Dedicated audio room build thread aka The Big Dig

[DasguteOhr]

When your measurement looks like that I have no idea what any speaker would sound like . I’ll be standing outside taking deep breaths. That is what I am saying : Some may love a dead room like your RT 60.Darken it and remove the window and I’ll sense a womb, torture chamber or modern recording studio and run While others may think it is perfect . There is no Whats Best , just what you like. Stop the gear fascination, please , look at Hughs measurements . You’ll get to a ballpark RT 60 immediately.

unfortunately totally wrong, if you hear a greater reverberation time than 0.4 sec (100hz-20khz) at the listening position, you don't hear the loudspeaker but your room.
my reverberation measurement does not apply to the entire room but only to the listening position. that's a fine difference.
it was done by ME geithain speaker corporation ,you can book this service. that was the best money I ever gave for my hobby.

P.S I have no doubts that hughp3 room will sound good, only the measuring method surprised me

 

[Lee]

Let’s do some basic analysis:
1. Length of the room is “31’ long” => middle of the room is15.5 feet from the front wall and back wall
2. “The speakers are now almost mid room”, let’s assume 13.5 feet from the front wall
3. The “Mic was equidistant from the AMT tweeters at 13’ 7.5 “”
4. I assume that the listening position is not against the back wall, like Jay’s from Jay’s Audio Lab, and that the measurement-microphone was located at the listening position. Given that the room is “21’ wide”, that puts the listening position about 11 feet in front of the plane of the speakers
5. Definition of near-field arrangement: “In the near field position the speakers and the listener’s head are the points of an equilateral triangle. Near field listening gives the perfect stereo field. It is frequently used in the recording studio to position the microphones and the voice in the mix. The near field listening position is determined by the "center to center" distance of the speakers and the distance to the listener’s head. It does not refer to the room in any way.”
6. The importance of the near-field listening arrangement: “where you are hearing more of the speaker and less of the room's reflections”

View attachment 96747

Hopefully that was simple enough for even you to follow. May I suggest that you better learn and know your shit before you challenge me.

Carlos Danger,

That is not even remotely close to where Hugh’s Kodos are set up. The definition of nearfield listening in the pro world is typically within 2-2.5 meters.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...even in my amateur world (where it's always amateur hour), I'm at 9' which I consider pretty much out of the near-field experience. A previous six-foot config seemed to have very little room influence, unless you really put the berries to the volume knob. At nine-foot-ish, I feel I get a bit of the managed room, but no chance to get too crazy. That's here, at least.

 

[Cellcbern]

...even in my amateur world (where it's always amateur hour), I'm at 9' which I consider pretty much out of the near-field experience. A previous six-foot config seemed to have very little room influence, unless you really put the berries to the volume knob. At nine-foot-ish, I feel I get a bit of the managed room, but no chance to get too crazy. That's here, at least.

Much ado about near-field:

Near-field listening by definition involves sitting close enough to the speakers so you are hearing almost exclusively the direct sound from the speakers, without the influence of the room (i.e., close enough for reflected sound not to be a major factor). Ed Long "invented" the near-field technique for pro studio use (see: https://bagend.com/the-company/e-m-long/). The fact that the Cardas explanation does not address distance does not change this fundamental aspect. Obviously the further away the listener is from the speakers the greater the opportunity for the room (reflected sound) to intrude.

FY:

Near Field Vs Far Field – Acoustic Fields

Near field is sitting as close to the speakers as you can. Far-field, as the name implies, you’re sitting farther back, so you get more of the room sound.

www.acousticfields.com

What Is Nearfield Listening? | Louise Byrne Music

Nearfield listening is the process of using a pair of nearfield monitors, which are small studio speakers with a wide frequency range, and placing them about 4 feet apart and about 4 feet in front of you, to critically listen to your audio mixes. It is called “nearfield listening” as you are...

louisebyrnemusic.com

http://bagend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Near-Field-Monitoring.pdf

 

[Cellcbern]

Much ado about near-field:

Near-field listening by definition involves sitting close enough to the speakers so you are hearing almost exclusively the direct sound from the speakers, without the influence of the room (i.e., close enough for reflected sound not to be a major factor). Ed Long "invented" the near-field technique for pro studio use (see: https://bagend.com/the-company/e-m-long/). The fact that the Cardas explanation does not address distance does not change this fundamental aspect. Obviously the further away the listener is from the speakers the greater the opportunity for the room (reflected sound) to intrude.

FY:

Near Field Vs Far Field – Acoustic Fields

Near field is sitting as close to the speakers as you can. Far-field, as the name implies, you’re sitting farther back, so you get more of the room sound.

www.acousticfields.com

What Is Nearfield Listening? | Louise Byrne Music

Nearfield listening is the process of using a pair of nearfield monitors, which are small studio speakers with a wide frequency range, and placing them about 4 feet apart and about 4 feet in front of you, to critically listen to your audio mixes. It is called “nearfield listening” as you are...

louisebyrnemusic.com

http://bagend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Near-Field-Monitoring.pdf

In my experience near-field listening only works well with small monitors. With larger, multi-driver speakers you need some distance in order to hear optimal integration of the drivers.

 

[Carlos269]

...this is an interesting thread. @Carlos269 I agree with much you have written and appreciate your perspective; however, the above "definition" of near-field flat-out doesn't make sense (to me).

If there isn't a range, minimum, or maximum distance ascribed to the definition of "near-field" I vote we add one to the Master-file of Audiophile Descriptions (MAD).

I would need help being convinced being ~50' from a set of speakers would be near-anything. Frankly, I think 20' would be pushing it, even if complying with the other attributes noted for "near-field."

Is the short-coming mine (wouldn't be the first time), or the "definition" itself? Cheers, fella...

There is of course much more complexity and details to this than what is being discussed here in general terms. It is about the radiation intensity pattern of arrays of point sources (speakers). To speak in specific terms would require factoring the sound radiation pattern of each sound source to arrive at accurate distances, which are not really of concern here. If you are interested in the subject, please reference a good text book on Acoustical Engineering to get a good grip on a quantitative basis.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos Danger,

That is not even remotely close to where Hugh’s Kodos are set up. The definition of nearfield listening in the pro world is typically within 2-2.5 meters.

Obviously I’m deriving from the information that has been provided. If I have strayed far from reality, simply produce a picture, or even better distance measurements so that the analysis can be redone with the new more accurate inputs. You have the advantage that you have been there, that I will concede, but I will wait for the new information before accepting that I am totally off basis.

 

[Carlos269]

Much ado about near-field:

Near-field listening by definition involves sitting close enough to the speakers so you are hearing almost exclusively the direct sound from the speakers, without the influence of the room (i.e., close enough for reflected sound not to be a major factor). Ed Long "invented" the near-field technique for pro studio use (see: https://bagend.com/the-company/e-m-long/). The fact that the Cardas explanation does not address distance does not change this fundamental aspect. Obviously the further away the listener is from the speakers the greater the opportunity for the room (reflected sound) to intrude.

FY:

Near Field Vs Far Field – Acoustic Fields

Near field is sitting as close to the speakers as you can. Far-field, as the name implies, you’re sitting farther back, so you get more of the room sound.

www.acousticfields.com

What Is Nearfield Listening? | Louise Byrne Music

Nearfield listening is the process of using a pair of nearfield monitors, which are small studio speakers with a wide frequency range, and placing them about 4 feet apart and about 4 feet in front of you, to critically listen to your audio mixes. It is called “nearfield listening” as you are...

louisebyrnemusic.com

http://bagend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Near-Field-Monitoring.pdf

No one else, but me, sees the great irony of going through this extensive process and expense to produce a room and then arranging the speakers & listening position so that the room has little to no influence?

Everyone of my set-ups other than the ones with digital crossovers and DSP utilize the near-field arrangement. I have discussed the use of a near-field spatial arrangement to deal with room acoustics rather than the “vanity” of bespoke engineered spaces, for decades.

The layman term and understanding of near-field listening is a misnomer. Being inside of the triangle and the separation distance between stereo pair of monopole, dipole and multipoles sources is dictated by a function of the frequency envelope.

 

[wil]

Jim Smith came to voice my system to the room. He generally ends up with a triangle where tweeter to tweeter is roughly 83% of the distance of the center point between the speakers to the listener.

Jim did a great job with my old system and I suspect Hugh is benefiting from that visit tremendously.

Hugh might share some of these distances for clarity. I commend Hugh for sharing the measurements and the whole project with us. It was a monumental effort and I appreciate learning what others are doing in this hobby.

I believe Jim Smith’s common proportion is
the tweeter to tweeter distance is 83% of the tweeter to ear distance - Not center between tweeters to ear.

 

[PeterA]

I believe Jim Smith’s common proportion is
the tweeter to tweeter distance is 83% of the tweeter to ear distance - Not center between tweeters to ear.

You are completely correct. I always get confused but I just looked it up on page 93 of his book. Thank you.

 

[kswanson27]

You are completely correct. I always get confused but I just looked it up on page 93 of his book. Thank you.

And as he says in his book 83% is not a hard and fast number.

 

[PeterA]

And as he says in his book 83% is not a hard and fast number.

That’s right. When he was at my house he said it usually falls between about 81 and 85 in the system as he has set up. I think it’s kind of a rough guideline.

 

[stehno]

No one else, but me, see the great irony of going through this extensive process and expense to produce a room and then arranging the speakers & listening position so that the room has little to no influence?

I wouldn't say you're entirely alone here, Carlos. Though when others adhere to these ironies for decades it can be rather difficult to explain, much less in a single sentence as it seems you've eloquently done here.

Maybe the real question is, can old dogs be taught new tricks?

BTW, I hope Hugh doesn't install a new amplifier cuz then he's back to square one. So we've been told.

 

[cal3713]

Yes, by definition. It’s about the spatial arrangement and not about the size of the room. It is about the shortest distance, a straight path, of the arrival of direct sound to the ears. The brain will then distiguish between direct and associated reverberant sounds.

Then it's a bad definition.

You can break it by putting speakers in an asymetrical room, one speaker in a corner and the other 10' away (or 50' or whatever), but with double that space before you hit the other wall of the room. You will not get a perfect stereo image because the near wall will provide much sound reinforcement via reflections.

What is more, your own comment clearly shows that you (at least personally) cannot ignore the room even in a nearfield setup, as you use points #1,2,4, & 6 to talk about the room... all while claiming that it doesn't matter because of this inane definition.

 

[Carlos269]

Then it's a bad definition.

You can break it by putting speakers in an asymetrical room, one speaker in a corner and the other 10' away (or 50' or whatever), but with double that space before you hit the other wall of the room. You will not get a perfect stereo image because the near wall will provide much sound reinforcement via reflections.

What is more, your own comment clearly shows that you (at least personally) cannot ignore the room even in a nearfield setup, as you use points #1,2,4, & 6 to talk about the room... all while claiming that it doesn't matter because of this inane definition.

First of all, the arrangement has to be symmetrical. Second, I referenced the room because I had to have a basis for locating the speakers and the listening position in the room to confirm that they were installed in a near-field arrangement. You are usually one of the brighter ones, not sure why you are struggling to comprehend the concept of near-field listening. Cellcbern provided links to information on post #444 above, perhaps the material there will make it more clear to you than I have been able to get across.

 

[cal3713]

First of all, the arrangement has to be symmetrical. Second, I referenced the room because I had to have a basis for locating the speakers and the listening position in the room to confirm that they were installed in a near-field arrangement. You are usually one of the brighter ones, not sure why you are struggling to comprehend the concept of near-field listening. Cellcbern provided links to information on post #444 above, perhaps the material there will make it more clear to you than I have been able to get across.

"The near field listening position is determined by the "center to center" distance of the speakers and the distance to the listener’s head. It does not refer to the room in any way.”

It's a bad definition.

 

[Carlos269]

"The near field listening position is determined by the "center to center" distance of the speakers and the distance to the listener’s head. It does not refer to the room in any way.”

It's a bad definition.

Talk to George Cardas about that. Email him and have a discussion with him about his definition of near-field. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my near-field arrangements.

As I mentioned in my posts above, the general concept is simple, but if one wishes to get accurate distances and parameters there are mathematical formulas available, which I can supply. To do a the true mathematical exercise and analysis will require the radiation intensity pattern of each acoustic source component. For this reason, I believe, that George Cardas kept his definition both simple and applicable in universal terms.

 

[PeterA]

Carlos, does the definition of Nearfield listening have anything to do with the angle at which the speakers are toed in? For instance, I’m basically sitting at the apex of a 16’ equilateral triangle with my corner horns, but the speakers are toed in at a 45° Angle being placed right in the front corners of my room. I sit outside of their axis which crosses in front of me. Just curious. Thank you.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, does the definition of Nearfield listening have anything to do with the angle at which the speakers are toed in? For instance, I’m basically sitting at the apex of a 16’ equilateral triangle with my corner horns, but the speakers are toed in at a 45° Angle being placed right in the front corners of my room. I sit outside of their axis which crosses in front of me. Just curious. Thank you.

Yes, the the tweeters should intersect at the listening position. I typically toe in the tweeters so that they are inline right behind my ears, in other words to the outside of my ears.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, the the tweeters should intersect at the listening position. I typically toe in the tweeters so that they are inline right behind my ears, in other words to the outside of my ears.

Thank you. So even though I’m sitting at the apex of an equilateral triangle, this is not considered near field listening.

I listened to some large JBL M9500 speakers sitting about 6 feet away from the front baffles. The speakers themselves were about six or 7 feet tweeter to tweeter. It was a good speaker position for the very difficult room in which they were placed. I always thought this was nearfield listening, but the speakers had zero toe-in and were aimed straight ahead. So by that definition, it was not nearfield listening either.