This statement is so general that it becomes intrinsically false. Unless we have all the details it just introduces noise in any decent discussion about room treatments. BTW If we want discuss room treatments we should focus on the proper way of doing them, not just enumerating the problems of a few anecdotal cases - every one is an expert on negatives.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
This statement is so general that it becomes intrinsically false. Unless we have all the details it just introduces noise in any decent discussion about room treatments. BTW If we want discuss room treatments we should focus on the proper way of doing them, not just enumerating the problems of a few anecdotal cases - every one is an expert on negatives.
I suspect Kedar has never heard the Beethoven 9th with Chorale live , hence the suggestion to advance to the last bits.
Congrats on finally getting your system and room to its current level Ron , panels are not only very temperamental to room treatments , but are also super response to the smallest of incremental movements making placement of your 4 towers Very difficult not only to the room , but also in relationship to each other.
Regards
Why do you feel this way? Do you think dipole panels are more temperamental to room treatments than are point source box loudspeakers?
Thank you!
No; that was inside joke. A bit too inside as it turned out.
I don't know. That frequency range is the cross-over range of the system, so it is a frequency range which naturally attracts suspicion.
I don't hear on my system the focus on that frequency range that I hear from the videos of Peter's system. But left to my own listening I don't think I would hear any issue.
If Al would like some more oomph in the lower midrange, then I'm sure he's right.
Yes they are , point source and line-source speakers are very different in how they interact with the room , then throw in dipole structure and let the games begin ..!
Regards
Now you are merely saying they are different. I agree they interact with the room differently.
Ron, what specific frequency range do you hear as a focus from my videos, and is it across different recordings?
If Al would like to hear more “oomph in the lower midrange” in your system, how does that relate to your concept of “your system’s center of gravity”?
They are different while being more temperamental than monopole’s ..!
Not only to the room but also to the amplification , Electrical phase angles , zmin /max et al ..!
Regards
Ron
What Romy said is upon the subjective hearing experience not objective measurements.
I have the same experience in my room.
I should say the tone damage in mid and high frequency is not just darkening sound and most acoustic panels destroy the tone (harmonics) , simple measurements does not tell you about tone quality.
I think I hear either an emphasis in the lower midrange or a de-emphasis in the treble range -- I do not know which it is.
(I go into detail about this in connection with David's Bionors in Post # 1,443, above.)
Al's comment tells me that he would like to hear a slightly lower sonic center of gravity.
Now you are interpreting the excerpt yourself. Even with your interpretation, the points in the excerpt are incomplete and misleading.
In my system I am not hearing that the mild absorption above 1000Hz is destroying the tone.
I agree that simple measurements do not tell us about tone quality. But I never suggested that simple measurements tell us anything more than about simple observed energy levels across the audio frequency range.
Thanks Ron. I reread that post to shed light on your comment about my videos, but do not really see the connection. It is an interesting post though. You wrote this:
"I am not trying to maximize naturalness and suspension of disbelief on acoustic instruments. I am trying to maximize naturalness and suspension of disbelief for a vocalist singing to me in my listening room. And for that, to my ears, the openness and transparency of planars gives me more towards believability on vocals than I lose from sacrificing the upper bass/lower midrange sonic center of gravity I enjoy so much, and which I find maximizes naturalness and tonal density and weight, on acoustic instruments."
Are you saying that acoustic instruments and a singer's vocal range cover different frequencies and should be approached differently or are separate goals? Do you have the impression that ddk and I prioritize the sound of acoustic instruments over voices and that our system's sound reflects that preference? Your post #1443 seems to suggest that. Voices have the same frequency range as some instruments. I want voices and all instruments to sound equally convincing on my system. Voices have naturalness and tonal density and weight too, just like acoustic instruments do. I see them as the same challenge.
The comment about a vocalist singing to you in your listening room is also interesting. What if the vocalist is at some acoustic venue such as a night club, a church, or up on stage in a hall somewhere? Do you still want a presentation telling you that he or she is singing to you in your room and not that you are there listening to him or her in the venue where the recording was made? If that is indeed the case, such a goal would likely affect how you treat your listening room. If you prioritize the sound of your room over the ambiance captured on the recording, you would want your room acoustics to overshadow the setting information embedded on the recording. In other words, you would not want your room to disappear, but instead to be clearly audible and to provide the backdrop acoustic for the singer.
Some of the room treatments I tried did indeed move the sound in this general direction. They absorbed much of the subtle, ambient information on the recording and did give me the impression that vocalists were very present in my room. They popped in front of me. It was a very high contrast type of sound with black backgrounds and that solo singer was right there at my fireplace singing for me.
I didn't hear that either. In fact, I reported on a harmonic completeness in the presentation that is rarely heard. The orchestral woodwinds alone were incredible in that respect.
As I wrote in my report, hall information on the recording is very much conveyed in Ron's presentation. There is nothing dry about it.