Jump to content

mikebse2a3

Regulars
  • Posts

    4489
  • Joined

Everything posted by mikebse2a3

  1. The variable gain (ie: Input Level Control) might be your best option as it relates to the optimum S/N of your system and would probably allow you to optimize your Pre-amp’s Volume control range for typical listening levels you prefer. miketn
  2. It could have unpredictable echo/reflection and modal issues IMHO. If I was designing a room it would be rectangular with dimensions chosen to minimize modal issues and would be much more predictable for acoustical treatment…. Large rooms can have large room issues and aren’t the panacea some think they are in my experiences. miketn
  3. Thanks Jim…. I saved this picture 🙂
  4. This is a comparison (using the CDs and Bocelli and Clarkson Recordings listed In a previous post) of the reproduction experienced with this QSF setup(2) versus the QSF setup(1) in the previous post. In this QSF Setup(2) Stereophile Test CD2: Track 1: (Fender Precision Bass Guitar and Vocal). The Left, Center and Right are properly located and well focused and forward in the soundstage. The guitar has a better sense of body versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation Track 2: (Fender Precision Bass Guitar and Vocal). In-Phase: A forward very well centered and focused imaging / Out of Phase: Very Wide Diffuse imaging no center location. Again the guitar has a better sense of body versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Track 3: (Acoustic Drum Solo). Very Dynamic with each drums pitch discernible and image location of each drum well placed. Image size of the Drum Kit was properly sized and upfront in the soundstage with a good sense of the recording space. There was more Drum Body perceived with an increased sense of dynamics and impact from the drums versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Track 15: (Pink Noise). In-Phase: Had very tight forward imaging with a little more sense of a better balance at the lower portion of the frequency spectrum. / Out of Phase: Imaging was spread well to the sides of the soundstage with again a little more sense of a better balance at the lower portion of the frequency spectrum. Tracks 16, 17, and 18: (1/3rd Octave Warble Tones). These were reproduced with a forward well centered imaging with only a slight shifting to the right at 50Hz and 40Hz noticed. I would say there was a very slight increase in the L + R shifting from center versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Track 19: (Music Articulation Test Tones - ie: MATT Test). While still some areas of articulation still need improvement overall this was the best my system has performed this test thanks to the Corner TubeTraps and QSF Setup at the listening chair. I would rate the QSF Setup(2) equal to the QSF Setup(1) on the test. NEXT: Jackson Browne solo acoustic vol. 1 Track 7: (Fountain Of Youth). Vocal: Was centered and upfront and vocal echoes were heard to the right side/back area of the soundstage giving a perception of lighting up the soundstage. Vocals had good clarity with more sense of body, air and bloom and simply a more natural presentation versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Piano: Was well focused with good clarity but again there was more body more bloom that felt more natural and lights up the soundstage more. The sense of vibrations emanating from the piano out of the soundstage seemed more felt on me and in the listening chair. Audience: The audience was sensed at the beginning of the track as wider with more full/deeper body presentation leading to a more realistic natural presentation versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Track 8: (Your Bright Baby Blues). Vocal: The vocal was Forward and Centered in the Imaging and placed clearly above the guitar with good clarity with an increased sense of body and bloom during the dynamic swings of the vocal versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. The analytical sound of the QSF Setup(1) wasn’t perceived in the QSF Setup(2) presentation. The Vocal echoes were sensed to the far left and far right of the soundstage at times. Guitar: The instrument had a forward well focused image presentation and a very dynamic sound with more body presentation versus QSF Setup(1). Audience: Well focused with more sense of body and natural presentation without the harshness noticed in the QSF Setup(1) presentation. The overall Image and Soundstage presentation of QSF Setup(2) felt more realistic and as if everything was sharing the same air if that makes sense. Track 9: (For A Dancer) Vocal: The Vocal very solid and upfront in the soundstage with good clarity and more sense of body with a more natural presentation versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Piano: Good clarity with attack, sustain and decay well presented with an increased sense of body, presense and naturalness which lights up the soundstage more versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Audience: Forward with more body, realism and presence in the soundstage versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Andrea Bocelli and Matteo Bocelli (Fall On Me) recording: Vocals presented upfront in the soundstage and had good clarity and dynamics with more body , bloom and naturalness without the slight harshness of the QSF Setup(1). The Piano was focused with good clarity and increased sense of body with a better sense of location and presence in the soundstage versus the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Strings fill up the soundstage with a great sense of depth sounding more natural with air and bloom compared to the QSF Setup(1) presentation. Low frequency pressure waves from the drums which have more body and bloom in this QSF Setup(2) are still coming from the back of the stage moving past the listener and pressurizing the room. This is a very dynamic large enveloping recording with soundstage depth feeling of 20ft and width feeling of 20ft. Vocal echoes were clearly heard at the right rear of the soundstage. Kelly Clarkson (I’d Rather Go Blind) recording: Again this is a big sounding recording with audience sounds. The vocal presentation is very focused, dynamic with very good clarity and centered in the soundstage. Vocals are well projected in this recording in either QSF setup but I give the edge to the QSF Setup(2) overall presentation but it was surprisingly close. Ultimately its very hard to describe in words the differences I experienced between these two QSF Setups but when you can hear it for yourself it was pretty clear that the QSF Setup(2) was simply a more natural and better sounding presentation of these recordings. The QSF Setup(2) Soundstage and Imaging presented the vocals and instruments as if they were sharing the same space and air with their energy emanating from the soundstage to me in a manner that draws me more emotionally into the recordings. miketn.
  5. This is a comparison (using the CDs and Bocelli and Clarkson Recordings listed In previous post) of the reproduction experienced with this QSF setup(1) versus the QSF setup(2) in the next post. In this QSF Setup(1): Stereophile Test CD2: Track 1: (Fender Precision Bass Guitar and Vocal). The Left, Center and Right are properly located and well focused and forward in the soundstage. Track 2: (Fender Precision Bass Guitar and Vocal). In-Phase: A forward very well centered and focused imaging / Out of Phase: Very Wide Diffuse imaging no center location. Track 3: (Acoustic Drum Solo). Very Dynamic with each drums pitch discernible and image location of each drum well placed. Image size of the Drum Kit was properly sized and upfront in the soundstage with a good sense of the recording space. Track 15: (Pink Noise). In-Phase: Had very tight forward imaging. / Out of Phase: Imaging was spread well to the sides of the soundstage. Tracks 16, 17, and 18: (1/3rd Octave Warble Tones). These were reproduced with a forward well centered imaging with only a slight shifting to the right at 50Hz and 40Hz noticed. Track 19: (Music Articulation Test Tones - ie: MATT Test). While still some areas of articulation still need improvement overall this was the best my system has performed this test thanks to the Corner TubeTraps and QSF Setup at the listening chair. NEXT: Jackson Browne solo acoustic vol. 1 Track 7: (Fountain Of Youth). Vocal: Was centered and upfront and vocal echoes were heard to the right side/back area of the soundstage. Vocals had good clarity but also felt a little bit of an edginess at times with more of an analytical presentation versus the QSF-2 Setup. Piano: Was well focused with good clarity but again it was felt a bit analytical in presentation versus the QSF-2 Setup. Audience: The audience was sensed at the beginning of the track about the width of the diffusers between the speakers about 20ft deep in the soundstage. Track 8: (Your Bright Baby Blues). Vocal: The vocal was Forward and Centered in the Imaging and placed clearly above the guitar with good clarity and dynamic but also a bit of an analytical sound. The Vocal echoes were sensed to the far left and far right of the soundstage at times. Guitar: The instrument had a forward well focused image presentation and a very dynamic sound. Audience: Focused with a slight sense of harshness with a more realistic presentation than Track 7 Audience. Track 9: (For A Dancer) Vocal: The Vocal very solid and upfront in the soundstage with good clarity. Piano: Good clarity with attack, sustain and decay well presented. Audience: Forward with a bit of a boxed sound. Andrea Bocelli and Matteo Bocelli (Fall On Me) recording: Vocals presented upfront in the soundstage and had good clarity and dynamics but with a slight bit of harshness a few times was experienced. The Piano was focused with good clarity and just an ok sense of location in the soundstage. Strings fill up the soundstage with a great sense of depth with low frequency pressure waves from the drums coming from the back of the stage moving past the listener and pressurizing the room. This is a very dynamic large enveloping recording with soundstage depth feeling of 20ft and width feeling of 20ft. Vocal echoes were clearly heard at the right rear of the soundstage. Kelly Clarkson (I’d Rather Go Blind) recording: Again this is a big sounding recording with audience sounds. The vocal presentation is very focused, dynamic with very good clarity and centered in the soundstage. Vocals are well projected in this recording.
  6. Here are few examples of some of what I’m listening with to assist in the optimization and comparisons of the many QSF Setup Options I have available and hopefully I will describe the listening experiences in a way that can describe the differences experienced in these two QSF examples I will post next. Stereophile Test CD2 Track 1: Channel Identification. (I listen for Vocal Quality and Location/Focus in the imaging.) Track 2: Channel Phasing. (I listen for Vocal Quality and Central Location when in phase and lack of Focus when out of phase.) Track 3: Acoustic Drum Solo (I listen for Dynamics, Clarity and Imaging in which you can visualize each Drum/Cymbal clearly focused and you should feel like you are in the same space/air where the energy emanating from the drums and flowing to you in a natural time as well as sensing the vibrations in your chair and on your body. Track 15: Pink Noise. (I listen for a well focused central image when in phase with no spectrum colorations as the goal.) Track 16:, Track 17:, Track 18: 1/3rd Octave Warble Tones. (I listen to these (3) Tracks for even spl balance from band to band and a focused central imaging.) Track 19: Music Articulation Test Tones. (The goal is to have high Articulation through the frequency sweep. This is a very challenging test for any system/room to pass.) Its best to listen on Headphones first to hear what the signal sweep should sound like without the room colorations interference. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This CD is a live recording and Vocals, Instruments and Audience Sound and Imaging of them are a good test for me to use. Track 7: Fountain Of Sorrow Track 8: Your Bright Baby Blues Track 9: For A Dancer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is an excellent recording especially of Male Vocals and Imaging This is an excellent Recording of Female Vocals with a Live audience..
  7. Your welcome parlophone1… 🙂 The results are judged by the most critical and ultimate test.. ie: Listening 👍😄 I will post some examples of how I’m testing the many QSF options for my optimum sound reproduction. Some measurements and listening test help with the initial locations of the Loudspeakers and Listener position options. In my opinion rectangular (unfortunately this room is close to square) rooms are easier to predict and Corner location of Bass Traps have pretty much been proven to be the optimum locations and first areas to install them. ASC’s QSF Concept/Products have been well documented and the techniques for using it has been well established in the professional and home studio fields for decades. The advantage of the QSF Setup is that it is basically creating a high quality room within an existing room and this ultimately just requires you to experiment with arrangement options while listening to determine the optimum setup based on your preferences in sound production or in my case sound reproduction. miketn
  8. Chris this is from the QSF application guide pdf I posted in a previous post and if I understand your question correctly I believe it provides the answer you are looking for. Basically I’m creating a room within my room and it gives the ability to control how much and when my room’s acoustics are mixed with the QSF effect. In the below example I’m in effect replacing the Mic with the Listener and the Talent at the opening of the QSF with the sound from the Loudspeakers.. miketn
  9. Absolutely agree..!!! Heyser as well as PWK will always be “Giants” for me.. miketn
  10. The (6) 13” x 3’ IsoThermal TubeTraps and (2) 16” x 43” original TubeTraps when installed into the corners reduced a muddy character imposed on many recordings especially below 300Hz which resulted in a much improved perception of clarity and articulation and the low end felt smoother and more complete. Another perception which I have experienced in the past is the perception of improvement in the higher frequencies when the region below ~300Hz is improved. I have also used DSP compensation using both llR filters and FIR filters (DSPeaker Dual Anti-Mode Dual Core) to smooth the response after the installation of the Corner Traps. What is interesting and as expected was if only using the DSPeaker for compensation without the Corner Traps I was able to gain some improvement in smoothness but it really didn’t offer anywhere near the improvements in clarity and articulation that the Corner Traps provided. As far as with and without the QSF setup when without it the colorations from the room would affect areas of clarity, cause tonal changes and imaging was of course affected as well. Don’t misunderstand me though the overall sound was pretty good with pretty low fatigue factor but I knew it could be improved in significant ways that would bring me much closer to the musical performance. With the QSF I have been able to minimize the colorations that my room was introducing as already mentioned and create a controlled listening space. There is really no way I can think of that would fully describe the experience but it would only take a few minutes for you to set in my listening chair and I believe you would immediately declare it as a significant and much more realistic musical performance versus without the QSF setup. The QSF simply allows a much more accurate and realistic experience of the recordings reproduction. I will post again with examples of different QSF setups and attempt to describe the perceived differences between them. miketn Just for fun..😄 System’s measurement (no smoothing applied) below 500hz taken last week. Note Again: this type of measurement can’t reveal the articulation improvements that I have gained from the Tube Traps installation. Left and Right + Sub with Mic at Listener Location
  11. Chris and parlophone1 … will respond later to your questions have to run for now. 🙂
  12. Yes it does my friend… wish you could listen to the Museum La Scala AL5 with the KPT-1502-HLS prototype here in this space. The sound OK …👍😄
  13. Chris yes I am and when I started researching the QSF Concept it seemed very logical to me that it could be applied/adapted for the listening position in my dedicated listening room and the results have been very impressive which has made me very curious to explore the concept farther with different configurations/combinations and variations to the concept to find what best meets my requirements/preferences for this system/room. The ability to create a controlled sound field for the listening position while also taking advantage of acoustic shadowing technique to minimize other room issues is a powerful tool IMHO. miketn
  14. Mike, I will give these a chance and have subscribed. As I have the attention span of a gold fish, I am curious if these are long and drawn out or quick tips that can be read in a couple of minutes. Room acoustics and treatments is something I would like to tackle this winter. I have been watching and trying to learn as much as possible. Some of the theories seem basic, but some seem to get over my head. At times I wish I could pay someone to come in my room and tell be what I need to build and where to put it for optimal use. Thanks for taking the time to continue this discussion. Your very welcome and I believe you will find them very friendly to read and they are friendly to the less technical minded as well. Don’t miss the “Archives Link” and once there the “Load More Tab” for a good size library of them.
  15. Please check back as I will update with relevant items as I locate them…. 🙂 BASS TRAPS / ASC TUBE TRAPS: POSTED: 9-13-2021 Tube Trap History.pdf TubeTraps-open new-realm-Revision 2017.pdf BASS TRAPS.pdf ASC Tube Trap Technical Data info.pdf Tube Trap History-ART NOXON DESK.pdf room-acoustics.pdf Limp Mass Membrane Bass Traps? - Art Desk.pdf QSF (QUICK SOUND FIELD): POSTED 9-13-2021 Quick-Sound-Field-Flyer-2002-A.pdf history-of-qsf 1.pdf studio-trap-flyer.pdf qsf-application-guide.pdf ACOUSTIC SHADOWING: Acoustic Shadow Casting.pdf Acoustic Shadowing.pdf More about Acoustic Shadowing.pdf ARTICULATION and AES PAPERS: controlled-reflection-isolation.pdf coherent-incoherent-diffusion.pdf articulation-prerequisite.pdf listening-room.pdf sound-fusion.pdf articulation-small-room.pdf room-acoustics.pdf MATT TEST (MUSIC ARTICULATION TEST TONES) Can be found Here: https://www.acousticsciences.com/product/matt/ Can be found Here: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_matt.php STEREOPHILE TEST CD2 Track: 19 Sonic Accuracy.pdf FFT - MTF -MATT testing.pdf Sonic Clarity vs Flat Frequency Response - Art Desk.pdf What Is MTF For Sound? - Art Desk.pdf Do Audio Measurements Correlate with Sound Quality - Art Desk.pdf Room Tuning - TubeTraps and MATT Testing - Art Desk.pdf MISCELLANEOUS: What’s With HiFi These Days - 2015.pdf
  16. For those who would like to read sooner than I might get some things posted you can find many of Art Noxon’s papers and articles which can be found here on the ASC website. Scroll to the bottom and look under (Media & News) and (Acoustic FAQ) I highly encourage reading and subscribing to the (Newsletter: Acoustic Tips) which can be found toward the bottom of the home page as well. https://www.acousticsciences.com/ Note: they appear to be updating the website and the White Papers aren’t currently available. miketn 🙂
  17. Back Wall and Listening Chair: ASC Tube Trap in corners, ASC Studio Traps for QSF at listener. Currently experimenting with (4) and (6) Studio Traps QSF with spacing/location and reflective versus absorptive orientations.
  18. Right Wall: ASC Studio Traps, ASC SoundPanel and ASC SoundPlank in custom grid/frame on ceiling.
  19. Left Wall: ASC Studio Traps, ASC Wall Panels and ASC SoundPlank in custom grid/frame on ceiling.
  20. I’m starting this Topic for those interested in Acoustics and Room Optimization. Interest in the ASC Tube Trap were expressed in another thread and how they work as a Bass Trap so I will try to gather information and post in this thread as I get time and hopefully keep it updated for those interested. Art Noxon the inventor of the Tube Trap has written extensively on Acoustics in White Papers, AES Papers, Magazine Articles, Newsletters and has also made Videos to share his knowledge extending many decades and I highly suggest others to research them. I would like to cover some of the following all of which can be found in Art Noxon’s writings: Bass Traps: especially as it pertains to the transient nature of music and our listening environment. MATT TEST: invented by ASC (Acoustic Sciences Corporation) QSF (Quick Sound Field) Concept: which was born in the recording and mastering fields and I am experimenting with adapting it for my Listening Room as a logical extension of this powerful technique of controlling the listening environment. Acoustic Shadowing: another powerful tool which can be used in our listening rooms. I’ll start by posting some pictures of a room (converted garage) I’m experimenting with based on ASC Tube Traps and Concepts/Techniques I’ve learned from them and my implementation of the QSF Concept for a dedicated home listening room. miketn🙂 Front Wall: ASC Tube Traps in corners, RPG Skyline Duffusers, and ASC SoundPanel and ASC SoundPlank on custom ceiling grid/frame.
  21. @Chris A I will try to put some information together to share that I hope will be of interest for you and anyone else with similar interest… miketn
  22. Very curious choice of words here, my only response can be "Pffffffffttttt See my previous response…
  23. The density of approximately 4lbs/cuft is very important component if your goal is to approach the performance of the ASC Tube Trap. It’s the Resistance component of the RC + L components of the design. You are wrong the reflective strip is tuned by perforations to allow low frequencies to pass through and reflect the high frequencies from ~ 500Hz up. If you haven’t done this you are basically shorting out/restricting a portion of the trap. If you understood the design maybe you wouldn’t have such an attitude. I have no problem with DIY but what you have built isn’t even close to the ASC Tube Trap in performance and I’m sorry if that fact upsets you. If you or anyone is really interested in how the ASC Tube Trap is designed and functions I suggest reading Art Noxon’s comments here. He obviously is willing to share and help the DIY community with information about how they are designed and function.. https://gearspace.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/624070-asc-tube-trap-question-yes-i-searched-first-2.html Bottom line is I just want people to have good information and understanding and that’s why I come here and when I participate in a thread that is my only goal and I have no desire to waste time otherwise… miketn
  24. Are you talking about standard wall insulation having about .4lbs per cubic foot…? If so have you compressed it into a denser form…? ASC Tube Traps use a density of about 4lbs per cubic foot which is one of many very important factor if you are trying to approach their performance… Please understand I’m not saying DIY attempts can’t improve the sound in someone’s room but the majority of the one’s I’ve seen have design flaws that will not allow them to approach the performance of the ASC Tube Traps. I have to disagree in that the design and performance of the ASC Tube Traps are of the highest quality and their performance is well documented and has optimized voicing per the reflective performance which is a critical design feature IMHO. The build quality is also of the highest quality and I have some that are nearly 20 years old and would be impossible for someone to tell the difference between them and the new ones I’ve purchased recently… Yes they are expensive but well worth the investment in my opinion and experience. miketn
×
×
  • Create New...