Would tubes help a bad room?

[Jason Lopez]

My room is an acoustic nightmare! I live in a typical AZ home. Wood framed stucco exterior, drywall interior. Unfortunately acoustic room treatments are not a viable option for me. My room is not a dedicated listening room. It is a Great Room...one big room that includes the living room, kitchen, and breakast nook. Throw in tile floors, stainless steel appliances, leather furniture, glass tables, wooden blinds, and 10 foot ceilings...and wa-la...ACOUSTICAL NIGHTMARE! I chose speakers that have soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers, and it helped. When I increase the volume on my NAD C352 integrated, it sounds as if i turned on a soundfield like "HALL" or "CHURCH" like on some mass market receivers. My room turns into one big echo chamber!
Would a tube integrated amp or some of the hybrids help with any of this?

Jason.

 

[adwilk]

It might certainly change the sound profile a bit, but its hard to imagine it "helping" your problem. Your problem isnt in the processing or amplification, its in the room. To fix your issues, you have to address whats really causing them. Any possibility of some kind of room treatments? Thats your only real option.

 

[mtrycrafts]

My room is an acoustic nightmare! I live in a typical AZ home. Wood framed stucco exterior, drywall interior. Unfortunately acoustic room treatments are not a viable option for me. My room is not a dedicated listening room. It is a Great Room...one big room that includes the living room, kitchen, and breakast nook. Throw in tile floors, stainless steel appliances, leather furniture, glass tables, wooden blinds, and 10 foot ceilings...and wa-la...ACOUSTICAL NIGHTMARE! I chose speakers that have soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers, and it helped. When I increase the volume on my NAD C352 integrated, it sounds as if i turned on a soundfield like "HALL" or "CHURCH" like on some mass market receivers. My room turns into one big echo chamber!
Would a tube integrated amp or some of the hybrids help with any of this?

Jason.

You have a room acoustic issue. No amp or anything else will help you solve it or even reduce it by much. If you cut the upper frequencies you still have the rest of the band to deal with. Frustrating indeed. Forced to listen at below the objectionable unset of such echo issues.

 

[TLS Guy]

My room is an acoustic nightmare! I live in a typical AZ home. Wood framed stucco exterior, drywall interior. Unfortunately acoustic room treatments are not a viable option for me. My room is not a dedicated listening room. It is a Great Room...one big room that includes the living room, kitchen, and breakast nook. Throw in tile floors, stainless steel appliances, leather furniture, glass tables, wooden blinds, and 10 foot ceilings...and wa-la...ACOUSTICAL NIGHTMARE! I chose speakers that have soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers, and it helped. When I increase the volume on my NAD C352 integrated, it sounds as if i turned on a soundfield like "HALL" or "CHURCH" like on some mass market receivers. My room turns into one big echo chamber!
Would a tube integrated amp or some of the hybrids help with any of this?

Jason.

Changing to a tube amp will not help, but changing your speakers might well.

I agree with Siegfried Linkwitz that a live room does not preclude good reproduction. However superior speakers are required. They must have a very flat frequency response, not have gross lobing errors. Above all that need good dispersion and the off axis response must mirror the on axis response. If a speaker has an off axis response that poorly mirrors the on axis response, (most), then in a live room the sound will be dreadful. Frequency response errors are also magnified in large rooms.

One of my listening areas is very live, and has an actual echo, but I enjoy listening in that space, especially by the fire in winter.

I have done a number of systems for people over the years in live rooms with very satisfactory results.

 

[Jason Lopez]

Changing to a tube amp will not help, but changing your speakers might well.

I agree with Siegfried Linkwitz that a live room does not preclude good reproduction. However superior speakers are required. They must have a very flat frequency response, not have gross lobing errors. Above all that need good dispersion and the off axis response must mirror the on axis response. If a speaker has an off axis response that poorly mirrors the on axis response, (most), then in a live room the sound will be dreadful. Frequency response errors are also magnified in large rooms.

One of my listening areas is very live, and has an actual echo, but I enjoy listening in that space, especially by the fire in winter.

I have done a number of systems for people over the years in live rooms with very satisfactory results.

So soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers have no bearing on the "ringing" effect? Can you tell anything from these specs of my speakers? In the NOTES section of this review?


http://www.phasetech.com/pdfs/reviews/review2/PC-9.1-review2.pdf

 

[WmAx]

What is the reason for not using acoustical treatments?

Today, you have a wide variety, including ones that look like art prints.

-CHris

 

[Jason Lopez]

What is the reason for not using acoustical treatments?

Today, you have a wide variety, including ones that look like art prints.

-CHris

Decor mainly. Can you direct me to any companies that you know of? I would have to have someone come to the house and do an evaluation. I wouln't even know where to begin. I no nothing about acoustical treatments.

 

[Robof83]

http://www.gikacoustics.com/gik_artpanel.html

 

[TLS Guy]

So soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers have no bearing on the "ringing" effect? Can you tell anything from these specs of my speakers? In the NOTES section of this review?


http://www.phasetech.com/pdfs/reviews/review2/PC-9.1-review2.pdf

What the drivers are made of is of very secondary importance. I could find no third party measurements or a waterfall plot.

I found this subjective review from stereophile.

The review was lukewarm. The reviewer reported a cupped hands sound on male voices and collapse of the stereo imaging at higher volumes. Not encouraging.

I note a 1.5 inch dome mid driven down to 800 Hz. This is almost certainly going to drive the unit into its resonant range. There also could easily also be cone break up modes from the planar drivers, not addressed by the subjective description, but it is hard to say. I have never heard those speakers.

Form the manufacturers specs you can conclude nothing of great importance as to how they might actually sound. However I have my suspicions that the design concept is flawed.

With what you are experiencing dampening the room might save you from having to change your speakers. I have to say though, that the look of sound treatments is not something i would welcome in my architectural spaces, so you have some sympathy from me on that issue.

 

[highfigh]

My room is an acoustic nightmare! I live in a typical AZ home. Wood framed stucco exterior, drywall interior. Unfortunately acoustic room treatments are not a viable option for me. My room is not a dedicated listening room. It is a Great Room...one big room that includes the living room, kitchen, and breakast nook. Throw in tile floors, stainless steel appliances, leather furniture, glass tables, wooden blinds, and 10 foot ceilings...and wa-la...ACOUSTICAL NIGHTMARE! I chose speakers that have soft dome tweeters and midrange drivers, and it helped. When I increase the volume on my NAD C352 integrated, it sounds as if i turned on a soundfield like "HALL" or "CHURCH" like on some mass market receivers. My room turns into one big echo chamber!
Would a tube integrated amp or some of the hybrids help with any of this?

Jason.

It may have accidental consequences but generally, there's not much in the way of cheap electronic fixes for a room that's bad, acoustically.

 

[TLS Guy]

It may have accidental consequences but generally, there's not much in the way of cheap electronic fixes for a room that's bad, acoustically.

You have to be careful before you label a room bad acoustically. If there is any chance he could get some musicians to perform with acoustic instruments in the space he should. If live music sounds OK then good speakers should as well.

I can tell you I'm very suspicious about speakers that a fussy about the space they are in. Really good speakers turn in a creditable performance in just about any space. Unfortunately most speakers are not very good.

 

[WmAx]

You have to be careful before you label a room bad acoustically. If there is any chance he could get some musicians to perform with acoustic instruments in the space he should. If live music sounds OK then good speakers should as well.

I can tell you I'm very suspicious about speakers that a fussy about the space they are in. Really good speakers turn in a creditable performance in just about any space. Unfortunately most speakers are not very good.

I can not fully agree. While what you say may be true for reverberant music (the reverberant/delays when exceeding a room's mask the room influence greatly) such as classical and other acoustic music in live spaces may sound great in a very live room with relatively good acoustics, this same room will not sound good when the reverberations/delays of the rooms exceed that in the music, then the room influence becomes very prominent. This would be applicable to studio production music that is recorded/produced with dry effect with very little reverb/delay effects.

Proper acoustical design/treatment can always improve sound quality, however, with any speaker.

-Chris

 

[TLS Guy]

I can not fully agree. While what you say may be true for reverberant music (the reverberant/delays when exceeding a room's mask the room influence greatly) such as classical and other acoustic music in live spaces may sound great in a very live room with relatively good acoustics, this same room will not sound good when the reverberations/delays of the rooms exceed that in the music, then the room influence becomes very prominent. This would be applicable to studio production music that is recorded/produced with dry effect with very little reverb/delay effects.

Proper acoustical design/treatment can always improve sound quality, however, with any speaker.

-Chris

That is the whole issue Chris. Music was never intended to be reproduced in the padded cell of a recording studio! In all my years making recordings, I always sought beautiful ambient spaces and never needed an echo machine.

It is all contrived to cover lack of ability and art. I just cringe whenever I hear pop music singers, it is like rubbing fingers down a chalkboard.

These so called stars have zero technique and squeal through a closed glottis. If it were not for microphones they would not project more than a foot! The human brain was never designed to hear music produced this way, and it part of the problem. It all adds to the misery index of the modern age.

I remember an interview, with the great conductor Eric Liensdorf, given at the end of his life. He mused why anybody would want such rubbish, when there was more great and beautiful music then any one human could know in a lifetime.

 

[Seth=L]

I am very glad that you are now taking acoustic treatments into at the very least light consideration. Believe me, it's the most significant thing you can do right now other than your speakers. If you aren't getting the sound signature you are wanting after acoustic treatments and speaker placement you may need to consider new speakers or dare I say new room. Once that's all in order then think about the power you want to put behind them.

 

[adwilk]

These so called stars have zero technique and squeal through a closed glottis. If it were not for microphones they would not project more than a foot! The human brain was never designed to hear music produced this way, and it part of the problem. It all adds to the misery index of the modern age.

Incredibly off topic, but I don't think thats a fair statement at all. Its okay that you dont like it, but to discount its credibility probably isnt right. To say that its different is fine, but to say its "wrong"? I'm not necessarily a "pop" fan but I do like modern artists and I appreciate the fact that audio equipment exists that allow me to enjoy it.

 

[highfigh]

You have to be careful before you label a room bad acoustically. If there is any chance he could get some musicians to perform with acoustic instruments in the space he should. If live music sounds OK then good speakers should as well.

I can tell you I'm very suspicious about speakers that a fussy about the space they are in. Really good speakers turn in a creditable performance in just about any space. Unfortunately most speakers are not very good.

Yes, I read your post about doing several systems in rooms that would usually be considered bad but how the room is used can easily make it unsuitable when the characteristics cause excessive reverberations, flutter, modes that coincide because of the dimensions, etc. Also, if the only way great sound can be achieved is through prohibitively expensive analysis and treatment, it can't be called a good room for that purpose.

"If there is any chance he could get some musicians to perform with acoustic instruments in the space he should."

If he never listens to music played on acoustic instruments or tends to listen at extremely high SPL, that's not a valid test. Also, acoustic instruments are much closer to the proverbial "point source" and speakers still haven't reached that point effectively, or at a price most people can afford.

Remember, most speakers are made for the single purpose of making money for the company once any level of mass production is reached. Once this happens, too many bad compromises are needed to allow great speakers to be built, or to be the goal. Also, selling through mass-merchandisers is great for sales when the speakers are good for boom/crash or if they're Bose, but people who really care about the sound will want to audition them several times before buying.

Edited to add:

For instruments with slow attach, any room can sound good if the music is legato but when the attack is sharp, the music is staccato and percussion is included, a highly reverberant room is never going to sound good, especially if it's small. Even for speech, there's a limit for reverberation time when intelligibility is the goal and once that has been exceeded, it's just ping pong balls in a hurricane.

Also, the recording studio is as much an instrument as any other. Even in the earliest days of classical records and performance, the acoustical space was a major consideration. The Coliseum was designed for un-amplified speech- was it just a fluke, or by design, that it works so well? How about the great cathedrals? Is it a mistake that they're still used for modern classical recordings? No, of course not. Would a loud rock band sound good in such a huge space? Not likely.

 

[highfigh]

That is the whole issue Chris. Music was never intended to be reproduced in the padded cell of a recording studio! In all my years making recordings, I always sought beautiful ambient spaces and never needed an echo machine.

It is all contrived to cover lack of ability and art. I just cringe whenever I hear pop music singers, it is like rubbing fingers down a chalkboard.

These so called stars have zero technique and squeal through a closed glottis. If it were not for microphones they would not project more than a foot! The human brain was never designed to hear music produced this way, and it part of the problem. It all adds to the misery index of the modern age.

I remember an interview, with the great conductor Eric Liensdorf, given at the end of his life. He mused why anybody would want such rubbish, when there was more great and beautiful music then any one human could know in a lifetime.

It's clear that what you listen to and prefer in music isn't really mainstream and that's perfectly fine. There's no reason we can't all like something different and while I don't like rap and hip-hop, it's fine for others to. However, I really don't like when someone drives up next to me and has their car stereo playing louder than all of my equipment combined, with bass levels high enough to be felt over a block away. Not everyone appreciates classical music but the truth is that all modern music is derived from it. Some snippets still survive but one way to look at it is that modern music is many generations later but it has mutated.

"Music was never intended to be reproduced in the padded cell of a recording studio!"

In reality, our ears were never intended for listening to music- they were intended to aid in our survival by allowing us to hear when we were being pursued or where a source of prey is.

"The human brain was never designed to hear music produced this way, and it part of the problem. It all adds to the misery index of the modern age."

Again, how we were designed has nothing to do with music, in any form. Misery for one is bliss for another, regardless of anyone else's view. Saying "That's not music" is incorrect as long as it contains at least some harmony, melody and/or rhythm, IMO. It doesn't have to conform to Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern or any other convention, either.

"It is all contrived to cover lack of ability and art. I just cringe whenever I hear pop music singers, it is like rubbing fingers down a chalkboard.

These so called stars have zero technique and squeal through a closed glottis. If it were not for microphones they would not project more than a foot!"

Recordingss are made as a way to make money. Period. Always have, will always be. Even Edison invented what he did in order to make money. His innate curiosity made him wonder "What if...?", but he didn't do it as a true amateur.

As far as not being heard from a foot away, that's not true. It doesn't necessarily sound good but it's hard to overdub, add effects and correct for bad (sometimes incredibly bad) intonation if a mic isn't used. Classically trained singers learn to project and use their diaphragm but, not to disgust you, some pop singers have actual operatic training. They have made far more money than if they had stayed with that and not many professionals play or sing purely for the art.

It's OK to be a classical snob and it's OK to not listen to other forms, but everyone can learn from others.

 

[Jason Lopez]

Yes, I read your post about doing several systems in rooms that would usually be considered bad but how the room is used can easily make it unsuitable when the characteristics cause excessive reverberations, flutter, modes that coincide because of the dimensions, etc. Also, if the only way great sound can be achieved is through prohibitively expensive analysis and treatment, it can't be called a good room for that purpose.

"If there is any chance he could get some musicians to perform with acoustic instruments in the space he should."

If he never listens to music played on acoustic instruments or tends to listen at extremely high SPL, that's not a valid test. Also, acoustic instruments are much closer to the proverbial "point source" and speakers still haven't reached that point effectively, or at a price most people can afford.

Remember, most speakers are made for the single purpose of making money for the company once any level of mass production is reached. Once this happens, too many bad compromises are needed to allow great speakers to be built, or to be the goal. Also, selling through mass-merchandisers is great for sales when the speakers are good for boom/crash or if they're Bose, but people who really care about the sound will want to audition them several times before buying.

Edited to add:

For instruments with slow attach, any room can sound good if the music is legato but when the attack is sharp, the music is staccato and percussion is included, a highly reverberant room is never going to sound good, especially if it's small. Even for speech, there's a limit for reverberation time when intelligibility is the goal and once that has been exceeded, it's just ping pong balls in a hurricane.

Also, the recording studio is as much an instrument as any other. Even in the earliest days of classical records and performance, the acoustical space was a major consideration. The Coliseum was designed for un-amplified speech- was it just a fluke, or by design, that it works so well? How about the great cathedrals? Is it a mistake that they're still used for modern classical recordings? No, of course not. Would a loud rock band sound good in such a huge space? Not likely.

This is to quote your last paragraph (which by the way, i haven't figured out how to do). I do feel like i'm at the mercy of the recording most of the time. For instance, some of my favorite music is from James Taylor and Jackson Browne, which in my opinion is recorded very bright. I listened to some of their tracks on a pair of $65,000 Wilson Audio's at a local dealer...in a room that was acoustically treated. The whole system cost about $500,000. Anyway, it sounded as good as i've ever heard it...but it still sounded bright and ear piercing at certain high frequiencies. The truth is...because of the type of music i like...if i only listened to recordings that made my system sound good...a huge chunk of my library would never get heard. I'm amazed at how many bad recordings there are. That's just my two cents.

 

[Lordoftherings]

This is to quote your last paragraph (which by the way, i haven't figured out how to do).

Hi Jason,

You just put your mouse to highlight the quote at the beginning, and you just delete the text that you don't need (keep the word QUOTE, into brackets then; the first and last one). You simply stop deleting when the text you want to keep, shows up at the beginning, right after [/QUOTE] and the name and number of the poster under brackets. You just do with the quote, what you normally would do with your own typing; you know, correct your typo, or add text, or delete a word or two when you are editing your own post.
Of course, you do that after clicking in the Quote from the post you want.

Quite simple when you know how.

* By the way, I agree with you about the recordings, there is so much junk out there. It's important to pick the right audiophile recordings, and you can do that by reading the trusted reviewers on music that are familiar to your own taste.
So, kind of having similar audio music recordings taste as the reviewer.
That's how I choose most of my music in the last 20 years or so.

Bob

P.S. If you tell me which type of music you like, I will give you some recommendations. This is one of my very best forte. I made a lot of people happy on other audio forums with my recoms. but many of my recoms are imported or hard to get in some cases, plus they can be very expensive, sometimes costing close to $50 for a single CD. And I ain't kidding you either. Some very good audio recordings are from labels like; Reference Recordings (if you're into Classical music), ECM (if you're into Jazz and Progressive Abstract music), CDs that are HDCD encoded (some great Folk, Jazz, Blues, Classic Rock, World music & more), Telarc (Classical, Jazz, Blues, Folk) on both CDs and SACDs, APO (Analogue Productions Originals) and Audioquest labels (BLUES, like Doug MacLeod, one of my big favorite), and many more audiophile labels that would take me a full thread to enumerate. Again, I ain't kidding either.
My collection of CD and SACD from the top recording studios in the world, is very large and touches on all type of music, with a preference for Blues, Jazz, Classical & World music (I got over 3,000 CDs only).
No i-pod or internet radio (FM from analog tuners, Yes) or music from cards or USB, or Flac, or MP3, or any type of compressed music in my house; only the very best original CDs and SACDs, plus few DVD Audios.

 

[highfigh]

This is to quote your last paragraph (which by the way, i haven't figured out how to do). I do feel like i'm at the mercy of the recording most of the time. For instance, some of my favorite music is from James Taylor and Jackson Browne, which in my opinion is recorded very bright. I listened to some of their tracks on a pair of $65,000 Wilson Audio's at a local dealer...in a room that was acoustically treated. The whole system cost about $500,000. Anyway, it sounded as good as i've ever heard it...but it still sounded bright and ear piercing at certain high frequiencies. The truth is...because of the type of music i like...if i only listened to recordings that made my system sound good...a huge chunk of my library would never get heard. I'm amazed at how many bad recordings there are. That's just my two cents.

One thing to remember- everyone's hearing is NOT the same. There are certain averages but some don't need or want a lot of treble, bass, upper/lower parts of each range, etc.

I have often thought that the ultimate way to get the system that is best for that person is to have a complete hearing test, with documentation. Then, speakers and components could be selected, the room treated and final tweaking can take place. If the system is designed for that person's hearing and personal preferences, it would be a better match than shooting darts into the air and hoping they hit the right target.

The problem with this plan is that the system is highly likely to sound terrible to other people, even more than it can happen now.

As a system evolves, the flaws in recording quality become more apparent. Not all are really flaws, though. Many are due to differences in the equipment used when mastering and mixing. If the monitors were lacking in high end, the result will sound overly bright on some speakers. If you get the chance, listen to the James Taylor and Jackson Browne music on JBL speakers to see if it sounds "right". IIRC, that's what was used for the mastering. One of the most common small near-field monitors used for a long time is the Yamaha NS-10. Music stores that sell recording gear and small studio equipment sell these.