Im sure the bad ones went for aesthetic over sound and lost out , the basics are known , not difficult to get a good sounding room , its the great ones that may require top of the class ..
Magico Q7:" most impressive product in 23 years of TAS reviews" (R. Harley)
- Thread starter stereo
- Start date
could you design a true full range state of the art speaker or crossover completely without listening? not likely. how could you design a room with dramatically more variables without actual listening? it's a process.
That's fair. Fine-tuning is still a part of the process, but the underlying structure and dimensions are pretty well set. Since the discussion began with the picture of RH's room and the attendant questions that arose, "lesser" issues such as bass trapping, first reflection points, etc. can still be dealt with when using listening tests. RH's room presented what many of us consider serious dimensional/structural challenges and prompted inquiry. After all, even small variations in drywall density, etc. can cause un-calculated differences in response and must be dealt with after-the-fact. Mike, surely you are appreciative of all the science at work in your system, with your incredible room and components. Subjective taste and aesthetics are an absolute part of any artistic experience too.
Lee
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Well if there are not any unknowns, then all any designer would need is a software program you could plug in and out would be the perfect room...... every time. Anyone could be a room designer then. Why would we need them?
As I stated in a response to Mike, fine tuning is the topping. There are certain building materials you probably wouldn't choose for a room, and there are dimensions you would not prefer either. You might have to add more bass trapping if the room supports a few more peaks than predicted, etc. However, I feel that there are general rules that have emerged and those have to do with the three qualities in the quote of mine that you posted. Of course, my personal opinion.
The other variable is the listener's preference. One may want a room that is more "dead", while another prefers a room with bass boost, etc.....
Lee
---- It is interesting to see the word "luck" surfaces often when we talk 'acoustic'.
Me too I stongly believe that luck is part of the overall equation; just like in recordings.
...Even the performances.
"Luck" as in 'magic'. :b
And how can you reproduce magic? ...By reinventing the process for a newer experience of the moment. ...A good listening room, a good pair of loudspeakers (Magico Q7), and not to forget, a good disposition* by the music listener himself; from quality recordings of course, and quality rig (preamp, amp, and source, with cabling).
* Relaxation (mental), and position (physical) too. ...Listener and all.
Last edited:
LEDE seemed be a favorite choice for some reason with 801 owners. Seemed like the worst of both worlds for this speaker.
Frantz,
Mostly because the number of variables is very large, making the situation very complex. The project of a listening room easily becomes chaotic - one simple mistake can compromise the whole project. When you have a very high number of variables, you have to consider some of them are not relevant, in order to create a solvable problem. It is here that we need experts with large experience.
Also although some people think that absorption and reflection are simple effects this is not true. As usual on sound reproduction matters, F. Toole has an excellent explanation why the typical coefficients of absorption and reflections are misleading when used in computations, specially in small and medium listening room simulations. I do not have the book now with me, but it is in the chapter "Acoustic materials and devices".
-- Now, "competent"; is that good enough?
Also, we don't even know yet all the "principles". I think.
Following good measurements is no ultimate assurance of good listening results; but you already know that Frantz.
- People like Mike, Stereo, Jack, Jeffrey, Bruce, Gary, Ethan, Roger, Nyal, Amir, and several other members here at WBF are on some solid tracks, I truly believe.
...I like their inputs, a lot.
Also, we don't even know yet all the "principles". I think.
Following good measurements is no ultimate assurance of good listening results; but you already know that Frantz.
- People like Mike, Stereo, Jack, Jeffrey, Bruce, Gary, Ethan, Roger, Nyal, Amir, and several other members here at WBF are on some solid tracks, I truly believe.
...I like their inputs, a lot.
Last edited:
Of course there are principles... but no principles will give you a guarantee of result: a room following the right principles will sound good for sure, but will it be good, very good or great? Even the best acoustician will tell you that there are always unknown variables, and that they cannot guarantee which level you will be able to achieve.
I had long discussions with my acoustician on why he cannot simulate everything on computer. He is of course doing that, but there are too many variables which have an impact to get reliable results, that's why he needs to spend 4 days in my room and do the tuning. For example, saying that you have 3 layers of plasterboard on wall is not enough: are these layers glued on each other or screwed? what is the distance between metal frames (the plasterboard wall will oscillate at low frequency, acting like a panel bass trap)? what is the density of used plasterboard? are you using an acoustic dampening layer between two layers of gypsum? Are the wall perfectly parallel or not? Same for windows: you may know glass construction, but how rigid is the frame, etc? It never ends....
But yes, quality of the acoustician makes a very big difference: you can improve significantly your chances of success.
Perhaps it's fair to say that using conventional principles, one can get the foundation necessary for good sound, then get great sound by individually tuning the room to account for its idiosyncrasies in sonic character? Variations in building materials, solidity of room foundations, etc. all can apparently affect the "calculated" outcome.
Lee
Lee
Based on this statement, I guess it's fair to say that's it's really silly to make a comment like: "Beautiful home, but the room looks like an acoustic nightmare," when you haven't heard the room and don't know anything about the building materials used or the solidity of room foundations. ;-)
You certainly seem to have it in for that statement (or me). I also made clear that I hadn't heard the space. Conventional thought would say that the large assymetry, high ceilings, and very live-appearing acoustic would present considerable problems and require much more extensive treatment with acoustic products. There's always the "luck" factor that has been described here.....
Lee
While there are many things that can create variations from the simulated metrics, in my experience, what constitutes a "pass" (may require more work) or "fail" (client dissatisfaction) often hinges in the level of communication between the acoustician and his client.
Often times it is forgotten that there are many listening purposes!
In my mind this utility comes even before preference. How will the room be used by the user? Will he be in one spot most of the time, will he be working/listening in a prescribed zone, will he be all over the place? Just this question alone would generate many possible design approaches. The acoustician needs to be able to determine the client's criteria to be able to set the deliverables. If there is guessing going on, this is where most of it happens.
Hi
In many things designing is that. Working on known principles to reach a product that satisfies the customer. If it were that you plug a few numbers and get a result we would not need designer for anything be it car, a plane or a pen. And indeed there are poor planes, poor pens, poor designs. .
I would expect the same for acoustics. Why I am pointing is that it is not a chance game. The way I have seen repeated here. No. if I have a room designed by people with excellent knowledge in acoustics and room designs, some are on this WBF e'g Keith Yates, Terry Montlick, Nyal Melior or Ethan Winer, etc it is likely to be a good room, extraordinary? I don't know, may depends. It simply won't be luck.
As for looking at a room and deciding if it is good or not. This is true but as in anything in life there are room that anyone with a modicum of information about acoustics would suspect of not sounding good. Of not being optimal.
Someone here suggested that the room response be known. That would be a start. a reviewer room, especially those reviewers of SOTA equipment should be known in intimate details. It is our rights to question the quality of a room and to suspect it, it seems to me that is the duty of the reviewers to assuage our suspicions.
Where in the East Coast USA can I audition the Q7?
In many things designing is that. Working on known principles to reach a product that satisfies the customer. If it were that you plug a few numbers and get a result we would not need designer for anything be it car, a plane or a pen. And indeed there are poor planes, poor pens, poor designs. .
I would expect the same for acoustics. Why I am pointing is that it is not a chance game. The way I have seen repeated here. No. if I have a room designed by people with excellent knowledge in acoustics and room designs, some are on this WBF e'g Keith Yates, Terry Montlick, Nyal Melior or Ethan Winer, etc it is likely to be a good room, extraordinary? I don't know, may depends. It simply won't be luck.
As for looking at a room and deciding if it is good or not. This is true but as in anything in life there are room that anyone with a modicum of information about acoustics would suspect of not sounding good. Of not being optimal.
Someone here suggested that the room response be known. That would be a start. a reviewer room, especially those reviewers of SOTA equipment should be known in intimate details. It is our rights to question the quality of a room and to suspect it, it seems to me that is the duty of the reviewers to assuage our suspicions.
Where in the East Coast USA can I audition the Q7?
No one is saying it is a chance game. But the probability of success seems to be low, its why people refer to luck. I would not consider that small room acoustics for stereo reproduction that we have solid principles. I researched the subject during some time and I found that the divergences between known experts are very large. And the best of them are naturally more interested in their business and customers than publishing principles, most of their work in proprietary. And even people who share similar ideas diverge a lot on the implementation.
Some people try to extrapolate the solid principles of large room acoustics to sound reproduction, a very different affair, but what most do is adapting the existing tools to help them, relying mainly on their empirical expertise - something we sometimes like to call an "art". All IMHO.
BTW, you refer that there are principles. Are you able to summarize them for us?
microstrip
I was about to reply with a glib answer. You don't deserve that. You are one serious audiophile, studious, ardent and somewhat indoctrinated but enthusiastic. I respect that. I am similar in some ways. Not all.
As an engineer I know very well that any design depends on the individual designers. There are various philosophies to achieve the same results; often they differ so much as to think they aren't from the same disciplin. Take cars, a Toyota engine clearly sounds different from a Nissan' their ways to approach engine designs is also different yet they both make cars, I like Toyotas some people prefer other cars. Same with Audio or Acoustics. Different designers see things differently and results may be to your liking or not.. Not a chance game, not a low rate of success with a good designer, if you go alone.. Your chance of success lessens. I believe there is a vast difference between informed and knowledgeable. I consider myself informed about acoustics,not a professional, not knowledgeable. AThis frames my disagreement about the low rate of success that you , now, call luck. Do I have statistics ? No! Do you?
As for summarizing the principles. No. Not necessary, seems to be a gotcha. I will not go there
Similar threads
- Sticky
