Speakers and headphones are really the only thing worth discussing. It's tricky too because the best sounding speakers in the store might sound lousy in your living room. I wish I knew more about room acoustics. I do know that equalization helps a LOT.
I don't know how much experience folks have doing a good sounding speaker installation. I have only done it myself a couple of times, and from my limited experience it seemed to me that every room requires a different approach. Some rooms are like echo chambers full of flat hard surfaces, and others are like resonant woofy wooden boxes. There isn't a one size fits all solution.
The other factor, which never gets mentioned is liveability. Few of us have the resources to turn over the main room in our house to a dedicated listening room. We have to temper the adjustments we make to the functionality of the room for other purposes.
Because of this, I think the approach to room treatment you'd take if you were building a home mixing stage is going to be different than the one you might take for a stereo in your living room.
In my theater/listening room, I was faced with a room panelled floor to ceiling in beautiful golden knotty pine. There was absolutely no way I was going to hang big black diffuser panels over that. So I focused on how I arranged the speakers and furniture in the room and balanced the EQ for not just the main listening point, but several seating positions in the room.
What I found was that in a normal sized room, phase is not an issue unless there's a lot of reflection going on. My room was fairly dead, except for the slab floor, so the time problems weren't a big issue. As long as it isn't extreme, your ear adjusts, because the soundstage of the speakers is the same spread as a real band. Any shaping of the sound caused by the room is the same as if a live band was playing, or if you spoke in the room. Pretty natural, even if it isn't acoustically clean.
Equalization went a long way to taming resonances. My room had a bass note that would make the walls shake. A little higher and it was fine. A little lower was fine too. So I just pulled that back and I could pump more volume into the room without buzz.
I have a combination 2:1 and 5:1 system, depending on the source. Both had to sound good, so I really focused on getting the front mains just right. Balancing the rest of the speakers to the front two was a lot of back and forth. Not easy. EQing all those channels was a real chore. I'm still not totally happy. I'm trying to get my sound engineer friend over to help me.
In any case, room treatments and EQ involve a million tradeoffs and compromises. That's where the rubber meets the road. The electronics part is easy. That's why I'm amazed at how much time people spend finessing their cables and DACs. That stuff doesn't matter at all compared to the transducer end.
Does anyone know any plain speak tutorials on room treatment? The ones I've found are way too technical for me.
aka Theta Alpha 1 aka Alpha Zeta 5 aka Alpha Zeta 6 aka Nanocat Systems And many other aliases
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
10,617
Likes
174
^After seeing that post your POV does make more sense. You think CD burners and CD players are near perfect (they are) and regular stereo receivers versus Marantz receivers are near identical (they are). Then you've spent a lot of time with... physical speakers, adjusting an equalizer, and room acoustics.
For me, I pretty much stopped using equalizers around two years ago, and don't need to focus on room acoustics since I use IEM's and headphones.
Sometimes I use speakers, the floorstanding speakers in this room sound a little worse than when they were in a different (smaller) room, where they seemed cleaner, now they're a bit dislocated, I'd have to experiment and move all the furniture around to get them more precise, I'd also like to set up 5.1 again, to play some DVD-A albums, but I just don't care right now, I live in an apartment and like using IEM's outside, or right at my laptop.
My internal sound-card versus my AckoDAC connected to my stereo receiver->speakers makes the more important difference, the kind I'm interested in, I find more clarity and more realism, a piano or vocal sounds a bit more lifelike, the pure tones are a level above my sound-card.
Advanced equalizers and special effects can only enhance weaker systems, most of us are interested in purity and performance, the inherent technology and it's character etc. You can upscale a DVD or overclock electronics but not to the same level as the higher end ones. Even though firev1 was borderline convinced he could hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy MMM.
If you spend most of your time aligning speakers and trying to make an anechoic chamber in your house you have a different interest than most people around here, but in a sense you are correct and I should probably listen to more 5.1 DVD-A and move the speakers around, it's most likely just the knowledge that you can't improve the pure signal, you're just tweaking the final result to sound nicer ...
In any case, room treatments and EQ involve a million tradeoffs and compromises. That's where the rubber meets the road. The electronics part is easy. That's why I'm amazed at how much time people spend finessing their cables and DACs. That stuff doesn't matter at all compared to the transducer end.
Does anyone know any plain speak tutorials on room treatment? The ones I've found are way too technical for me.
Not really but there is Ethan Winer's video on Acoustic Treatment Exposed(NSFW) that is really basic stuff but covers the major devices used in room treatments. I remember Lunatique mentioning about studio building forums, perhaps you should visit them?
I'm still convinced that there is a measurable difference between the LCD 3 and Skullcandies, whether its acoustic phase or the driver wavefront I don't really know though. Even after doing all the discarding off <=25hz info and =>12.5khz info, I'm convinced that there is something to revealed partially in 300hz SWR measurements since both graphs are pretty flat in the area, there must be some other stuff going on at that fundamental frequency, going by calculations, it should be in the audible. But whether it really sounds the same or not, I would really like to try it myself sometime.
"Advanced equalizers and special effects can only enhance weaker systems,"
Oh hohohoho, how wrong you are, how very wrong. For my example, I can keep my desktop clean, optimise its performance and reduce downtime by regular maintenance and cooling+overclock, and it will still be better than a gaming rig in the hands of someone who does not know how to get the best out of his rig. It is exactly the same in audio. I did my measure and help EQ(by borrowing a mic) for my friend and it helped with his speaker tons. Problem these days(and yesteryears, last century) is that not many realise that the room is a HUGE part or speaker system and don't know how to get it optimised. This also explains why many hate speakers with a flat response, I sometimes see in them in rooms with concrete walls and corners and reflective furnishings and those speakers do a GREAT job at revealing those problems. Your room in the first place, is not a master control room and adds its own signature(thus distortion) to the sound, you don't need to built a anechoic chamber to do that. Some bass traps and diffusers will do the trick, at a much cheaper price than replacing speakers or buying esoteric components.
ps. moving around all your furnishings usually helps but does not solve the main problem of the rooms characteristics and reflections as well.
You are defending the null hypothesis as a scientific method of discovery. A body of evidences approaching on truth (not reaching it), and subject to refutation if someone can, subject to third party assessment and replication. So basically, if someone thinks they have "something new" they can devise a test to refute the body of knowledge, and so the science continues.
The issue is you're referring to audio in the context that it's like how the human eye and vision works, or that ghosts don't exist. So, if someone thinks they have a new theory on how the human eye works, or can prove ghosts exist, all they have to do is prove it and then everyone will believe in the new evidence. That isn't the case at hand. Audio is more like medicine with peaks and valleys of discovery, and a lot of knowledge on how acoustics work without the measured data available, or the textual code not deciphered (like your example of binaural, and spatial effects via the transducer).
Tilpo asked for another example so I said voice recognition, any human can identify thousands of voices (not accents) in movies to the actor faster than you'll be able to find the differences in the raw data. Clearly there are direct parallels here to identifying speaker materials, character or tone etc., which I kept telling firev1 was not in the FR / CSD / THD+N / IMD / SWR / IR. So where is it? It's in code emitted by the transducer, just like the code you can identify in 1/100 instruments, in 1/1000000 human voices. If hardware and software can't directly tell the difference in quality between a casio synthesizer and a real piano it's not like you'll totally identify all these qualities such as of speakers or IEM's directly on paper either and the designes know this, they just use FR to level match the channels and make sure all units are identical. Just because the Etymotic ER-4S has a 92% accuracy in FR doesn't mean it has a 92% accuracy in natural tones, it actually sounds pretty digital and two dimensional.
Anyway the body of evidences you're referring to in audio are all strictly on a case by case basis and a lot of them are completely flawed.
So, given the conflicting data and peaks and valleys trajectory path of these scientific discoveries in audio, adhering purely to the facts of 2012 doesn't seem like a very statistically valid model, it's more likely that in 2017 and 2027 there'll be newer findings, new evidence and dispelled facts.
In this sense audio is a lot more like medicine, not how the human eye works or ghost hunting. If I defended the null hypothesis of medicine in 1970 it's not like I'd be defending the truth.
This is where the placebo effect comes in too, if you give placebo A, placebo B and placebo C to a significant number of people, and you notice an unusual trend with placebo A, it's likely that one could have some actual real chemical impact.
I try to weight everything with it's evidence and likelihood of correctness as much as possible. If someone says the Clip+ sounds the same as the iBasso DX100 due to RMAA, what do you think?
That it's not something RMAA can determine, particularly not with a single run, and looking at the numbers only (not the graphs). Given enough data with a legitimate audio analyzer and other test gear, if it's demonstrated that two devices are similar enough in enough ways in a given usage scenario—no matter what the devices are or their topology—I could be reasonably convinced that they would sound pretty much the same [/]
Do you know where the most significant differences versus the DX100 should show up versus the Clip+ in a legitimate audio analyzer? The last time I checked at NwAv the Clip+ appeared to be "perfectly clean" if you know what I mean.
Did you miss my comments about the A/D/A loop instead of A/D/A/D/A/D/A^12 when they had so much time on their hands? The transparency of transducers and the playback system aside, if an A/DC and D/AC are perfectly clean, they'll still be clean after 200 conversions, or 200,000 conversions, right?
But what do you mean by "perfectly clean"? If they're literally ideal with no change at all (impossible for any real-world system), then you can make as many loops as you want. If one loop is audibly transparent for practical purposes on a given setup, multiple loops will eventually not be. Errors start compounding until they're audible after a sufficient number. The number of loops it takes will depend on the listener, listening setup, and so on. It might be two, or ten. It would be one for a lower-quality A/D or D/A.
That all makes perfect sense, except the last part. A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect. I think a lot of people are led to believe 16/44.1 sounds worse than 24/96 simply because the 24/96 A/D's are usually higher quality.
There is only one kind of transparency, if 10 loops aren't transparent then 1 loop isn't either. Transparency in X system to Y humans with V volume with Q room acoustics on T speakers and V cables with C capacitors, D Dac chip and S power supply, P circuit board and A listening acuity, drinking H coffee via Z type of ABX box, with M music is just... (no).
NwAv referenced some guy that "strung together 10 cheap op amp buffers in series to effectively multiply their flaws" so they sounded horrible, until it was reduced to 6 when he could no longer 'hear them'. He also compared a $300 capacitor and $1 one and they sounded identical to him in a blind test too.
Jeez, I hope that's true so I don't ever have to worry about capacitors or buffers, but you know, didn't NwAv say " I literally tested more than 100 variations of components, including different brands of capacitors, to get the most out of the ES9023" and "Audiophile preferred polyphenylene capacitors performed worse than less expensive types." ?
However in the midst of total uncertainty he is funny at least. =]
No, it wouldn't help silence the critics even if there was such a video. As has already been pointed out, they would just claim I (or whoever was wearing the headphones) was "sandbagging" and pretending not to hear any difference.
What WILL help silence the critics is doing such a YouTube video with one of the critics wearing the headphones. But not one has come forward and volunteered to do so. Go find me some critics who are not camera shy and I'll do my best to arrange a credible properly supervised blind test for them to take.
Neurologists, brain experts, hearing experts, and audio experts, all agree the human hearing system, by necessity, discards around 99.99% of what arrives at our ears. Our “reptile brain” is actively involved determining what gets discarded. For example when you’re listening to someone at a noisy restaurant, the brain does its best to deliver just their voice. And, multiple studies demonstrate, when you’re listening to audio gear the brain also does its best to filter your hearing in the way it thinks you most want. If you’re expecting Gear A to sound different from Gear B the brain filters each differently so you indeed hear a difference even when there isn’t one. This auditory issue has many names.
^I mean jeez, could you possibily find a more convenient argument than this or what. Come on. 99.99%? Is there a link to this data? Seriously I have no idea what he's talking about. I've never heard the sound of a cat and seen a dog in my life. There are probably more optical illusions than auditory lol.
aka Theta Alpha 1 aka Alpha Zeta 5 aka Alpha Zeta 6 aka Nanocat Systems And many other aliases
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
10,617
Likes
174
Originally Posted by firev1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm still convinced that there is a measurable difference between the LCD 3 and Skullcandies, whether its acoustic phase or the driver wavefront I don't really know though. Even after doing all the discarding off <=25hz info and =>12.5khz info, I'm convinced that there is something to revealed partially in 300hz SWR measurements since both graphs are pretty flat in the area, there must be some other stuff going on at that fundamental frequency, going by calculations, it should be in the audible. But whether it really sounds the same or not, I would really like to try it myself sometime.
Just remember, the mind filters out 99.99% and you hear what you're expected to hear, make sure you're not expecting to hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy after the golden EQ or you... will.
?
Originally Posted by firev1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
"Advanced equalizers and special effects can only enhance weaker systems,"
Oh hohohoho, how wrong you are, how very wrong. For my example, I can keep my desktop clean, optimise its performance and reduce downtime by regular maintenance and cooling+overclock, and it will still be better than a gaming rig in the hands of someone who does not know how to get the best out of his rig. It is exactly the same in audio. [/]
Ok, I'm wrong, equalizers make non-flat speakers flat, cancel out concrete wall reflections ,and turn Skullcandies into golden gems. Everyone needs an equalizer, preferably installed in the side of your head, buy yours today!
Of course, there is. Looking at thesegraphs, the LCD-3 has better extension at both ends of the spectrum, lower bass distortion at high volume, less ringing on the impulse response and 300 Hz square wave (the Skullcandy rings in the kHz range, which is likely audible), the bass response is much less sensitive to the positioning of the headphone, and, quite importantly, the frequency response does not have the dips at 650 Hz, 3 kHz, and 5.5 kHz. There are likely differences in the imaging, but those depend on the frequency and phase response in non-intuitive ways, and cannot be read from the graphs. One might argue how important the above differences are, but all are greater than the difference between the Benchmark DAC1 and a decently implemented Realtek audio codec chip on a currently available PC motherboard.
Just remember, the mind filters out 99.99% and you hear what you're expected to hear, make sure you're not expecting to hear the LCD-3 in the Skullcandy after the golden EQ or you... will.
?
Ok, I'm wrong, equalizers make non-flat speakers flat, cancel out concrete wall reflections ,and turn Skullcandies into golden gems. Everyone needs an equalizer, preferably installed in the side of your head, buy yours today!
Sure, I can, I expect them to be diff from the beginning though
Not cancel reflections but decrease the audibility of it, sure it can't be wiped out but EQ is more convenient that moving your furnishing everywhere or spending another 6 figure sum on amp. And I do assume you have flat speakers to begin with, of course, with a lot of regular customers these days, that is never the case. For the rest, there is room acoustics, oh my I just saved you another grand on another DAC!
Of course, there is. Looking at thesegraphs, the LCD-3 has better extension at both ends of the spectrum, lower bass distortion at high volume, less ringing on the impulse response and 300 Hz square wave (the Skullcandy rings in the kHz range, which is likely audible), the bass response is much less sensitive to the positioning of the headphone, and, quite importantly, the frequency response does not have the dips at 650 Hz, 3 kHz, and 5.5 kHz. There are likely differences in the imaging, but those depend on the frequency and phase response in non-intuitive ways, and cannot be read from the graphs. One might argue how important the above differences are, but all are greater than the difference between the Benchmark DAC1 and a decently implemented Realtek audio codec chip on a currently available PC motherboard.
For the record I think electronics matter enormously. For instance my current digital setup is vastly superior to anything else I tried, and what that means is much greater resolution and more music. It resembles analog. But am I imagining it? I'm willing to put it to the test.
EDIT: oh regarding the idea that speakers/headphones are the only things that matter -- I'm one of the nutcase audiophools who says that if you buy very good headphones and mass-market electronics, then what is you get is high-resolution headphones telling you how bad your electronics are.
For the record I think electronics matter enormously. For instance my current digital setup is vastly superior to anything else I tried, and what that means is much greater resolution and more music. It resembles analog. But am I imagining it? I'm willing to put it to the test.
EDIT: oh regarding the idea that speakers/headphones are the only things that matter -- I'm one of the nutcase audiophools who says that if you buy very good headphones and mass-market electronics, then what is you get is high-resolution headphones telling you how bad your electronics are.
That all makes perfect sense, except the last part. A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect. I think a lot of people are led to believe 16/44.1 sounds worse than 24/96 simply because the 24/96 A/D's are usually higher quality.
There is only one kind of transparency, if 10 loops aren't transparent then 1 loop isn't either. Transparency in X system to Y humans with V volume with Q room acoustics on T speakers and V cables with C capacitors, D Dac chip and S power supply, P circuit board and A listening acuity, drinking H coffee via Z type of ABX box, with M music is just... (no).
Do you know where the most significant differences versus the DX100 should show up versus the Clip+ in a legitimate audio analyzer? The last time I checked at NwAv the Clip+ appeared to be "perfectly clean" if you know what I mean.
No idea, without seeing more data on both of them. But the Clip+'s noise level wasn't spectacular, and there were a few marginal issues. I doubt the difference would be too large, anyway, at least compared to differences between most headphone models.
That all makes perfect sense, except the last part. A lower quality A/D or D/A doesn't need one loop, it needs zero, it's already non-transparent i.e. lower quality than perfect.
Sorry: I made a typo or brain fart, I forget which. Thanks for catching it. One bad operation (zero loops? I guess it depends on how you look at it) already mucks things up.
No idea, without seeing more data on both of them. But the Clip+'s noise level wasn't spectacular, and there were a few marginal issues. I doubt the difference would be too large, anyway, at least compared to differences between most headphone models.
I've never seen any numbers on the DX100 but I wouldn't be to surprised if it actually measured worse than the Clip+. "Audiophile" DAPs don't have the best track record...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
except for headphone out, I still do get output impedance problems with my laptop mobo .
