Natural Sound

[Rexp]

perhaps Hopkins can answer these questions about his priorities and what he thinks about recordings in his own system thread and relate them to his own system videos. Those things are a bit off topic in my system thread.

You don't think discussing how others achieve natural sound is relevant?

 

[tima]

You don't think discussing how others achieve natural sound is relevant?

Generally on WBF it is considered common courtesy to oblige the owner of his system thread.

 

[PeterA]

You don't think discussing how others achieve natural sound is relevant?

That is not what you asked him. You asked him about recording quality and then his priorities for getting good sound. Those are not the topic of my system thread. And no, I am not particularly interested in discussing how others try to achieve whatever sound they want from their systems here in my system thread. Why don't you ask Hopkins in his system thread about his goals?

 

[Rexp]

That is not what you asked him. You asked him about recording quality and then his priorities for getting good sound. And no, I am not particularly interested in discussing how others try to achieve whatever sound they want from their systems here in my system thread. Why don't you ask Hopkins in his system thread about his goals?

Ok then....

 

[Ron Resnick]

The key seems to be to identify issues, understand them, and figure out how to address them without loosing the energy and information that is in the room.

I have been thinking about your view that absorptive acoustic treatment tends to be bad because it absorbs energy from the playback of the recording.

But unless all six surfaces of a room are highly reflective we are starting with whatever is the natural absorption level of the wall materials and furniture and window treatments, and decorations, etc. Your wood walls and floor and couch and other items in the room have some absorptive properties to start with. So the reflection or absorption level of each of our rooms starts at a relatively arbitrary point.

Doesn't your aversion to absorption simply mean that you are happy with the current level of reflection/absorption you are experiencing in your room? Putting it differently I think that whether absorptive acoustic treatment absorbs musical energy in a deleterious way depends entirely on what level of reflection/absorption one is starting with in one's room -- in contrast to the view that adding absorption is always and necessarily deleterious to the sound.

 

[tima]

I have been thinking about your view that absorptive acoustic treatment tends to be bad because it absorbs energy from the playback of the recording.

But unless all six surfaces of a room are highly reflective we are starting with whatever is the natural absorption level of the wall materials and furniture and window treatments, and decorations, etc. Your wood walls and floor and couch and other items in the room have some absorptive properties to start with. So the reflection or absorption level of each of our rooms starts at a relatively arbitrary point.

Doesn't your aversion to absorption simply mean that you are happy with the current level of reflection/absorption you are experiencing in your room? Putting it differently I think that whether absorptive acoustic treatment absorbs musical energy in a deleterious way depends entirely on what level of reflection/absorption one is starting with in one's room -- in contrast to the view that adding absorption is always and necessarily deleterious to the sound.

What insight - a room is what it is.

I thought Peter was talking about using the furniture and materials in his room to attain a natural sound while retaining it as a living room. He's not prescribing or spouting golden truths. He was not talking about your room with all its treatments or anyone else's room. Why come to his system thread to be defensive?

Where in this thread does anyone espouse the view that "adding absorption is always and necessarily deleterious to the sound" ? Without some support for that claim, this is you putting words in his mouth -- it is yet another non-sequitur straw dog post meant to stir up trouble.

What I do no longer have are my audiophile room acoustic treatments. Al M. has dramatically reduced the number in his room as well based on listening. It’s not a dogmatic position, it is simply a decision reached by the owner by listening for preferred results.

Each room is different and may have different needs. A swimming pool swarm of reflections can't be good, and I am certainly not advocating for a dead sounding studio space. I have found that I prefer less absorption to more, that is all I'm saying. Start slow and go from there.

I am not saying that everyone, or even anyone has to remove name brand power cords and room treatments to achieve natural sound. I am saying that doing those things made my Sublime Sound (Magico Q3/Pass) system sound more natural.

It takes time to understand what is going on with the information retrieved from the records and how the system presents it, and then what the room is actually doing. The energy and information is here, now it is about fine tuning it for a more natural presentation. It takes time, and I am still learning. The key seems to be to identify issues, understand them, and figure out how to address them without loosing the energy and information that is in the room. I am doing this through furniture and window treatment adjustments, not by adding audiophile acoustic treatments to the walls or ceiling. For me, the room needs to be in harmony as a listening room and a formal and comfortable living room in which people want to hang out. That balance is the challenge.

 

[PeterA]

I have been thinking about your view that absorptive acoustic treatment tends to be bad because it absorbs energy from the playback of the recording.

But unless all six surfaces of a room are highly reflective we are starting with whatever is the natural absorption level of the wall materials and furniture and window treatments, and decorations, etc. Your wood walls and floor and couch and other items in the room have some absorptive properties to start with. So the reflection or absorption level of each of our rooms starts at a relatively arbitrary point.

After living with the ASC TubeTraps in my listening room, I came to realize they removed vital information from the sound presented by my system. They created a sound which was more enhanced with starker contrasts. Nuance and ambience were lost. It was a hi-fi type of sound and not natural. I sold all of those tube traps to a young recording engineer in Maine for his new studio. The result is my preference for my system in my room based on my goals and values learned from listening to live music.

Doesn't your aversion to absorption simply mean that you are happy with the current level of reflection/absorption you are experiencing in your room? Putting it differently I think that whether absorptive acoustic treatment absorbs musical energy in a deleterious way depends entirely on what level of reflection/absorption one is starting with in one's room -- in contrast to the view that adding absorption is always and necessarily deleterious to the sound.

I do not have a blanket aversion to all absorption. It depends on amount and location. I have a natural wool carpet over natural pad over wood floor, upholstered chairs, and leather sofa. The wall material is very heavy horsehair plaster over lath over post and beam construction. The type of windows and glass and window treatment is intensional. So was removing the glass from the frames of my artwork. I am now at the end of a two decade long learning process of fine-tuning this room.

Did you not hire an acoustic consultant expert for your room during the construction phase of your project? Didn’t you start with the room designed to be conducive to whatever goals you had in the beginning? You are not stuck with whatever room you inherited. Has she since visited and shared her opinion about the success of her design? Are you happy with the design? That is what matters.

I bought an old house and I’ve had the challenge of integrating my audio system into an existing room. I have experimented with a variety of approaches and I’ve learned a lot about what works for me. I am quite happy with the results as demonstrated in my most recent system videos.

people have all sorts of different approaches. I want a room that I enjoy spending time in. I don’t want to be surrounded by audio file acoustic treatments. Speaker position and seating location are critical. My new speakers fit into the corners. Once they were set into place and leveled, they are fixed. David adjusted position of my sofa slightly when he came to visit the first time. The rest was simply working with my furniture and the existing materials in the room until I reached a balance that sounded most natural. All decisions are based on listening judged against my reference.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What insight - a room is what it is.

I thought Peter was talking about using the furniture and materials in his room to attain a natural sound while retaining it as a living room. He's not prescribing or spouting golden truths. He was not talking about your room with all its treatments or anyone else's room. Why come to his system thread to be defensive?

Where in this thread does anyone espouse the view that "adding absorption is always and necessarily deleterious to the sound" ? Without some support for that claim, this is you putting words in his mouth -- it is yet another non-sequitur straw dog post meant to stir up trouble.

Sarcasm and incorrect assumption not necessary.

Thank you for finding these explanatory posts by Peter. These do answer my question.

 

[bonzo75]

I am a big believer in non dedicated listening rooms as well, as that is music. Dedicated rooms are sounds, and should only be used to protect yourself and your gear from kids and cats.

My dream room would be a giant warehouse style with massive dual FLH horns and a squat cage in the centre, and a kitchen and workstation. So you eat, work, workout all there with music

 

[PeterA]

Sarcasm and incorrect assumption not necessary.

Thank you for finding these explanatory posts by Peter. These do answer my question.

Ron, your post was full of assumptions, and they were incorrect. You could have read my posts more carefully to understand my approach and thinking on this topic. I actually addressed much of this in my Sublime Sound thread. I appreciate that Tim spelled it out for you with specific examples.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I do not have a blanket aversion to all absorption. It depends on amount and location. I have a natural wool carpet over natural pad over wood floor, upholstered chairs, and leather sofa. The wall material is very heavy horsehair plaster over lath over post and beam construction. The type of windows and glass and window treatment is intensional. So was removing the glass from the frames of my artwork. I am now at the end of a two decade long learning process of fine-tuning this room.

I bought an old house and I’ve had the challenge of integrating my audio system into an existing room. I have experimented with a variety of approaches and I’ve learned a lot about what works for me. I am quite happy with the results as demonstrated in my most recent system videos.

people have all sorts of different approaches. I want a room that I enjoy spending time in. I don’t want to be surrounded by audio file acoustic treatments.

The rest was simply working with my furniture and the existing materials in the room until I reached a balance that sounded most natural. All decisions are based on listening judged against my reference.

Thank you, Peter.

Aesthetics for a living room I totally understand. But aesthetics aside, I don't understand why the random absorption characteristics of various pieces of furniture is preferable to the linear and predictable absorption curve of an acoustic panel.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Did you not hire an acoustic consultant expert for your room during the construction phase of your project? Didn’t you start with the room designed to be conducive to whatever goals you had in the beginning? You are not stuck with whatever room you inherited. Has she since visited and shared her opinion about the success of her design? Are you happy with the design?

"You could have read my posts more carefully to understand my approach and thinking on this topic. I actually addressed much of this in my [system] thread."

-- PeterA

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am big believer in non dedicated listening rooms as well, as that is music.

music is made in many different kinds of rooms. mostly dedicated. it varies.

Dedicated rooms are sounds,

they can be, but don't have to be. the randomness of a living space can be ideal, or a mess. i'm sure in your travels you see both. but for large scale music a random living space is seldom ideal. but it can be if the user is inspired. no doubt FLH Horns need less precision from a room than dynamic speakers. and those type speakers are your focus anyway.

agree more often than not a dedicated room is not yet become mature at your point of visit, to your ears. i can relate to that.

and should only be used to protect yourself and your gear from kids and cats.

bears, elk, bobcats, politics.

My dream room would be a giant warehouse style with massive dual FLH horns and a squat cage in the centre, and a kitchen and workstation. So you eat, work, workout all there with music

i respect that is 'your' dream. for me the whole "married" thing sorta gets in the way of that ultimate 'one room' dream. my wife has other ideas. 49.6 years in she is always right.

my dream is a barn with a large dedicated room, kitchenette, sports watching spot with workout area, workstation and pool table area. living my dream.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you, Peter.

Aesthetics for a living room I totally understand. But aesthetics aside, I don't understand why the random absorption characteristics of various pieces of furniture is preferable to the linear and predictable absorption curve of an acoustic panel.

Ron, None of this is random. Why would you assume that? Everything is done with a purpose. I am driven by what I hear and judging, yes judging, that against my reference of live music. I’m sorry you don’t understand my approach and values. I am fine if you don’t except them. You have your own room and you can play with that and try to answer your questions according to your goals and your approach.

I asked you before if Bonnie has visited your room since it is now complete You hired her to address your room issues. It seems we have different approaches and that’s just fine.

We can follow your progress in your system thread if you choose to write about it.

 

[bonzo75]

“my dream is a barn with a large dedicated room, kitchenette, sports watching spot with workout area, workstation and pool table area. living my dream.”

my point is system should be in that one room. So if you donated me your barn I will just break down the internal walls and make it one.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

“my dream is a barn with a large dedicated room, kitchenette, sports watching spot with workout area, workstation and pool table area. living my dream.”

my point is system should be in that one room.

we see that differently. i choose not to do other things in my music listening room. no desk, or TV, or movies, or anything. it's my escape from everything.

So if you donated me your barn I will just break down the internal walls and make it one.

i'll let my kids know of your interest. they have not delivered to me any grandkids so maybe they might put you in line. but my daughter's love for her dog Stanley could be a problem for you.

 

[bonzo75]

i'll let my kids know of your interest. they have not delivered to me any grandkids so maybe they might put you in line. but my daughter's love for her dog Stanley could be a problem for you.

tell them I am willing to negotiate on the turntables I don’t need both. Any one

 

[Ron Resnick]

I asked you before if Bonnie has visited your room since it is now complete You hired her to address your room issues.

Bonnie has not visited since the room has been finished. Bonnie is wonderful, but I was a very difficult client for Bonnie, as my philosophy about a priori acoustic treatment changed during the consultation process.* I adopted only a portion of Bonnie's recommendations:

Adopted: blue jeans insulation in furred-out front wall
Adopted: blue jeans insulation in soffit cavities
Adopted: acoustic-thermal insulation in side-walls

Rejected: vinyl sheeting in front wall
Rejected: vinyl sheeting in side walls
Rejected: Lumitex under floor carpet
Rejected: Vibramat (with vinyl layer) under floor carpet
Rejected: Lumitex lined drapes on side walls and rear wall

*I now think that whatever sonic equation professional acousticians are solving for usually, if not always, results in over-damped, slightly lifeless listening rooms. I think it makes sense to build solid, rigid and structurally sound walls and floor and ceiling. I think natural brick and natural hardwood are good interior wall materials. But I am glad I did not build into the walls, floor and ceiling, and bake irreversibly into the cake, all of the absorption which was recommended to me.

 

[Audire]

Bonnie has not visited since the room has been finished. Bonnie is wonderful, but I was a very difficult client for Bonnie, as my philosophy about a priori acoustic treatment changed during the consultation process.* I adopted only a portion of Bonnie's recommendations:

Adopted: blue jeans insulation in furred-out front wall
Adopted: blue jeans insulation in soffit cavities
Adopted: acoustic-thermal insulation in side-walls

Rejected: vinyl sheeting in front wall
Rejected: vinyl sheeting in side walls
Rejected: Lumitex under floor carpet
Rejected: Vibramat (with vinyl layer) under floor carpet
Rejected: Lumitex lined drapes on side walls and rear wall

*I now think that whatever sonic equation professional acousticians are solving for usually, if not always, results in over-damped, slightly lifeless listening rooms. I think it makes sense to build solid, rigid and structurally sound walls and floor and ceiling. I think natural brick and natural hardwood are good interior wall materials. But I am glad I did not build into the walls, floor and ceiling, and bake irreversibly into the cake, all of the absorption which was recommended to me.

Ron your room is awesome! Rhapsody has beautiful looking mire natural type rooms as well.

My plans of a dedicated room were blown out of the water yesterday when the builder gave me his price - 400k extra. It’s not worth that!

 

[Carlos269]

*I now think that whatever sonic equation professional acousticians are solving for usually, if not always, results in over-damped, slightly lifeless listening rooms. I think it makes sense to build solid, rigid and structurally sound walls and floor and ceiling. I think natural brick and natural hardwood are good interior wall materials. But I am glad I did not build into the walls, floor and ceiling, and bake irreversibly into the cake, all of the absorption which was recommended to me.

Based on what I have seen and heard, I agree with you that these acoustician designed and implemented purposed built rooms usually result in over-damped, lifeless listening environments. This is a result of the overuse of absorbing materials. I see it all the time, rooms lined with bass traps and activated carbon. An even worst trend that I see is using absorption along the side walls, which is in essence an ill-advised band pass filter. Acoustics are a serious matter and creating eye pleasing designs has nothing to do with addressing real acoustical issues. The biggest flaw is the lack of consideration of the sound source and its characteristics. A room for an Omni speaker system will look a lot different than one designed for a line array system or point source systems. There is no one-size fits all in room acoustics so the results are usually less than optimal and fail to deliver on the investment, other than on aesthetics.