Speaker audition

[Josuah]

I use semi-rigid fiberglass panels, and many of them, plus other various acoustic treatments in my primary setup. The acoustic improvement is very obvious--walking from the adjacent room into this room echo is seriously lessened and you can hear an immediate difference in how your voice sounds.

I am a fan of absorption. Many companies' acoustic treatment products are more around diffusion, or very limited in absorption, and therefore not particularly effective for what I try to accomplish with room treatments.

 

[PENG]

I use semi-rigid fiberglass panels, and many of them, plus other various acoustic treatments in my primary setup. The acoustic improvement is very obvious--walking from the adjacent room into this room echo is seriously lessened and you can hear an immediate difference in how your voice sounds.

I am a fan of absorption. Many companies' acoustic treatment products are more around diffusion, or very limited in absorption, and therefore not particularly effective for what I try to accomplish with room treatments.

I don't think anyone (excluding my friend whose name starts with A) is saying room treatment is not needed. I think some people, a few, are over emphasizing a little about the point that speakers can be designed to sound good without room treatment, or in any rooms.

 

[Alex2507]

some here aren't smart enough to grasp the concept

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think DS-21, AJ, & I are just agreeing with Siegfried Linkwitz that perhaps room treatments are being overemphasized and in some cases over dramatized.

If your room has an eco, then you do need to do something about that.

But you don't need to "treat" a room just because some people think every single room needs "treatment".

Exercise moderation. As someone already says, what are you trying to treat or improve?

If you are trying to treat an eco or some adverse sound effect, room treatment is necessary.

But not all forms of treatments are the same and not every room needs treatment.

As DS-21 says, not everyone needs "panels". Some people just need more carpet, curtains, drapes, sofas, etc. Siegfried Linkwitz says the same.

 

[psbfan9]

The demo equipment is set up in a large foyer with glass, at least 20 feet high, on two sides and an open space on the right that leads to another open room. The speakers looked to be about one foot from the 'untreated' back wall. I felt the wall to see if it had been treated with panels. It was painted drywall, no fabric or panels.
I think the speakers were toed to the degree they were, 45 degrees plus in my opinion/estimation, so the sound would be more directed toward the listening position. There was a leather couch about ten feet away in the middle of the room and no other furniture.

In the listening room, where I heard the S8's, the walls, all the walls, were treated with what seemed to be panels and not just fabric over the walls.

 

[psbfan9]

+1. I fully believe my wife's rim shots are 125db at a couple of meters. I often wear ear plugs for her gigs, so peaks levels are easily over 106db, which is the loudest I've measured in my listening room.

Do you have a youtube video of your wife playing a gig?

 

[Nuance AH]

I think DS-21, AJ, & I are just agreeing with Siegfried Linkwitz that perhaps room treatments are being overemphasized and in some cases over dramatized.

If your room has an eco, then you do need to do something about that.

But you don't need to "treat" a room just because some people think every single room needs "treatment".

Exercise moderation. As someone already says, what are you trying to treat or improve?

If you are trying to treat an eco or some adverse sound effect, room treatment is necessary.

But not all forms of treatments are the same and not every room needs treatment.

As DS-21 says, not everyone needs "panels". Some people just need more carpet, curtains, drapes, sofas, etc. Siegfried Linkwitz says the same.

Even if your room doesn't exhibit an issue above 300Hz, Toole’s recommendation is still that too many or too few reflections can be a problem. In particular, acoustic absorption, diffusion, and reflection must be broadband, ideally starting below 200Hz. Most rooms will benefit from treatment below the Schroeder Frequency, especially if they aren't implementing subwoofers and PEQ. Linkwitz is a smart guy, but so are Toole and Olive. The latter continuously studied this very subject, performed case studies, wrote white papers, and Toole even wrote a book dealing with it. Believe who you want, but his findings speak for themselves. Your own experiment proves the room was at play (reflections), and by increasing the angle of toe-in you reduced its affects. Your new buddy DS-21, though claiming it wasn't the room, even admitted that moving the speakers changed the reflections (thus proving he contradicted himself). The design of the speaker will play a large role in how the acoustics mingle with the sound and whether treatment is extremely helpful or only a little helpful, but even your Orions would benefit from broadband treatment below the Schroeder Frequency; I'd bet even Linkwitz agrees with this, especially considering he highly praises Toole's book. If you want to side with a narcissistic lunatic instead of a true genius on the matter (Floyd Toole), go for it.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Do you have a youtube video of your wife playing a gig?

No, but PM sent.

 

[DS-21]

Even if your room doesn't exhibit an issue above 300Hz, Toole’s recommendation is still that too many or too few reflections can be a problem. In particular, acoustic absorption, diffusion, and reflection must be broadband, ideally starting below 200Hz. Most rooms will benefit from treatment below the Schroeder Frequency, especially if they aren't implementing subwoofers and PEQ. Linkwitz is a smart guy, but so are Toole and Olive.

And so is Geddes. He says basically the same thing that Linkwitz does, except that he liked to build actually useful bass traps: whole false walls.

Your new buddy DS-21, though claiming it wasn't the room, even admitted that moving the speakers changed the reflections (thus proving he contradicted himself).

I contradicted nothing. You consistently make these bizarre claims about my words that have no basis in my actual writings whatsoever. Are you communicating in your first language?

The variable in ADTG's experiment was not the room, or speaker placement, but the loudspeaker pattern. Given that the room did not change, and the speakers were placed close-enough-to-the-same, only a blinkered fool would ascribe the observed result to stem from "the room" (which, again, was unchanged) rather than "the speaker" (which was different).

 

[Nuance AH]

Once again here is the quote. You're such a whack job...

Less-informed people will say it's "the room." They are (as usual) wrong. What you're hearing is primarily you steering the dipole null in a manner that minimizes cut early reflections, generates stronger contralateral early reflections, while attenuating and delaying late reflections a little.

Changing the pattern of the speaker changed the reflections of the............wait for it............room. You and ADTG are having major comprehension problems. You should co-found a support group for yourselves.

I'm done dealing with you two. Trying to debate with fools is pointless, as they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Shame on me for getting sucked into your idiocy. Enjoy your ignorance fellas.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Once again here is the quote. You're such a whack job...



Changing the pattern of the speaker changed the reflections of the............wait for it............room. You and ADTG are having major comprehension problems. You should co-found a support group for yourselves.

I'm done dealing with you two. Trying to debate with fools is pointless, as they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Shame on me for getting sucked into your idiocy. Enjoy your ignorance fellas.

I really don't see what you're objecting to in ACTG's comments. Room treatments may be necessary in certain rooms for certain speakers, but it's perfectly possible to achieve excellent sound in a lot of rooms without treatment.
I've never felt the need for any treatment in my room with any of my speakers.
I'm not dismissing their usefulness, but I think you're exaggerating their overall importance.

 

[cpp]

I'm done dealing with you two. Trying to debate with fools is pointless, as they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Shame on me for getting sucked into your idiocy. Enjoy your ignorance fellas.

as they say a sucker is born every minute

 

[ack_bak]

I recommend some of you folks check out some of the work by Dennis Erskine and Bpape at AVS regarding how to design and properly treat a room. If you have ever been in a properly measured and treated room for home theater, it is quite the experience.

For more info:
Erskine Group | Achitectural Acoustics

 

[PENG]

I think DS-21, AJ, & I are just agreeing with Siegfried Linkwitz that perhaps room treatments are being overemphasized and in some cases over dramatized.

I thought so too, but I have seen it both ways (the other way being the point that... perhaps speakers can be/should be designed to sound great in any room.......being over emphasized and ..............) even just right here on this forum as well. Don't ask me for proof of that because I am not retired yet.

If your room has an eco, then you do need to do something about that.

But you don't need to "treat" a room just because some people think every single room needs "treatment".

Pretty hard to argue with that, again if you had time to search you could find quotes from others who said the problems were the speakers, not the room, implying that perhaps we should simply pursue and buy those speakers regardless..

Exercise moderation. As someone already says, what are you trying to treat or improve?

I have not read about anyone who would just try to treat. I assume you probably meant instead of treating the room, try to determine if one can find the speakers that could sound great in his/her room and still satisfy his/her other reqirements such as the phsical features, affordability etc.

If you are trying to treat an eco or some adverse sound effect, room treatment is necessary.

But not all forms of treatments are the same and not every room needs treatment.

As DS-21 says, not everyone needs "panels". Some people just need more carpet, curtains, drapes, sofas, etc. Siegfried Linkwitz says the same.

So why all the fuss? May be it boils down to how people talk to each others. May be your word "moderation" applies to how we make our points and how we try not to "inadvertently" and unknowingly insulting (not you) others. Being audioholics, that could be much easier said than done.

 

[Nuance AH]

I really don't see what you're objecting to in ACTG's comments. Room treatments may be necessary in certain rooms for certain speakers, but it's perfectly possible to achieve excellent sound in a lot of rooms without treatment.
I've never felt the need for any treatment in my room with any of my speakers.
I'm not dismissing their usefulness, but I think you're exaggerating their overall importance.

I don't disagree with this at all, actually, and I did not mean to exaggerate room treatments. I simply disagree with DS-21 who said:

But as for "acoustic panels" and the like...only speakers with poor design (that is to say, midrange directivity that narrows as the woofer reaches the top of its passband and then widens as the tweeter comes in at the bottom of its passband; basically anything with a tweeter that doesn't employ some sort of directivity control) require that stuff.

The intelligent approach is to first consider the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in, and pick speakers that are designed to perform well under those conditions. The loudspeaker is, after all, just a means to reach the goal of good-sounding reproduction of music in the room.

Some rooms will require treatments and others will not, and the ones that are so bad that they require them should not be fixed by limiting your selection to speakers that "perform well under those conditions." The room should be fixed, and then you can choose any speaker you like.

I don't really have a disagreement with ADTG other than his instance to agree with DS-21, who is simply wrong. ADTG is being ignorant because he doesn't want to believe his room might be adding to the sound. That's fine, and it's not my problem.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

May be it boils down to how people talk to each other.......how we........insult........others.

Prob........ab.........ly.

My high-school Speech class teacher told me to never talk about religion and politics. I took her advice all these years. Perhaps she should have also included amps, wires, and panels.

 

[psbfan9]

That's fine, and it's not my problem.

Now you're getting it!

 

[DS-21]

Once again here is the quote.

Everything in that quote is entirely correct. You've offered nothing to counter it, either.

However, it shows your low character that you provided that text rather than quoting my edited version thereof, which is identical semantically but more clearly worded.

Changing the pattern of the speaker changed the reflections of the............wait for it............room.

So what? The room didn't change, the radiation pattern of the loudspeaker (monopole to dipole) did. So saying that the observed results were because of "the room" is simply idiotic.

Moreover, you seem too daft to comprehend the fact that when I write about tailoring speakers to a room, I'm discussing picking a speaker that has smooth FR within its pattern, and a throw that emphasizes desirable reflections while minimizing undesirable reflections. That's simply a more intellectually elegant approach than buying speakers and affixing ugly band-aids to the walls in an effort to get the same result of emphasizing desirable reflections while minimizing undesirable reflections.

(And in the modal region, yes big treatments like lossy false walls can help. Corner traps and the like are silly, though. Moreover, multiple subwoofers well set-up will get one most of the way there, though, and not require room surgery.)

***as they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Yes, it does seem that you're rather lacking experience in designing audio systems to sound good. Maybe you should listen more and talk less.

 

[mazersteven]

Boy did I open a can of worms

 

[GO-NAD!]

So what? The room didn't change, the radiation pattern of the loudspeaker (monopole to dipole) did. So saying that the observed results were because of "the room" is simply idiotic.

Moreover, you seem too daft to comprehend the fact that when I write about tailoring speakers to a room, I'm discussing picking a speaker that has smooth FR within its pattern, and a throw that emphasizes desirable reflections while minimizing undesirable reflections. That's simply a more intellectually elegant approach than buying speakers and affixing ugly band-aids to the walls in an effort to get the same result of emphasizing desirable reflections while minimizing undesirable reflections.

Are you saying that if a speaker is designed well-enough, it will work well in any room - period? Sure a quality speaker may be easier to place and get good performance, but nothing is guaranteed. Many people simply cannot spare the front- and sidewall-clearance that even the best speakers require for optimal performance. In such cases, treatment can be helpful. I don't advocate the use of room treatments as a definite requirement and I don't think anybody in this thread has made such a claim. On the same token, for anyone to claim that room treatment should never be required just reveals a stubborn adherence to a philosophy that reminds me of the "my religion is right and yours is wrong" debate.

When some say that carpets, furniture, curtains, etc, should suffice, they are talking about room treatment - intentional, or otherwise.

(And in the modal region, yes big treatments like lossy false walls can help. Corner traps and the like are silly, though. Moreover, multiple subwoofers well set-up will get one most of the way there, though, and not require room surgery.)

Actually, I'm surprised to read that you admit that the modal region can be an area requiring help. I agree that this area is the most problematic. The upper frequencies shouldn't need as much attention, as peaks and dips tend to be narrow and less audible. You believe that "multiple subwoofers well set-up will get one most of the way there"? That's just active room treatment, as opposed to the passive treatment provided by acoustic panels. And, it really should be "room surgery", in that treatments should be sized and placed to address a specific problem - not thrown up willy-nilly and thinking that it'll be doing something good.

How do you differentiate between "big treatments like lossy false walls" and corner traps? On that note, when one speaks in absolute terms, i.e. "Corner traps and the like are silly", you don't do much for your own credibility, when there are plenty of published scientific data to support the use of room treatments to address different acoustic anomalies. Engaging the use of hyperbole such as, "padded cell" (that's getting old, BTW) and "ugly band-aids" doesn't help your case either.