That must mean I’m only half a man as I measure at 115vReal men have a voltmeter and we measure at 230 V
The argument for/against room treatment
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
One of the reasons I use a Balanced Isolation transformer which accounts for load by using a tap with a couple of volts higher to account for voltage sag, that and the benefits of CMR.Only exceptionally or with poor quality / underpowered regenerators. Most of us do not have kilowatt Krell's!
People should get an AC voltmeter and measure the difference in their mains voltage when they switch a 5A load on and off. Many will be horrified with the result.
It all depends on the room and the speakers interaction with it. I used diffusion and absorption panels with good results to treat side reflections and behind the listening seat. Yet I try to avoid using treatments whenever possible as they can unbalance the overall sound, IME.
I currently have my speakers out into the room and seated closer to the speakers than they are far apart.
Not quite Nearfield, but enough to cut out the room anomalies with an opened wide soundstage.
Every room setup is as different as the listeners preferences and expectations.
Tri-Panels, with three o-called reflector strips (for diffusion), hence the name.
They are not in their regular product catalog anymore, but look like cinema panels,
Cinema Panel - Acoustic Sciences Corporation
Designed For Home Theaters ...but useful in any application where appearance is of the utmost importance. Repeated requests from Architects inspired our R & D department to design a sound absorbing panel which met three goals: 1) bring sonic and visual calmness, 2) blend well into a home...
www.acousticsciences.com
Yet the latter have only two reflector strips, if I remember correctly. I custom-ordered my ceiling diffusers with three reflector strips rather than the usual two as well. If I need more Tri-Panels, I can also custom order these. ASC are very flexible.
I see. IMHO we can't call them of diffusion panels - three reflector strips do not work as proper diffuser. As you say, they are an absorber with three strips for reflection.Tri-Panels, with three o-called reflector strips (for diffusion), hence the name.
They are not in their regular product catalog anymore, but look like cinema panels,
Cinema Panel - Acoustic Sciences Corporation
Designed For Home Theaters ...but useful in any application where appearance is of the utmost importance. Repeated requests from Architects inspired our R & D department to design a sound absorbing panel which met three goals: 1) bring sonic and visual calmness, 2) blend well into a home...
Yet the latter have only two reflector strips, if I remember correctly. I custom-ordered my ceiling diffusers with three reflector strips rather than the usual two as well. If I need more Tri-Panels, I can also custom order these. ASC are very flexible.
Correct. A broadband absorber with what amounts to a scatter plate in front of it in order to taper the amount of high frequency absorption.
Except that the reflector strips are below a woven fabric, so the overall effect is probably more diffusion than reflection, certainly 'hard' reflection.
Here is info from the ASC website:
https://www.acousticsciences.com/products/sound-panel
"The Sound Panel provides absorption from 200Hz up through the entire treble range. Like other ASC products, a built-in reflector strip is used to maintain diffusive ambience."
Thanks. Tim, for finding this link in my youtube page. Duh?
A lot of times these links don't exist in the youtube page and even when I see one I've never clicked on one. On the other hand, there's been a few times where I've gone out to youtube to search for comparable videos. But it's only been for 50's thru 70's recordings like Miles Davis, Dianna Ross, etc. And in those cases, I've always been more impressed with my recordings and sometimes by a wide margin than what I've found elsewhere. Not this time.I love this little gem Miller's Dance and I was both excited and a bit disappointed to listen to the one you provided. Yes, you are correct about the very soft blat of a tuba at the 36 sec mark not to mentioin a handful of other softer nuanced blats of a tuba throughout that I'm unable hear on my own. The more pronounced tuba notes I do hear on my own recording but still not as distinct. I see in the picture there appears to be at least one barritone horn. I don't know much about instruments. But overall, my recording seems predominantly trumpet nuanced by a few other horns. On "yours", predominantly trumpet but with more pronounced and distinct accentuations of the other horns. Overall, "yours" has greater timbral accuracy, better note delineation, greater distinction between types of horns, more overall clarity, and I'm sure I'm overlooking a thing or two.
At first I thought of my recording being a counterfeit to "your" recording i.e. a recording of a recording, and found some initial relief with that, but late last night I listened on my system again and recorded it and when listening in-room I still did not hear these nuances I heard on "yours". BTW, that's a bit of a testament to the accuracy / fidelity of what the iPhone / Shure MV88 recording mic and what they do capture. Even so, it was exciting to hear and a bit disappointing.
Hearing these differences, a few thoughts raced thru my mind including but not limited to:
1 My equipment is rather inexpensive. At some point that rooster could come home to roost and this could be that time.
2. A few AC-related shortcomings.
3. To the best of my knowledge, my biggest known deficiency at this time is my VMPS RM-40 speakers, though quite musical, are not tightly coupled to the subflooring but rather are only resting on the carpet via their flat base. Designer Brian Cheney did not believe in coupling speakers so I've no reasonably easy means to do so in a sufficient way. Not to mention these little beasts weigh 240 lbs each. A while back I had designed a new base to allow for coupling to the floor but I've yet to have the apparatus machined. I'm a huge fan of tighly coupling everything I can get my hands on and with prior speakers I had received an arbitrary 8 - 13% overall improvement. Assuming 5% improvement is barely audible. It's possible that some of what I'm missing in my playback system might be found there, but I doubt all of is.
4. Maybe I need acoustic treatments? Nah.
Regardless, I'm glad you found this as it was a good and bad eye opener. You have a good ear and good patience sir, and I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate. I put my latest recording side by side with "yours" for easier comparisons.
Anyway, excellent exercise for me and thanks again for your effort.
BTW, for those interested in recognizing what a raised noise floor does to a playback presentation, listen to the opening 3 seconds on both recordings. Mine is louder, more distorted, seemingly bigger or even a bit exaggeration - almost whincing/fatiguing with a bit of breakup but not so with the original. IME, those are the exact symptoms of poorly managed electrical energy that leads to a much raised noise floor. I can play many torturous pieces such as some opera or choral where any breakup becomes greatly diminished or even seemingly non-existent. Having experienced hundreds of smaller but still distinct improvements in just this one system, I can point to many pieces where such breakup seems to disappear a bit more with each little improvment. I consider this a rather torturous 3 second piece.
Last edited:
Thank you for posting these two videos side by side. That's quite a contrast, but there are so many variables that might account for the differences. The latter sounds damped as though the energy and information is not getting through to the listening/recording location. How is the first recording made? Is it simply the output of the DAC being recorded without the rest of a system/room to interfere? Is it the same recording?
As this is a thread about room treatment, I would love to hear some comparison videos of the same system in the same room with and without various treatments. Surely the differences would be picked up on the iPhone device.
As this is a thread about room treatment, I would love to hear some comparison videos of the same system in the same room with and without various treatments. Surely the differences would be picked up on the iPhone device.
Well, an acoustic diffusor is not a device that "is used maintain diffusive ambience". It is a lot more than that.
Unfortunately a proper diffusor needs considerable depth and distance to the source, something that is hard to get in most rooms. For a quick great presentation on room design evolution, sound treatment devices and acoustical distortion we can look at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiiyNXQs4XvAhUD3IUKHRcDD7QQFjAAegQIARAD&url=https://www.rpgacoustic.com/documents/2016/09/media-room-design.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2bO45s1g3KjRWjSnCiCyBm
People have very different ideas on how to deal with primary reflections in stereo, so we can expect very different views on acoustic treatments.
Wow, what a thread. Oddly it only adds concern to the concept of propper room setup. It seems to me getting the acoustic wave launch correct is very hard. First you have speaker placement. Once you have that you add some room treatments. But where, what and how much. Once you have some in, you probably need to readjust the speakers. And then the room treatments are probably wrong. So again where, what and how much.
My part of the industry is electrical. It's cut and dry. There are better ways to apply the electrical foundation that always yield improvements in power delivery and noise floor. The same holds true for the digital foundation. When you have those two right, it will impact how you perceive the room/speaker interaction. So maybe they need to be re-adjusted after the foundation power is optimized.
Conditioning is much more subjective. There probably is noise on your power, but how much and what type. Even with thousands of dollars of Powerlogic and Ion meters, I can see there is noise, but I have little ability to focus in on exactly what it is. And then there is the issue of, is your equipment already handling it or not. And more important, how much impact will a conditioner have on your equipment. FWIW I consider cryogenic treatment a conditioner. At this point in time.
I believe in the philosophy that a well appointed room with a well appointed foundation of power and digital will yield positive results every time. But either require an expert technician to get it done quickly and to a budget. If you go it on your own, and your persistent, and use sound analysis techniques, you will eventually get it petty much right. But it's going to be a bunch of trial and error. Which seems to be the experience of most everyone posting here.
My part of the industry is electrical. It's cut and dry. There are better ways to apply the electrical foundation that always yield improvements in power delivery and noise floor. The same holds true for the digital foundation. When you have those two right, it will impact how you perceive the room/speaker interaction. So maybe they need to be re-adjusted after the foundation power is optimized.
Conditioning is much more subjective. There probably is noise on your power, but how much and what type. Even with thousands of dollars of Powerlogic and Ion meters, I can see there is noise, but I have little ability to focus in on exactly what it is. And then there is the issue of, is your equipment already handling it or not. And more important, how much impact will a conditioner have on your equipment. FWIW I consider cryogenic treatment a conditioner. At this point in time.
I believe in the philosophy that a well appointed room with a well appointed foundation of power and digital will yield positive results every time. But either require an expert technician to get it done quickly and to a budget. If you go it on your own, and your persistent, and use sound analysis techniques, you will eventually get it petty much right. But it's going to be a bunch of trial and error. Which seems to be the experience of most everyone posting here.
That is a lot of information from RPG! I'll be looking at that for a while. The SoundPlank is basically a thin broadband absorber panel. The reflective strip has been added with feedback from audiophiles so that it doesn't overly absorb the treble. Since the strip is thin the sound diffracts around it's edges and gets scattered. The planks are designed also to be spaced apart so there is some reflection off the wall between the planks. Overall you get a partially absorptive, partially reflective and diffusive effect.
Tim,
Diffraction is not just scattering. It in order to create a diffusive ambience you need an appropriate pattern of scattering that must spread along the bandwidth. A few strips at the zone of at the first reflection point are not diffusing them. People can enjoy the effect, but it is not a diffusor. I think that the strips in the ASC panels are mostly a way of avoiding absorption in such zones.
In my room I have a few RPG Diffractal panels in the front wall - they are effective because the distance between speakers and wall is around 6 feet. What are you exactly the limits of what you are calling "broadband"?
I agree this is a great exercise and I'm glad you posted these videos. Some say it's pointless to post a youtube video of a system playing but I would strongly disagree. Certain things can be revealed. I suppose I should try recording my system but I'm terrified of what I'll hear! I don't have a good stereo microphone right now so that's my excuse. No really, I should get a decent stereo mic. and do it. Could be very informative.Thanks. Tim, for finding this link in my youtube page. Duh?
I love this little gem Miller's Dance and I was both excited and a bit disappointed to listen to the one you provided. Yes, you are correct about the very soft blat of a tuba at the 36 sec mark not to mentioin a handful of other softer nuanced blats of a tuba throughout that I'm unable hear on my own. The more pronounced tuba notes I do hear on my own recording but still not as distinct. I see in the picture there appears to be at least one barritone horn. I don't know much about instruments. But overall, my recording seems predominantly trumpet nuanced by a few other horns. On "yours", predominantly trumpet but with more pronounced and distinct accentuations of the other horns. Overall, "yours" has greater timbral accuracy, better note delineation, greater distinction between types of horns, more overall clarity, and I'm sure I'm overlooking a thing or two.
At first I thought of my recording being a counterfeit to "your" recording i.e. a recording of a recording, and found some initial relief with that, but late last night I listened on my system again and recorded it and when listening in-room I still did not hear these nuances I heard on "yours". BTW, that's a bit of a testament to the accuracy / fidelity of what the iPhone / Shure MV88 recording mic and what they do capture. Even so, it was exciting to hear and a bit disappointing.
Hearing these differences, a few thoughts raced thru my mind including but not limited to:
1 My equipment is rather inexpensive. At some point that rooster could come home to roost and this could be that time.
2. A few AC-related shortcomings.
3. To the best of my knowledge, my biggest known deficiency at this time is my VMPS RM-40 speakers, though quite musical, are not tightly coupled to the subflooring but rather are only resting on the carpet via their flat base. Designer Brian Cheney did not believe in coupling speakers so I've no reasonably easy means to do so in a sufficient way. Not to mention these little beasts weigh 240 lbs each. A while back I had designed a new base to allow for coupling to the floor but I've yet to have the apparatus machined. I'm a huge fan of tighly coupling everything I can get my hands on and with prior speakers I had received an arbitrary 8 - 13% overall improvement. Assuming 5% improvement is barely audible. It's possible that some of what I'm missing in my playback system might be found there, but I doubt all of is.
4. Maybe I need acoustic treatments? Nah.
I have recorded my system playing a test track we use called the MATT.
Online MATT Test | The Listening Test
Art Noxon comes back to AudioCheck with more information about all the things we can do with the MATT test in the context of a listening test.</em>
www.audiocheck.net
Last edited:
The SoundPlanks provide absorption from about 200Hz on up. Agreed, a good sound diffuser should cover an appropriate bandwidth and will require reasonable distances to produce the intended effect. I'm not sure who gets to decide how well a device that causes sound to be scattered in a way less related to the angle of incidence has to work before it can be officially called a diffuser. I guess you have to decide what the operating frequency range needs to be and then how even the reflected response has to be over a specified range of angles. An ideal diffuser would reflect the exact same tonal balance of any sound that struck it off to a range of directions relative to the incident angle while maintaining perfect impulse response in each direction. A huge polycylindrical that was far enough away might pull it off. Fortunately, a good diffuser just has to work well enough to create a marked improvement in listening enjoyment.
Peter, indeed there is quite a contrast. I've no idea how the Telarc version was uploaded but my hunch is the track is a direct upload excluding any DAC processing or anything else potentially corrupting it. It would be nice to get the exact file size of their uploaded file size minus any video bytes I'm sure that's not possible. If it's the same file as my own, my guess is that version is the "holy grail" version, minus any loss primarily at our earbuds / headphones. Perhaps another testament to the value of some earbuds, headphones, videos in general, etc? FWIW, I only use Apple's wired earbuds.
I would not use the word damped for how my recording sounds unless you're thinking muffled perhaps? To me muffled is a distortive masking much like speaking into your cupped hands or better yet, listening to one speaking thru a mask i.e. Covid where one can still hear much articulation but much has also been muzzled or muffled. That I would agree with. But I think the more generic term "hi-fi sound" is much more applicable when compared to the original. Loss of clarity, musicality, breakup at the 3 second intro, difficulty discerning various horn types, loss of distinction, initial attacks diffused or muffled, nuances lost, etc, etc. And I'm guessing had I not performed what I consider some due diligence on the electrical energy sector it would only sound significanly more "hi-fi" than it does here. I'm guessing when compared to the origianl, my only potential saving grace here is not all but still an abundance of ambient info seems to has remained audible.
Indeed there are many variables but I'm guessing the Telarc track is the exact same track I own. If so, then the variables can at least be limited to anywhere from the source to the speakers including the electricity that powers them. Of course, that would include cross-overs, wiring, speaker drivers themselves, ic's, sc's, PC's, LC's, incoming dirty AC to power everything, as well as the furthering of electrical corruption all along the signal path, etc.
Notice also how nobody has mentioned our computer or smartphones as being any part of this compromise in fidelity? I think it's another testament on what can be consistantly sufficient and trusted to some degree for in-room and youtube videos.
Very telling story in my opinion. Still does not change my opinion of custom rooms / acoustic treatments one iota. Thank goodness.
Last edited:
No the answer is not blowing in the wind ... Fortunately acoustic researchers and scholars have a precise idea on this aspect.
Unfortunately it seems that for audiophiles anything goes ... IMHO it is one of the reasons so many people are disappointed with audio treatments.
BTW, I consider highly the ASC products - I have owned a few in the past. However I think we should call devices by the proper names.
Indeed, it was a good exercise and I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. High-end audio is never a destination but a journey as we can always strive toward better counterfeiting the original but never equaling it. Surprisingly I don't find my highly-rated Shure MV88 ($150) stereo condenser mic built for the iPhone to really be all that much better a mic than my iPhone's built-in mic, except that it's stereo and it provides greater consistency.
Just because I appreciate your time and efforts and ears, does not imply I'm going to agree with you on everything.I have recorded my system playing a test track we use called the MATT.
It's basically a sweep through the bass and lower midrange but it's in quick tone bursts instead of continuous. You can hear each burst clearly on headphones but almost never do all the bursts come through clearly when listening to speakers in a typical room. If you add some bass absorption it can get a lot better.Online MATT Test | The Listening Test
Art Noxon comes back to AudioCheck with more information about all the things we can do with the MATT test in the context of a listening test.</em>
For example. IME, a playback system's speed / quickness also has everything to do with components and system's noise floor in general. Any recording can be used to demonstrate as the more "cloudy" or corrupted a playback system is the more it will give the perception of a slower tempo. A seemingly slower tempo is where there becomes less distinction between notes. A note's initial attack becomes less distinct, softened, muffled, or otherwise subdued where it can almost seem like the notes actually start running into the next, the tempo will sound slower though the time of the entire track remains the same.
I could easily refer back to my Miller's Dance compared to Telarc's Miller's Dance but some recordings will demonstrate this easier than others.
And I just don't see how any acoustic treatments can compensate for a playback system's lack of speed / quickness.
I don't doubt that acoustic treatments can seemingly improve a playback presentation. However, if the playback system itself generates shortcomings (inaudible or corrupted music info) I just can't see the logic where acoustic treatments of any sort can restore any of that music info lost or corrupted. That would truly be a really neat trick because to the best of my knowlede such technology to restore / correct what's missing or corrupted has not been invented. Rather I can only envision acoustic treatments make an existing playback presentation more listenable. In which case acoustic treatments can only compensate for the effects (what we hear) and not actually address the cause at the playback system. IMO of course.
No, I did not say it. Please read my post again and if possible correct your post. I said "my house mains is very stable ". It would be ridiculous questioning the use of the "clean mains "as being ambiguous and meaningless and using it immediately.
I will come to your long and interesting post later.
Microstrip, I'm curious if you're still hanging on to the theory that your house mains is very stable? If so, what evidence do you have to support your theory?
Similar threads
