I wouldn’t abandon tbe quest, but it is a long road to the goal. It is truly an eye opener to all once you do the example that you describe....well perhaps not all, lol.
And I have not abandoned the quest for audio enjoyment. I have abandoned my search for "the absolute sound". The ONLY absolute sound is live music. Everything else is a facsimile (some better than others). I have chosen as my objective to pursue musical enjoyment. For example, those many DVD-A multi-channels music discs I own sound nothing like a live performance since I am normally not allowed to sit on-stage. But they sure are fun to listen to and I get huge enjoyment out of doing so. I could go on.
FWIW, my approach to musical enjoyment is no less expensive that trying to optimize 2 channels!!
Say you play a saxophone and your girlfriend plays the piano; you are both playing a John Coltrane's tune in your home kitchen. It is live, it is @ reference level, and it sounds good too because you are both in excellent passionate music playing mood in that very inviting and comfortable kitchen where few very good friends are listening (three men and three women), total eight people in the kitchen with the two live music players.
And, it just happened that this music session was recorded live on a portable Nagra open-reel tape recorder by one of the listening guest, a professional recording music engineer, one of the women present.
After the live session the recording is played back on a quality hi-end stereo system that was carefully setup in that same kitchen, and with the volume level adjusted best to correspond with the same level as live just few minutes ago. And by the way, that kitchen is asymmetrical.
Say you play a saxophone and your girlfriend plays the piano; you are both playing a John Coltrane's tune in your home kitchen. It is live, it is @ reference level, and it sounds good too because you are both in excellent passionate music playing mood in that very inviting and comfortable kitchen where few very good friends are listening (three men and three women), total eight people in the kitchen with the two live music players.
And, it just happened that this music session was recorded live on a portable Nagra open-reel tape recorder by one of the listening guest, a professional recording music engineer, one of the women present.
After the live session the recording is played back on a quality hi-end stereo system that was carefully setup in that same kitchen, and with the volume level adjusted best to correspond with the same level as live just few minutes ago. And by the way, that kitchen is asymmetrical.
If the playback system is as good as money can buy, the reproduced sounds "similar to" but not actually LIKE to live session. How do I know this? Done it. More than once. Two identical rooms. One with live instruments and mic feeds to another room with a stereo. Similar. Yes. Just like live. Not even close.
Caesar our OP asked about reference level sound in a non-dedicated room; I picked the kitchen as an example of live vs reproduced.
I agree; similar yes but the full live saxophone and piano musical instruments are not going to be faithfully reproduced by some hi-end loudspeaker's drivers inside some gorgeously build and looking and engineered boxes or from top stats or from top horns positioned in that kitchen, in my opinion. ...Even @ decibels matching levels. The energy dispersion between those live instruments and the speaker's drivers are totally different.
...And even in a professionally top calibrated and treated and fine tuned dedicated room with state-of-the art speakers and electronics.
* I would love to play with something like the BeoLab 90, just for the fun of it, just for the music experimentation/exploration.
...For source, the best open-reel tape deck machine.
Does one absolutely need a dedicated room for reference-level sound? How close can one get to the ultimate potential of their system if they are not fortunate enough to have a dedicated room?
Yes, I think it is possible but not in a wooden house with suspended floor and sheet rock walls or one wrapped in glass. A room with concrete floor and concrete or brick walls can work well enough to get reference sound. The shape of the room should not be square also.
Reference-level-sound is a relative term. It means whatever one uses as his reference, another system or a performance venue, or particular performers. The more experienced a listener one becomes, I suspect the more his understanding of the term changes. Bonzo and others who hear many, many systems and many, many live events, have their idea of what reference-level means. A musician who listens to audio, an engineer in a recording studio, and a less experienced music lover, or my neighbor, will all have very different ideas about what reference-level-sound means.
I just noticed this thread. My personal answer is: I don't know but I am going to be finding out in several months!
My listening room is a dedicated space but not a dedicated room. I have a left side wall and a right side wall with alternating sections of cinder-block and wood framing and these sections are not mirror-image on each side, a large opening to a kitchen on the rear left side, a large opening to an equipment room on the rear right side, asymmetrical ceiling soffits and a glass-enclosed breakfast nook behind the left side of the space. I think it is the third most difficult listening space I have seen, behind Keith and Ian with asymmetrical front and rear walls.
I am leaning on a tall ceiling (14.5'), acoustic uniformity-creating wall treatment over the cinder-block and wood framing sections, an acoustic curtain wrapping around the rear third (kitchen opening, equipment room opening and rear wall) of the entire room (to create a "clean" rectangle), ASC products, and a bit of prayer to make this space sound good.
Same thinking exactly Jack, the whole isolationist nature of the dedicated room has some huge downsides socially. I’m much happier sharing music with people in a day to day context. The upswing of the accessibility of great sound (great music is possible virtually anywhere) in a space dedicated to living easily outstrips that last 5% of sonic appreciation that you can get by locking the world and potentially most likely your significant others out in a purely dedicated listening space.
So I’ve come back to a mixed position in my new setup as it comes together.
1. Primary listening space for day to day... built around a speaker that makes much music and recording quality easily accessible and where off axis listening still leads to great musical connection. Harbeth 40.2s deliver ideally in this context. Tube linestage and have both SS amp and winter listening tube amp for a touch of jazz and chilled-out music for nice dining ambient glow...
2. Secondary dedicated pure listening retreat... audiophile go hard or go home space. Maxxed out on the system dial in, purist everything and only the best music and better recordings need apply. A single perfect sweet spot on a very comfy lounge... espresso machine in the corner and absolutely no interruptions, good listening levels still possible even later at night. Maggie 20.7s do the job here perfectly...
3. The work room, daytime office system. Just Horns and SET only. Happiness.
The last time I was at Magico I listened to a comparison of the S5 MK2 (my speakers), and the S7. This was in their dedicated listening room. When they played tracks I had bought with me on their S5 I said, “This sounds just like my stereo.” Alon exclaimed, “That’s the point.” LOL.
My stereo is in the living room, and the front of the house is divided into the living room, kitchen, and dining room in an open floor plan. Of course, my living room doesn’t sound like Magico’s dedicated listening room until after 11 PM or so. Then the air, and neighborhood, has quieted down, and the stereo sings.
So, the answer is yes you can get reference sound in a non-dedicated room.
Depends on the size of the room and the size of the system. But all system things being optimized,sure you can. I have always had large rooms that open to larger rooms and have always thought the system setup was way more important than the room. I still don’t use a lick of room treatment.
Everything I've been told symmetrical is definitely not the way to go. For example a certain speaker manufacturer places his speaker cattycorner at shows.
Everything I've been told symmetrical is definitely not the way to go. For example a certain speaker manufacturer places his speaker cattycorner at shows.
could not disagree more. symmetrical is not the only important thing, but it really helps as you approach the ideal. the more dynamic the music gets......eventually reference level performance tends to slip away as the music scales in an asymmetrical room.
at modest SPL levels it's not as significant. and odd shaped rooms can even the bass although not predictably. but imaging and having coherence in image placement is optimal with symmetry.
some use of cattycorner placement does not prove anything.....other than small room acoustics is ultimately a crap shoot....and could be the least bad solution is some situations. and cattycorner reference level performance is a phenomena I've yet to experience.
Mike, far be it from me to correct you on room design. However, I was told symmetrical rooms lead to uniform reflections that can cancel or reinforce sound waves. Asymmetrical rooms create more diffuse reflections. I bote you had created an asymmetry behind your speakers at one point. So then a trapezoid would be better than a parallelogram. Perhaps this is more true with dipoles?
Of course you can't learn unless you express what you are thinking.
could not disagree more. symmetrical is not the only important thing, but it really helps as you approach the ideal. the more dynamic the music gets......eventually reference level performance tends to slip away as the music scales in an asymmetrical room.
at modest SPL levels it's not as significant. and odd shaped rooms can even the bass although not predictably. but imaging and having coherence in image placement is optimal with symmetry.
some use of cattycorner placement does not prove anything.....other than small room acoustics is ultimately a crap shoot....and could be the least bad solution is some situations. and cattycorner reference level performance is a phenomena I've yet to experience.
The most symmetric room possible is either a cube or a sphere and neither of these would result in a good sounding listening room. The cube would be horrible as it would have standing wave nodes and peaks.
The most symmetric room possible is either a cube or a sphere and neither of these would result in a good sounding listening room. The cube would be horrible as it would have standing wave nodes and peaks.
Mike, far be it from me to correct you on room design. However, I was told symmetrical rooms lead to uniform reflections that can cancel or reinforce sound waves. Asymmetrical rooms create more diffuse reflections. I bote you had created an asymmetry behind your speakers at one point. So then a trapezoid would be better than a parallelogram. Perhaps this is more true with dipoles?
Of course you can't learn unless you express what you are thinking.
I think you are talking past each other. Greg, the parallel symmetry which is important is the front wall and the back wall. They should be parallel.
However it can be advantageous acoustically if the side walls, and even if the ceiling and floor, are not parallel.
There is a school of thought that a trapezoid is advantageous. I actually like Mike's solution -- gently sloping oval side walls -- the best. (Not even Sherlock Holmes could find a straight plane or a 90 degree right angle in Walt Disney Concert Hall!)
But I think there is general agreement about parallel front and rear walls.
Brad, obviously side walls can be parallel without being part of a square.
the thread is about attaining reference level performance; which while it is a moving target, it does infer 'the best sound' one has heard.
how one tames a small hotel room does not seem to be relevant other than data points in our learning process. i'll be going to RMAF this week and will hear some nice sounding small hotel rooms. reference level? I think not. small scale stuff can get very good though in a small room.
could not disagree more. symmetrical is not the only important thing, but it really helps as you approach the ideal. the more dynamic the music gets......eventually reference level performance tends to slip away as the music scales in an asymmetrical room.
Symmetry is a mixed blessing. It can help ensure predictable pressurization (low freq), matching L/R levels and more accurate spacial cues in all dimensions but it can also result in nasty room modes especially at lower frequencies (as we all know). The trick IMO is to employ symmetry for key reflection points for mids / highs implemented via treatment (diffusion preferably) augmented with low freq diffusion (often employed non - symmetrically) and / or absorption + subs (DSP can help, but for me its detriment outweighed the benefits). Unless you have a very large room, there is no other way IME.
