Have you tried tapestries?
I have one behind and between the speakers and a second on the wall behind the listening position
Work well for me, easier to hang than carpets and some lovely patterns/images available.
What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
Have you tried tapestries?
I have one behind and between the speakers and a second on the wall behind the listening position
Work well for me, easier to hang than carpets and some lovely patterns/images available.
I agree totally with all the earlier said here, but back off when it comes to the speaker - it is easier, yes, with particular types of speakers to get the believability happening, highly sensitive horns and such; but I have done this so many times with totally conventional, extremely boring box speakers and similar that it is a non-issue for me - and the invisibility of the speakers is total in this situation, it becomes impossible, in every sense, to pick where the speaker is. The invisibility of speaker, and the believability of the recorded event, are two sides of the one auditory behaviour ...
What you call believability Frank I call natural is a different goal or prioritization than absolutes and extremes of hifi reproduction. Yes, in this case with the right electronics you can achieve believable/natural sound from good average speakers and standard spaces. Of course one can take a modest believable/natural system to extremes but that's not what you're talking about, this is where I see confusion in some of the exchanges.
Not far fetched, you should be able to get that from any average recording, better ones will be better!
david
Thanks, David, for pointing this out. There are no absolutes. It depends on the room.
***
Having said that, I am afraid some here who have never felt the need to experiment with room treatment have made it about a false dichotomy of electronics vs. room. I have never seen anyone who emphasizes the importance of the room say anything other than it is both room and electronics. There is no either, or -- one vs. the other.
Thanks for the suggestion. Can you provide links that give me more of a concrete idea?
Thanks
Al
My only quibble with that is that if the electronics are not sufficiently sorted then attempting to use room treatments to resolve the qualities that are missing will always be a struggle, and IMO will always fail with certain types of recordings. On the other hand, a competent electronics chain will make magic happen, always, irrespective of the room ...
We've all been to live venues in great halls where the PA system sucked and venues where the acoustics makes you run for the nearest exit. To Frank's & John's point, I don't see them denying the role of acoustics only that electronics is where you start. There's no point in working on acoustics if your electronics aren't good, even if perfect the room can't change the nature of a nonmusical hifi system but you can get away with a musical system in an average, imperfect room.
david
Well... I've tested what's very close to the exact same speaker run on a baffle and in a waveguide (what I made is a low-gain short horn, really). On a baffle it needs some cone damping to correct for rising frequency response, but the waveguide was designed to linearize it. The waveguide easily wins in the ability to clearly convey fine details and spatial cues, the result is that the soundstage is a product of the recording and not the listening room. With a better dedicated room the gap would close considerably, but the truth is the speaker with the waveguide soundstages and images better than any conventional speaker I've ever experienced. It brings the believably to another level, especially in recreating live concerts. The reason is simple, more direct vs reflected sound, and a huge reduction in first reflections.
Of course I'll agree that all this is lost on electronics that aren't resolving enough, but otoh there's a lot of good equipment out there to choose from.
Precisely. Its not one vs. the other, electronics vs. acoustics.
Frank does, alas, and he keeps repeating his false point:
***
In broad terms I agree with that. You can't get away with it in a bad room.
You are missing the point. Room treatments only serve to alllow the electronics to shine, ot to shine even more. Room treatments cannot conjure qualities that are missing, indeed, but nobody here has ever claimed that.
I would agree that in a comparison of the very same drivers used on baffle, versus in waveguide, assuming equally competent assembly of each version, that the waveguide version would win, for a number of reasons. And your explanation of there being more direct sound, meaning that the contribution of the room acoustics to the total sound is less, would be a major part of it.
However, my experience is that if the direct sound is of high enough quality, intrinsically, then the room contribution is automatically compensated for, by the ear/brain. All those reflections are still there, but the brain is very easily accounting for them, and without conscious effort "hears past them". This is what happens as I tune a system, it starts with small, congested sound, trapped in the boxes, two squawking sources of music that are part of the room "noise"; as it improves the sound lifts out, expands, forms a coherent sound space stretching back from the speakers, until the room completely vanishes in the hearing; the acoustic space of the recording is totally dominant, there is no longer any sense of the room I am in being part of the sound event. During this progression the only things that are altered, by me, are the electricals that are activating the speaker drivers - the one exception to this is that I also go to significant effort to stabilise the speaker carcases, effectively tie them down to far heavier, inert structures.
If you sit closer to the speakers you get of course more direct sound as well. You can do this more easily with monitors than with large speakers of course, because of a minimum seating distance required for proper driver integration for large speakers.
Okay, what happens, for you, in a "bad room" with the sound from a recording you know well, in terms of how it comes across? Does it make it sound more "fake", or unpleasant - what disturbs you about the reproduction?
An Antipodean thought.
Nothing really new from me (after all, we are all more or less forcing open doors) but an attempt to synthesize the multitude of expressed views by others, under the prism of my own experiences. The room, as an integral component of the reproduction system, needs to be approached in the same way that we endeavour painfully to optimize our other components as a TOTAL system. But optimization need not be absolute, for this is impossible.
We pursue our optimization goals based on our knowledge, empirical or scientific (empirical in my case), preferences, budgets and our expectations demanded from our systems to satisfy our audio ideologies, even peculiarities. Believability is a function of many objective variables, not to mention subjective definitions\perceptions.
Assuming we have a room which is relatively conducive to good sound (mine is irregular and approximately 10 metres long, 5.4 wide and 3 high), and a competent system of high resolution and transparency - amongst other desirable parameters - AND if the elements in the recording which comprise believability EXIST, then REALISM, NOT REALITY is unquestionably feasible\attainable.
I've used this analogy before: A crow cannot be turned into a nightingale! ( see footnote 1). My perception of believability is based on my triptych: Amateur but dedicated player, recordist and listener. My collective system is more than capable - the recording is by far the weakest link - to offer me vividness, palpability, directness of expression, spatial and temporal resolution and an unforced energy and naturalness (mainly due to the intrinsic properties of the speakers) thus allowing me to immerse myself in the re-enactment of a musical event.
My methodically matched system is based around electrostatic speakers, forming an equilateral triangle with the "bittersweet" seating spot (see footnote 2), away from the rear wall. My non-scientific but musical ear tells me that my room does not produce nasty, unpleasant anomalies but I do not rule out further improvements. In summary, for the reasons already outlined, the recorded musicians are convincingly brought into my listening room, allowing me to be part of the event. Believable as the event is made to be, I have no delusions about it being the real thing. If I want musicians in person, I bring them to the same room to record them.
Footnote 1: fas42 often gives me the impression that he can perform miracles, i.e turning "crows" into "nightingales", either by extraordinary technical abilities or transcendental powers! How mediocre speakers can be turned into "nightingales" is beyond me. Believability is one thing, faith is another! By the way, I admire your conviction, implicit dedication and vigorous input for the enjoyment of our eclectic hobby. As we say in Greek, you are the parsley of our hobby!
Footnote 2: Similarly, most of my music is infused with bittersweet ingredients, whether vocal or instrumental.
Nothing really new from me (after all, we are all more or less forcing open doors) but an attempt to synthesize the multitude of expressed views by others, under the prism of my own experiences. The room, as an integral component of the reproduction system, needs to be approached in the same way that we endeavour painfully to optimize our other components as a TOTAL system. But optimization need not be absolute, for this is impossible.
We pursue our optimization goals based on our knowledge, empirical or scientific (empirical in my case), preferences, budgets and our expectations demanded from our systems to satisfy our audio ideologies, even peculiarities. Believability is a function of many objective variables, not to mention subjective definitions\perceptions.
Assuming we have a room which is relatively conducive to good sound (mine is irregular and approximately 10 metres long, 5.4 wide and 3 high), and a competent system of high resolution and transparency - amongst other desirable parameters - AND if the elements in the recording which comprise believability EXIST, then REALISM, NOT REALITY is unquestionably feasible\attainable.
I've used this analogy before: A crow cannot be turned into a nightingale! ( see footnote 1). My perception of believability is based on my triptych: Amateur but dedicated player, recordist and listener. My collective system is more than capable - the recording is by far the weakest link - to offer me vividness, palpability, directness of expression, spatial and temporal resolution and an unforced energy and naturalness (mainly due to the intrinsic properties of the speakers) thus allowing me to immerse myself in the re-enactment of a musical event.
My methodically matched system is based around electrostatic speakers, forming an equilateral triangle with the "bittersweet" seating spot (see footnote 2), away from the rear wall. My non-scientific but musical ear tells me that my room does not produce nasty, unpleasant anomalies but I do not rule out further improvements. In summary, for the reasons already outlined, the recorded musicians are convincingly brought into my listening room, allowing me to be part of the event. Believable as the event is made to be, I have no delusions about it being the real thing. If I want musicians in person, I bring them to the same room to record them.
Footnote 1: fas42 often gives me the impression that he can perform miracles, i.e turning "crows" into "nightingales", either by extraordinary technical abilities or transcendental powers! How mediocre speakers can be turned into "nightingales" is beyond me. Believability is one thing, faith is another! By the way, I admire your conviction, implicit dedication and vigorous input for the enjoyment of our eclectic hobby. As we say in Greek, you are the parsley of our hobby!
Footnote 2: Similarly, most of my music is infused with bittersweet ingredients, whether vocal or instrumental.
Thanks for nothing, mate !!
No miracles or speakers were injured in the posting of my thoughts ... the opposite is actually true, nightingales are forced to wear the robes of robes, by virtue of not being fed right - the fact that most speakers sound mediocre is not their core nature, I have had to dig pretty low to find examples which could not be rescued. IOW, nearly all speakers out there are good enough to produce believable sound, but are hamstrung by deficiencies elsewhere - the process is to resolve those deficiencies ...
A side note: the audio friend locally started with some tiny Tannoy boxes, finally got some "real"
speakers, by Naim - and chucked the Tannoys in the bedroom, to be used with the TV, etc. Then through circumstances he needed to get some music happening in the shed, used those boxes for that, then ended up having a fairly decent front end available to drive them, and thought, lets see what happens if I do a bit of fiddling. Lo and behold, the shed system now sounds better than the house system, in all the areas that matter - beats the Naim config quite soundly! Why? Because it's hard for him to play with tweaking the main system because of family activities, etc - the little Tannoys are now where the action is ...
In mine and many others opinion , The room / speaker interface and speakers is the most important thing in audio.. a well and properly treated room and judicious care in speaker selection , speaker positioning and listening position setup will trump any minor change electronics make.. and will reveal whatever changes the electronics do make..
I have gone thru many levels of room treatment and DRC etc.. and the better you get it all , the more the suspension of disbelief that you are listening to hifi is lifted and in general the better the soundstage and imagery which both contribute to realism.
If you are serious about your listening , you would not dismiss either room/speaker acoustics or the equipment used to generate the signal. It is a combined approach with careful attention to both that is needed.
I have gone thru many levels of room treatment and DRC etc.. and the better you get it all , the more the suspension of disbelief that you are listening to hifi is lifted and in general the better the soundstage and imagery which both contribute to realism.
If you are serious about your listening , you would not dismiss either room/speaker acoustics or the equipment used to generate the signal. It is a combined approach with careful attention to both that is needed.
Hi Al
Mine came from AllPosters.co.uk and I just checked their site and they have about 200 available in a range of designs.
I am sure there will be similar US outfits and I seem to remember from a TV programme that the Amish community has a very high reputation for making very highly regarded tapestries. There was a particular craft fair each year which attracted a lot of buyers but I can't remember where exactly, but there is bound to be something on the net.
Kind regards,
Barry
I have never used room treatments, so I'm curious whether it does anything for the LIAR test - Listening In Another Room. When the electronics are sufficiently sorted this is easily passed, meaning believable sound is perceived anywhere in listening range, inside and out of the home ... does highly refined room optimising also pay dividends in this respect?
