filled in, obscuration of low level detail, compromised dynamics and yes, peaks and dips in the perceived response. To my ears, DSP will mitigate (not fix) the last one while introducing a few I deem more deleterious to being able to hear past the system, all the way to the recording.

 

Every single great (or even very good) system I have heard over the years, at all sorts of budgets in all sorts of rooms (ranging from fully treated to not treated at all) has been without *any* electronic manipulation of the signal.

And every system I've heard that attempted to "compensate" for the room by altering the signal fed to the loudspeakers sounded quite a bit more than a colored (i.e., artificial) and not at all one I would choose to evaluate a recording -- simply because there was too much "system" audibly getting in the way.

 

Of course, this is just my own perspective. I understand a lot of folks will be very pleased to just get rid of some peaks, particularly if they are not bothered by the other things I mentioned.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

[mayhem13]

The problem here is that most of the DSP proponents appear to fall into the "bits are bits" crowd who insists that nothing you do to those 1s and 0s matters, as long as they are spat out in the same sequence. That is rubbish. Even the version of software player matters, as evidenced by contributions from Jud, Superdad and others.

 

Alex

 

The subjective listening experiences of a few members is far from 'evidence' of what you suggest Alex.

[Paul R]

Okay - what would you say is evidence of the proposition that the data contained in the bit stream is not the only factor that affects digital sound?

 

-Paul

 

The subjective listening experiences of a few members is far from 'evidence' of what you suggest Alex.

[sandyk]

The subjective listening experiences of a few members is far from 'evidence' of what you suggest Alex.

 

I love the way that the resident sceptics continually conveniently ignore the huge volumes of reports from XXHE users, jPlay users etc.

Many XXHE users are also members of this forum too, but most simply can't be bothered wasting their time in pointless discussions here, yet are happy to post their findings in Peter's Forum . That's mainly on the Windows OS side of things, but there are heaps more reports in C.A. from Mac users of the various commercial offerings that many report to sound considerably better than "Looney Tunes."

[mayhem13]

Okay - what would you say is evidence of the proposition that the data contained in the bit stream is not the only factor that affects digital sound?

 

-Paul

 

Audible?............show me the results of a controlled AB test of at least 30 participants with better than 70% confirmation.

[mayhem13]

I love the way that the resident sceptics continually conveniently ignore the huge volumes of reports from XXHE users, jPlay users etc.

Many XXHE users are also members of this forum too, but most simply can't be bothered wasting their time in pointless discussions here, yet are happy to post their findings in Peter's Forum . That's mainly on the Windows OS side of things, but there are heaps more reports in C.A. from Mac users of the various commercial offerings that many report to sound considerably better than "Looney Tunes."

 

Not ignoring......just assessing value of subjective users experiences. As I've mentioned, I have a pretty 'resolving' system by audiophile standards. Also through many years of practical experience in the commercial end of the business. Combined with a passion for great music and an accomplished guitarist I have yet to audibly detect much of what others report here with small signal changes. So please excuse my doubt.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Audible?............show me the results of a controlled AB test of at least 30 participants with better than 70% confirmation.

Nobody has an incentive to run such a test so it will not be done. Asking for this information is an easy way to push a point of view that will not be refuted.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Not ignoring......just assessing value of subjective users experiences.

I agree with you on this point mayhem.

 

The value of subjective opinions is up to each reader. It really doesn't matter what other people think as long as the person assessing the information and listening to his system is satisfied.

[crisnee]

Hi Chris,

 

 

 

Actually, this isn't going to happen. If a room has issues at 50-55 Hz, it would be more than an extraordinary case if it did not *also* have issues at 100-110 Hz and 200-220 Hz (for starters). So if your to die for mini monitors reach down as low as 200 Hz, your room will "sing".

 

With those mini monitors (never heard any I would refer to in the same sentence where I used the word "superb" ;-}) or the one that goes down to 16 Hz, you can use EQ to dip out the regions in question. Many folks will like the results and find them preferable to not applying these dips. I would never argue with what gives anyone their listening pleasure. (Some folks will also want to add 12 dB to the mid-treble. Again, if that is how they enjoy their music, I say they should do so.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback

Barry Diament Audio

 

Barry, this could happen, as I specifically mentioned in my post. How? If sound traps etc. were used for the multiples problems you mentioned. And although I haven't myself heard "superb" mini monitors, I have heard well regarded "audiophiles" speak of them and prefer some of their aspects to those of superb full spectrum systems. But in case those cases involved hyperbole, I think "excellent" mini monitors should do just fine in my example.

 

But most to the point, this was supposed to be a thought experiment.

 

Chris

[crisnee]

Hi Chris

"spacial cues" at 50-55HZ ?

Many people use a mono subwoofer in that area, (sometimes doubling as a Coffee Table to humour SWMBO,) in order to augment tiny little monitors.

You can often greatly reduce problems like that with minor speaker repositioning, such as distance from rear and side walls etc. WITHOUT further degrading a high quality signal with digital pre-processing.

The problem here is that most of the DSP proponents appear to fall into the "bits are bits" crowd who insists that nothing you do to those 1s and 0s matters, as long as they are spat out in the same sequence. That is rubbish. Even the version of software player matters, as evidenced by contributions from Jud, Superdad and others.

I also find it interesting that those least likely to hear differences between software players etc. are those who promote DSP as the answer to most room and speaker problems.

YOU appear to fall into that 20% minority group judging by your poll reply ? (grin)

 

Alex

 

Spacial cues exist in the bass in general, 50-55hz is in the bass, so.... I wanted to preempt "well you're going to mess up some spacial cue info by..." Instead I get ("spacial cues" at 50-55hz?") Oh well.

 

You also missed the point of my post, to have a go at a thought experiment.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying in the rest of your post but here's my position re getting the best SQ.

 

(To the signal itself) 1. Do nothing if possible. 2. Make any and all kind of physical changes. 3. if nothing else helps you get where you want to go (within whatever your limits are regarding 2.) mess with it.

 

And by the by, I don't fall into the bits is bits category, nor into it's anti category. So there, Nah!

 

Chris

[sandyk]

[Low frequencies are not easily localized in small rooms, hence many stereo and multichannel audio systems feature only one subwoofer channel and a single subwoofer can be placed off-center without affecting the perceived sound stage, since the sound produced is difficult to localize.

The intention in a system with a subwoofer is often to use small main speakers (of which there are two for stereo and five or more for surround sound or movie tracks) and to hide the subwoofer elsewhere (e.g. behind furniture or under a table), or to augment an existing speaker to save it from having to handle woofer-destroying low frequencies at high levels.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subwoofer/QUOTE]

 

Chris

There is virtually no spacial information in the 55-60HZ area in a room of the size that your "to die for" mini monitors would normally be used in.

 

Alex

[esldude]

Nobody has an incentive to run such a test so it will not be done. Asking for this information is an easy way to push a point of view that will not be refuted.

 

And this is different from pushing a subjective point of view that cannot be refuted how? Oh yeah, it could be confirmed or refuted unlike the subjective opinion based upon refusing to submit to confirmation or refutation.

 

So the other part of your comment, about incentives..........so if there are incentives it makes it more likely to be so or more true? Commercially you have a point, based upon objective reality.....eh.....not so much.