Have you got "the" sound, and are stepping off major upgrading?

[MadFloyd]

GIK 242's aren't all that absorptive, but most (all?) listeners find that if you are going to treat first reflection points it should be diffusion, not absorption, or perhaps a mixture.

Diffusion would the exception, not the norm.

 

[rbbert]

Diffusion would the exception, not the norm.

Not if you are looking for the sound most listeners actually prefer. Ask Nyal or virtually any other acoustic designer how often they put only absorption at first reflection points.


http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18509-Media-Room-Acoustics

 

[sbo6]

Not if you are looking for the sound most listeners actually prefer. Ask Nyal or virtually any other acoustic designer how often they put only absorption at first reflection points.


http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18509-Media-Room-Acoustics

Depends on your room size, I couldn't imagine putting diffusion in a shoebox-like sized room at 1st reflection points..

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

IMHO No card carrying audiophile is ever content, there is always wiggle room for that extra few % you know is there..and you swear its your last upgrade for ever!!!

This is the correct answer. And for me personally, the mere thought of upgrading has two distinct merits. Firstly, like anything else, dreaming is a lot of fun and produces a feeling of anticipation and contentment whilst keeping the ageing mind active mulling over all the possible combinations with their strengths and failings. It's also why reading the various audio magazines is fun (same goes for whatever the interest, be it cars or whatever). But just as importantly - perhaps even more importantly, if I am listening to my current system and for whatever reason am disappointed, my mind can play the "it'll be much better when you upgrade" card. This has an amazingly cathartic effect and is most welcome given that for all intents and purposes, we audiophiles - as much as we refuse to admit it - are all suffering at least some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder and probably multiple ones in some cases!

 

[MadFloyd]

Depends on your room size, I couldn't imagine putting diffusion in a shoebox-like sized room at 1st reflection points..

Actually, my understanding is that is the situation where you'd want it. Diffusion will make the side walls seem to disappear and create a wider soundstage, which can be desirable if the room is narrow.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Diffusion will make the side walls seem to disappear and create a wider soundstage, which can be desirable if the room is narrow.

Now y'all have me confused. Which has the acoustic effect of making the side walls "disappear"? Absorption or diffusion?

I always thought, at least for dipole speakers, that the answer is absorption.

(And I am hoping the answer is well-settled and is not controversial.)

 

[bonzo75]

The current thinking is that strong lateral reflections can increase the sensation of spaciousness, and that a good loudspeaker will have a flat on axis response and smooth and even off axis response which mimics the on axis.
Not dipoles!
Keith

MBL is the speaker to buy then

 

[spiritofmusic]

Now y'all have me confused. Which has the acoustic effect of making the side walls "disappear"? Absorption or diffusion?

I always thought, at least for dipole speakers, that the answer is absorption.

(And I am hoping the answer is well-settled and is not controversial.)

Not much chance of not controversial on these pages LOL!

 

[rbbert]

Dipoles radiate in a dipolar pattern (LOL) and thus first side reflections are much less important in their rooms

 

[bonzo75]

The current thinking is that strong lateral reflections can increase the sensation of spaciousness, and that a good loudspeaker will have a flat on axis response and smooth and even off axis response which mimics the on axis.
Not dipoles!
Keith

You do realize with dipoles you already have a sense of spaciousness, not required to create it more artificially

 

[bonzo75]

Dipoles produce as much energy backwards as they do forwards, with almost no off axis response, they measure extremely poorly.
Perhaps it is the reflected rear energy that your are hearing?
Keith.

Yes but you said reflected energy from the side walls is alright, or is that only as long as speakers are not dipolars? You can't first say one thing and than another, that makes you bipolar.

 

[KeithR]

Not if you are looking for the sound most listeners actually prefer. Ask Nyal or virtually any other acoustic designer how often they put only absorption at first reflection points.


http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18509-Media-Room-Acoustics

this totally depends on the room. Rives had me use absorption at first reflections and they were definitely diffusion fans.

 

[KeithR]

Dipoles produce as much energy backwards as they do forwards, with almost no off axis response, they measure extremely poorly.
Perhaps it is the reflected rear energy that your are hearing?
Keith.

and another thread goes down the tubes due to the measurement posse.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

and another thread goes down the tubes due to the measurement posse.

No, it went down the tubes when it was suggested that once you are basically satisfied with your system and are only looking to tweak it, you are not an audiophile. That moniker apparently is reserved for only those who continue to spend money on the next best piece of gear. What a croc!

 

[Al M.]

No, it went down the tubes when it was suggested that once you are basically satisfied with your system and are only looking to tweak it, you are not an audiophile. That moniker apparently is reserved for only those who continue to spend money on the next best piece of gear. What a croc!

+ 1

 

[microstrip]

this totally depends on the room. Rives had me use absorption at first reflections and they were definitely diffusion fans.

Yes. Most absorbers are partial reflectors, particularly at low incidence angles. Another problem is that their behavior depends strongly on frequency. And most diffusors have considerable absorption.

About these matters I really appreciate Keith Yates article in Stereophile - "A matter of diffusion" http://keithyates.com/a-matter-of-diffusion/.

 

[bonzo75]

No, it went down the tubes when it was suggested that once you are basically satisfied with your system and are only looking to tweak it, you are not an audiophile. That moniker apparently is reserved for only those who continue to spend money on the next best piece of gear. What a croc!

No. There is a musicophile, audiophile, etc. How do you differentiate the people on this forum from someone who is simply satisfied with ipod and earphones and knows more about music than many on this forum? What differentiates the people on this forum is that they are into gear. That is the only differentiating factor. There are a lot of people into music and satisfied with their home Bose system or less, who are not on such forums, so that is not a differentiating factor.

 

[Al M.]

No. There is a musicophile, audiophile, etc. How do you differentiate the people on this forum from someone who is simply satisfied with ipod and earphones and knows more about music than many on this forum? What differentiates the people on this forum is that they are into gear. That is the only differentiating factor. There are a lot of people into music and satisfied with their home Bose system or less, who are not on such forums, so that is not a differentiating factor.

You keep on making this false contrast that doesn't exist. What if people are neither satisfied with ipod and earphones nor a Bose system, but are simply satisfied with their more or less advanced audiophile systems, and not immediately into new gear?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

No. There is a musicophile, audiophile, etc. How do you differentiate the people on this forum from someone who is simply satisfied with ipod and earphones and knows more about music than many on this forum? What differentiates the people on this forum is that they are into gear. That is the only differentiating factor. There are a lot of people into music and satisfied with their home Bose system or less, who are not on such forums, so that is not a differentiating factor.

We're not talking about people who listen to music on the go or plop their phone into a HT receiver and go goo-goo-ga-ga over the sound of their MP3/AAC files. We're talking about individuals who have invested some serious money on good audio gear. Look at my signature if you will. It doesn't represent the best of the best, but it's still a sizable investment and consists of pieces that must surely be considered somewhat audiophile grade. Just because I choose to be satisfied and prefer to spend my money on what I hope are quality tweaks, it doesn't make me less of an audiophile.

 

[bonzo75]

You keep on making this false contrast that doesn't exist. What if people are neither satisfied with ipod and earphones nor a Bose system, but are simply satisfied with their more or less advanced audiophile systems, and not immediately into new gear?

Nothing wrong with that. But why do you want to call them audiophiles? Aren't they different from the people who are into gear?

I think the difference we are having is, I keep saying there are some people who keep wanting to eat and experiment with different food. I call them foodies. Some want to stick to a staple regular diet. Not that one is wrong and the other is right. But both lifestyles are different. That is all that I am saying. And I am using a terminology to distinguish them (foodie, audiophile), which you and JV seem to be objecting to.