The State of High End Audio

[esldude]

Room correction was such a revelation. I am amazed when I hear people say they have heard it and didn't think it of benefit. WOW!

The only singular experience that matched it was the first time I heard some Quad ESL63's.

People speak with reverence of veil's being lifted. Room correction was like 50 veils being evaporated at once

It also was a case of hearing something, and immediately knowing it was more right than what went before.

 

[Purite Audio]

In my thread on the Linn Exakt system...http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Exakt-system-and-the-future-of-high-end-audio, there is some good info on the Linn Exakt DSP.
Someone at the audio meeting where Gilad Tiefenbrun was demo'ing the system, asked if it would be beneficial to utilize room acoustic treatments with the Linn system, to which Gilad said no need. I think he believed that they may even be detrimental with the Linn DSP system...and perhaps all DSP systems.

I find that statement if true, to be absolutely unbelievable, Linn's 'method' is half baked at best and to say that a room does not need passive treatment shows absolute ignorance .
For a CEO of an HiFi manufacturer to state that is truly unbelievable.
Keith.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Room correction was such a revelation. I am amazed when I hear people say they have heard it and didn't think it of benefit. WOW!

The only singular experience that matched it was the first time I heard some Quad ESL63's.

People speak with reverence of veil's being lifted. Room correction was like 50 veils being evaporated at once

It also was a case of hearing something, and immediately knowing it was more right than what went before.

Esl, I've heard the same spkrs in the same space, first w/out room correction, at a much later date with.
Undoubtedly the DRC did what it said on the tin, in taming room nodes and making integration much more seamless. But it IMHO took a bit away that I found hard to reconcile.
So a success in that the room was finally tamed, but I was left less excited by what I heard.

 

[Purite Audio]

Esl, I've heard the same spkrs in the same space, first w/out room correction, at a much later date with.
Undoubtedly the DRC did what it said on the tin, in taming room nodes and making integration much more seamless. But it IMHO took a bit away that I found hard to reconcile.
So a success in that the room was finally tamed, but I was left less excited by what I heard.

Actually I don't use DRCin the sense of Dirac, lthough I have experimented with it, you heard an EQ created by Christof Faller of Illusonic, not much ,just to tame the plus 25dB bass peaks!
Which I will admit do sound exciting!
But ultimately the sound quality I enjoy now is the best I have heard.
Keith

 

[Argonaut]

Esl, I've heard the same spkrs in the same space, first w/out room correction, at a much later date with.
Undoubtedly the DRC did what it said on the tin, in taming room nodes and making integration much more seamless. But it IMHO took a bit away that I found hard to reconcile.
So a success in that the room was finally tamed, but I was left less excited by what I heard.

Unfortunately my own experience with, and considerations of DRC, in my own room, entirely mirrors that of Marc's, in that whilst most effective in dealing with a couple of base nodes, the yang to that ying seemed to suck an element of the verve and vitality out of the midrange in particular, an unwanted side effect that I was not expecting.

 

[bonzo75]

DRC is like turntables. It depends on how well it is set up. For example, Keith uses the illusonic dac and phono, and doesn't use his ears. Marty uses audiophile dacs and phonos and then applies DRC in a much better room, and also uses his ears. Awesome. A guy whose Datasat system I heard is an expert in room acoustics and DRC set ups. His system definitely benefits. If I was to apply DRC in digital, I would download the Acourate ($400), and ask the designer to fly over from the EU, and do the set up himself. I am sure that will sound excellent, while I am quite sure I will screw it up.

 

[Rodney Gold]

considering that all outcomes of DRC are defined by a target or house curve , which is preference based , asking someone to do it for you will just mirror their taste.
You need to get involved and tune to taste.. just using auto target is just the first step.
Anyone saying room treatment is detrimental has no clue .. no DSP will get rid of 1st reflections , an overly lively room etc , however you can kill a room too with too much treatment.
I use DIRAC combined with parametric eq .. set the target curve I desire and then tweak tonality with the parametric section .. want more zing.. bump up 2-5k etc.

 

[Purite Audio]

Unfortunately my own experience with, and considerations of DRC, in my own room, entirely mirrors that of Marc's, in that whilst most effective in dealing with a couple of base nodes, the yang to that ying seemed to suck an element of the verve and vitality out of the midrange in particular, an unwanted side effect that I was not expecting.

I don't know which method of room correction you tried, but it is entirely possible to only 'correct ' part of the frequency spectrum, bass is always the worst culprit and leave the mids and high frequencies untouched.
Keith.

 

[Purite Audio]

DRC is like turntables. It depends on how well it is set up. For example, Keith uses the illusonic dac and phono, and doesn't use his ears. Marty uses audiophile dacs and phonos and then applies DRC in a much better room, and also uses his ears. Awesome. A guy whose Datasat system I heard is an expert in room acoustics and DRC set ups. His system definitely benefits. If I was to apply DRC in digital, I would download the Acourate ($400), and ask the designer to fly over from the EU, and do the set up himself. I am sure that will sound excellent, while I am quite sure I will screw it up.

Not quite true Ked, with the Illusonic processor the customer acoustically measures their room, with the Illusonic calibration software, Christof usually asks for around eight measurement from around the room including the 'sweetspot' , you then send those measurements away and Christof creates the EQ for your room, he is an expert.
You load the files and listen to the result, then you enter into a dialogue with Christof regarding the sound quality, if there is an aspect you don't like he just amends the EQ, you keep all the files and it is simplicity itself to switch between them
Also all the software in configurable by the indivuidual listener , I have listened with my 'ears' and made small adjustments, I then compare back to the original and any subsequent files.
The Illusonic and Christof's expertise has created the best sound quality I have ever enjoyed in my room, no question, partly this is due to the RPG Modex panels, but chiefly the Illusonic, SQ is far better than anything I achieved previously with my Trinnov or Dirac equipment.
Keith.

 

[bonzo75]

I have listened with my 'ears'
Keith.

Ok so we have a confession

 

[Purite Audio]

Ok so we have a confession

Software such as Dirac, Trinnov etc, set the initial correction for you, they use their proprietary algorithm , while I could have a stab at setting my own EQ with the Illusonic software it is extremely comforting to have a professional standing at your shoulder.
The EQ software is more complicated with far more parameters , it is really worth IMHO having a professionals help.
Keith.

 

[bonzo75]

Software such as Dirac, Trinnov etc, set the initial correction for you, they use their proprietary algorithm , while I could have a stab at setting my own EQ with the Illusonic software it is extremely comforting to have a professional standing at your shoulder.
The EQ software is more complicated with far more parameters , it is really worth IMHO having a professionals help.
Keith.

Yes but that was my point, it is complicated to set up, like a TT, so an EQ experience in one room or system cannot be generalized.

 

[FrantzM]

Yes but that was my point, it is complicated to set up, like a TT, so an EQ experience in one room or system cannot be generalized.

It actually can. Rooms like TTs are bound by the laws of Physics; something for some very odd reasons a good portion of audiophiles refuse to admit. Setting up a TT is not a crapshoot. It is a process with verifiable and deterministic results. Same with DRC. Once the system is reasonably smooth in term of frequency response at the desired listening position, it is then time to apply a house curve to make it more pleasant ... but try as I may I cannot fathom how 25 db variances in FR (common in untreated rooms) can be deemed acceptable. they shouldn't be.
The interesting thing about DSP/DRC (not the same thing but reasonably close ) is that it can be applied in the bass only. You make sure of erasing/removing/smoothing or more often lowering, the always deletrious contributions of the room in the bass and leave your precious rest of the spectrum intact. What is ratrher spectacular to spooky is that once the bass is cleaned and even with using a house curve (most often a gradual lifting of the bass frequencies) the rest of the spectrum is heard with more clarity up to the treble!! Almost disturbing ...

 

[amirm]

considering that all outcomes of DRC are defined by a target or house curve , which is preference based , asking someone to do it for you will just mirror their taste.
You need to get involved and tune to taste.. just using auto target is just the first step.

Agreed.

Anyone saying room treatment is detrimental has no clue .. no DSP will get rid of 1st reflections , an overly lively room etc..

There is little reason to kill first reflections. Some people prefer it that way but they are in minority. Sadly killing reflections is common advice in forums even though most people if they had the ability to do an A/B, would prefer the first (side) reflections to be there.

I mean who says if you are playing orchestral music that the sound should start and end where the loudspeaker is? Allowing side reflections allows the soundstage to widen toward the side reflection giving a much more correct idea of what we think the live event sounds like.

As to rooms being too live, most everyday listening rooms with a carpet on the floor, some bookshelves and seating are not too live. You do not need to add acoustic material to them. Here is an example that started off with an empty room and progression of reverberation time in the room as furnishings were added (top graph):

By the time those items were added, our RT60 was well in the desirable range at around 0.3 seconds at 500 Hz.

The graph below it shows the RT60 gathered from 600 living rooms in Canada. Once again we see that they average around 0.4 which is also within our target.

Adding acoustic material to such rooms will make them too dead while having little effect in bass frequencies where the problem is.

Now if you have an empty room with one chair, yes, you do need to treat it. That treatment can be furnishings or if you don't mind the look, acoustic products.

 

[ack]

There is little reason to kill first reflections.

I have to say, this flies in the face of everything I know, every speaker manual I have read (including most of ML's), and the two "audio setup" books that I have read. Don't wanna go into a deep argument, so I'll say I am actually thankful of this type of guidance given in online forums, books and manuals. Here's an excerpt from an ML manual:

The Side Walls

MartinLogan’s unique controlled dispersion electrostatic transducer inherently minimizes side wall reflections a position as little as two feet from the side walls often proves adequate.
A good practice is to have the side walls as far away from the speaker sides as possible. Sometimes, if the system is bright or the imaging is not to your liking, and the side
walls are very near, try putting curtains or softening material directly to the edge of each speaker. An ideal side wall, however, is no side wall at all.

Allowing side reflections allows the soundstage to widen toward the side reflection giving a much more correct idea of what we think the live event sounds like.

Never been my experience, and on the contrary, imaging suffers significantly with side reflections. Regarding both of these attributes, I often demo at home (where my speakers are far from side walls) a specific track that has a helicopter flying from the far right to the far left, about 3m away!, and ends up perpendicular to the listener facing the speakers, before it extinguishes.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Anyone saying room treatment is detrimental has no clue .. no DSP will get rid of 1st reflections , an overly lively room etc..

The problem is that you read my post too literally , what i mean is that there are areas DSP cannot cure..end of story..

 

[amirm]

I have to say, this flies in the face of everything I know, every speaker manual I have read (including most of ML's), and the two "audio setup" books that I have read. Don't wanna go into a deep argument, so I'll say I am actually thankful of this type of guidance given in online forums, books and manuals. Here's an excerpt from an ML manual:

Here is the side view of their demo at the show: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Coverage-of-Martin-Logan-Renaissance-Speakers

I don't see side absorbers.

We had a recent discussion on this that is rather short. See http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18451-Early-Reflections-101. And many references Klaus provided at the end. I can show you a hundred more .

Unless you have tested yourself in a controlled AB scenario to like absorption of side-reflections, I would say you should start with default position that you do like first reflections.

 

[amirm]

Anyone saying room treatment is detrimental has no clue .. no DSP will get rid of 1st reflections , an overly lively room etc..

The problem is that you read my post too literally , what i mean is that there are areas DSP cannot cure..end of story..

OK got it. And agree. Sorry about that .

 

[ack]

Here is the side view of their demo at the show: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Coverage-of-Martin-Logan-Renaissance-Speakers

I don't see side absorbers.

And neither do they have absorbers in the back (unlike the Neolith pictures you showed elsewhere); that doesn't mean they are correctly set up though, nor are they following their own manuals (reason I included their language). But that wouldn't be a first either for shows (lack of correct speaker set up), so I am dismissing this counter argument.

We had a recent discussion on this that is rather short. See http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18451-Early-Reflections-101. And many references Klaus provided at the end. I can show you a hundred more .

Unless you have tested yourself in a controlled AB scenario to like absorption of side-reflections, I would say you should start with default position that you do like first reflections.

I have tried every set-up you can imagine. Your claims that side reflections are desirable is the first one I have actually ever seen.

 

[Purite Audio]

And neither do they have absorbers in the back (unlike the Neolith pictures you showed elsewhere); that doesn't mean they are correctly set up though, nor are they following their own manuals (reason I included their language). But that wouldn't be a first either for shows (lack of correct speaker set up), so I am dismissing this counter argument.



I have tried every set-up you can imagine. Your claims that side reflections are desirable is the first one I have actually ever seen.

Toole and Olive are both keen on lateral reflections, if the speakers in question have a smooth and even off axis response, MLs are dipoles and therefore have little and uneven off axis behaviour.
Keith.