Big Horns Room?

[dtel]

I was looking at pics of rooms like IBSlammin Artto and Mikebse2a3.

Where are the pic's, I know I haven't seen IB's room I did see some of Artto's and Mikes.

[DrWho]

Staying on topic...I think it bears significance to mention that dispersion patterns are characteristics not to be taken lightly.

Definitely agree there.

One of the biggest difficulties with the Heritage line is that the vertical polars are all over the map - the end result is a power response that is not the same as the direct sound. They were voiced to make the off-axis sound a bit flatter, so you end up with an on-axis that is exagerated in some areas while the reveberant sound will be attenuated at the same spots.

An idealistic approach to remedy this would involve frequency specific absorption (not easy to do practically) and then revoice the speaker to improve on-axis tonal balance.

Or you could just move to the Pro Cinema stuff where the on-axis and off-axis sound is the same...

[Chris A]

One of the biggest difficulties with the Heritage line is that the vertical polars are all over the map - the end result is a power response that is not the same as the direct sound. They were voiced to make the off-axis sound a bit flatter, so you end up with an on-axis that is exaggerated in some areas while the reverberant sound will be attenuated at the same spots.

This is the so-called "collapsing polars" midrange horn, which almost requires the use of carpet on the floor and a high ceiling or some form of diffusion or absorption on the ceiling if they are not placed in a high-ceiling room.

The K-510 horn has essentially the same characteristic as the K-400 series horns if it is used below 2 KHz (maybe delayed another 500 Hz relative to the K-400 before it starts to lose control in the vertical axis).

It's the K-402 that holds its polars down to ~400 Hz in the vertical and horizontal plane.

Chris

[artto]

Hey
you guys with big rooms and big horns. I was looking at pics of rooms
like IBSlammin Artto and Mikebse2a3. I'm curious how you guys determined
what treatments to use? How do you know when you have the right amount
of treatments.

Also if you have some big horns post some pics. I'm curious how others have them set up and placement.

The
way the professionals start is by taking an ETC at the various
listening positions. At that point, you'll be able to determine which
early reflections need treated, and then you'll know how diffuse (or not
diffuse) your soundfield is.

The
fact of the matter is the rooms with the best acoustics in the world
were built long before ETC existed. ETC is in reality a back tracking
method of acoustical analysis which was develped to try and understand
how and why those great acoustical spaces sound the way they do in the
first place so it could be replicated in other places. So far the only
thing that's really come of this is that it's verified that what was
done in these great acoustical spaces is the way it should be done. The
same principals still apply.

Right, and I suppose my oscilliscope and AP system at work is just a
back tracking method too? I should just build the simulation and call it
a day - no need to measure anything! I know what the old cat engineers
at work would have to say about that, lol.

I
dunno why you are so hostile to actually quantifying acoustical
behavior - in fact, you might even be able to improve the sound in your
own room if you would actually take the time to explore them. It only
costs $100 +
laptop/computer to get very valuable information. I couldn't fathom
tuning a room without it - just like I can't fathom tuning my circuits
at work without my analyzers. Heck, if you're that cheap I'll loan you
my calibrated system.

Several of the weak sauce acousticians will just model in Ease
and call it a day (hey, they gotta make money somehow), but the better
companies come in after the fact to measure and tweak the living
daylights out of the systems. Those are the guys that are making rooms
sound better than they should - the S.N. Shure Theater is in my mind a
wonderful example of the modern process - the guys at Threshold
Acoustics turned an otherwise horrible room into an extremely adequate
performance venue. Surely you aren't implying that they simply did it
all by ear?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how modern acoustical methods have resulted in worse sound?

I'm also not sure I would pick the Great Hall at UIUC as a prime example of performance hall acoustics...

1. “Right, and I suppose my oscilliscope and AP system at
work is just a back tracking method too?”

Well, in a way, yes, it is. One thing you seem not to understand
(or at the very least appreciate) is that it is beneficial to know where you
want to go in the first place. And if you don’t know where it is you want to
go, how do you expect to get there? Of course, I could get nasty and ask you
what an “oscilliscope” is and why you use one at work. Is that something for
measuring how hard someone laughs, or just how silly they are? Oh, poop. I
guess I’ll have to cut you some slack since “i” and “o” are right next to each
other on the keyboard.

2. “I dunno why you are so hostile to actually quantifying
acoustical behavior”

I don’t know where you got that idea. I’m not hostile to it
at all. What I am hostile to (still, at this particular point in time) is the
notion that one can design an acoustical environment from scratch that “sounds
right” via engineering methods using “predictive models” and everything will be
OK. I realize that’s not exactly where you’re coming from, but to think that
ETC is the starting point to find the end all solution(s) is nonsense.

As any competent audio professional will tell you, the
“problem” with ETC is not so much the measurements, but with the person interpreting the measurements. Add to
that the fact that much of this software and associated tools are relatively
cheap today (and even free) making them available to anyone who cares to delve
into the exercise. You can easily create a situation of “putting the cart before
the horse”.

How is someone to interpret ETC results when, 1) the (novice)
person doing the measuring doesn’t necessarily know what they are looking for 2)
if they don’t know what they are looking for how will they know how to set the
variables in the software to give them meaningful results for their particular
situation? 3) when they take some measurements most likely won’t know much
about what they are looking at 4) if they don’t know what they are looking for,
or at, how are they to interpret the measurements?

3. “Heck, if you're that cheap I'll loan you my calibrated
system”

No need to. I already have what I need. On the other hand if
you have something that you feel can do the job better, sure, I’d love to try
it. And just because I haven’t posted anything about it yet doesn’t mean I
haven’t done the exercise.

4. “Several of the weak sauce acousticians will just model
in Ease and call it a day (hey, they gotta make money somehow), but the better
companies come in after the fact to measure and tweak the living daylights out
of the systems. Those are the guys that are making rooms sound better than they
should”

Excuse me? “Making rooms sound better than they should”?
HELLO. I sure hope that’s not what you really meant to say. There is no such
thing! Complete nonsense! Now, if you had only said something like “sound
better than they thought was (or might be) possible” ~ that would be an honest
ascertainment.

5. “Surely you aren't implying that they simply did it all
by ear?”

Certainly not. And neither have I. If you had actually been
listening to what I’ve said over the years you would not have made such a
statement. Just read back to what I said earlier in this particular post and
you would know that!

Even an ETC peddler like Richard Rives of Rives Audio has
said “Conversely, we've had clients that knew that their hearing in the higher
octaves was not as good as it used to be. We've actually designed rooms that
allow for more of the energy (and recommended speakers that excel) in the
higher octaves. Some people would potentially frown on this approach, but music
is ultimately for enjoyment, not the
statistics of measurements.” And he has also said “What is true, is that
final tuning of a room often does require extensive and subjective listening.”
This is from someone who’s business and livelihood comes from selling all this
measurement and correction stuff, and is someone I don’t necessarily agree with
much of the time (mostly because of the way he approaches it from a marketing
& sales viewpoint). But even he takes this approach because ultimately it’s
the only way to achieve the desired result.

6. “I couldn't fathom tuning a room without it - just like I
can't fathom tuning my circuits at work without my analyzers”.

Well, from my point of view I’d say you use your analyzers
at work to tune your circuits because not you, nor I, or anyone else, can
actually “hear” your “circuits” in and of themselves. It’s not quite the same
thing as tuning a room which by the very nature of the beast, in fact, requires
listening at least as much as measuring. Measuring is a tool. Listening is a
requirement.

7. “Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how modern acoustical
methods have resulted in worse sound?”

Lincoln
Center

8. “I'm also not sure I would pick the Great Hall at UIUC as
a prime example of performance hall acoustics..”

Well, I have, because it is. And if you don’t know why or
how, then I guess you have some homework to do if you are so inclined. Yeah, I
know, one of the world’s greatest concert halls in the middle of a freakin’ corn
field in central Illinois.
Hard to believe, isn’t it. Just for starters, I’ll help point you in the right
direction: Symphony Orchestras don’t repeatedly travel half way around the world
to come and record there because the acoustics are worse than some very fine
halls in their own back yard. The same goes for the Chicago Symphony,
consistently top ranked as one of, if not the finest in the world.

While I’m at it, I might as well put the icing on the cake
so to speak. Mike, I’ve known you for what, 7 or 8 years now? It’s obvious that
in those years you’ve acquired much knowledge, and that’s great. But what
you’ve acquired in knowledge, IMHO, lacks an even greater amount of understanding.
Einstein once said “creativity is more important than knowledge”. In this
context I’ll also add that in my world understanding is more important than
knowledge. I think you would be better off spending more time understanding the
problem before you go about trying to measure it.

As always, just my respectful opinion.

[mikebse2a3]

Hey you guys with big rooms and big horns. I was looking at pics of rooms like IBSlammin Artto and Mikebse2a3. I'm curious how you guys determined what treatments to use? How do you know when you have the right amount of treatments.

Hey seti

I'll try to revive and respond more specifically in a thread I started a few months ago were I have pictures posted.

I will express a few opinions here though.

If anyone listens to 2ch and 3ch reproduction in a dead space it is very lacking and thus we need the room to contribute to the listening experience in a manner that enhances the experience. If done properly we can have the detail and imaging available from 2ch/3ch reproduction in a pleasent feeling and somewhat enveloping sense of space.

Listening rooms of the typical size in the home have had very little attention by researchers leaving a lot to be learned about how the listeners will perceive the sound reproduced in them. Many recommended methods of treatment for concert halls and studio enviroments are not appropriate and many acoustical papers/books should be read with caution due to this. It's important to test the advice/mehods that any of these papers/books give as it must actually relate to the many unique home enviroments and how the human ear/brain perceives(this includes adapting and ignoring some effects) sound in this enviroment.

I also believe (partly because it is relatively cheap and has so often been recommended improperly or applied improperly) that absorption is one of the most misused acoustical treatments in the home listening room. It's important to listen after installing absorption especially at the first reflection points(especially sidewall locations) at what you have gained(possible imaging and clarity improvements) versus what have you maybe lost(possible tonal balance issues, a frequency dependent ear piercing effect being created with an unnatural frequency dependent dead room effect that causes listener fatigue and a loss of a sense of envelopment that 2ch/3ch benefits from).

Speaking of listener fatigue, if after some time after you have installed an acoustical treatment you are experiencing listener fatigue then this is a good indicator that it isn't the right treatment or placement for what you are trying to improve with it.

Room Mode treatment and Diffusion are the most ignored acoustical issues in the home listening room and the areas were the most improvement can be had. (Improvements in perception of Imaging, Clarity, Dynamics, Tonality and Envelopment can be optimized when these problems are properly treated.)

When it first became available to me I started looking into ETC measurements and others thinking this will take the guess work out of treating the room. After hundreds of measurements I learned that while I do like to investigate the room with these measurements that more is being perceived (in some cases obviously ignored by the ear/brain) than can be revealed by them in the context of the home listeng room. The human brain/ear has to be the final judge but you must educate your ear/brain and be aware of it's ability to be mislead which is how this stereophony works anyway.[]

miketn

[DrWho]

One thing you seem not to understand
(or at the very least appreciate) is that it is beneficial to know where you
want to go in the first place.

Kinda hard to have a discussion on where to go when nobody even speaks the technical language, or is even familiar with where the (performance) tradeoffs need to happen.

It's one thing to talk about Haas kicker amplitudes (or complete lack thereof), decay rates, density of the semi-reverberant field, etc..., but nobody here is using any of the terms. Instead, we're pretending to have experience about something, but not pointing to any quantifiable metric to describe what we're hearing. And that's fine for non-engineers to take a non-engineering approach, but it is not wisdom to pretend there are no quantifiable goals.

but to think that
ETC is the starting point to find the end all solution(s) is nonsense.

That's what I'm getting at.....the ETC is a measurement - measurements are never solutions. Nor is anyone saying that an ETC is a window into all acoustical problems. But the second you start talking about spatiality and sound stage and imaging, the ETC is a great go-to for quantifying that behavior.

I've never had a problem correlating an ETC to the audible outcome. Just like a frequency response provides insight to tonal balance (moreso with a directivity index), it's something you can look at and understand how well the system will image. Because the correlation that exists is so strong, it makes your first point about knowing where you want to go a whole ton easier to approach.

That's not to say there isn't an art or tons of experience that go into the high-end solutions....the point is that we have quantifiable goals to aim for.

No need to. I already have what I need. On the other hand if
you have something that you feel can do the job better, sure, I’d love to try
it. And just because I haven’t posted anything about it yet doesn’t mean I
haven’t done the exercise.

In my world, I prefer to see the data and discuss facts. All this philosophical tip-toe'ing around subjects doesn't result in practical outcomes.

Certainly not. And neither have I. If you had actually been
listening to what I’ve said over the years you would not have made such a
statement. Just read back to what I said earlier in this particular post and
you would know that!

So what tools did all the designers of the oldest performance venues use?

Lincoln
Center

Care to expand?

Well, I have, because it is. And if you don’t know why or
how, then I guess you have some homework to do if you are so inclined. Yeah, I
know, one of the world’s greatest concert halls in the middle of a freakin’ corn
field in central Illinois.
Hard to believe, isn’t it. Just for starters, I’ll help point you in the right
direction: Symphony Orchestras don’t repeatedly travel half way around the world
to come and record there because the acoustics are worse than some very fine
halls in their own back yard. The same goes for the Chicago Symphony,
consistently top ranked as one of, if not the finest in the world.

Considering I went to school at UIUC and worked as an audio engineer down there, I had the opportunity to experience several concerts in the Great hall. Great for recording? Absolutely. But for a live performance? No way in the world. Every group I've attended concerts with has commented on how hard it was to hear anything - and I've sat in several different locations throughout the hall. It's nothing close to the amount of detail you can hear at the CSO.

Excuse me? “Making rooms sound better than they should”?
HELLO. I sure hope that’s not what you really meant to say. There is no such
thing! Complete nonsense! Now, if you had only said something like “sound
better than they thought was (or might be) possible” ~ that would be an honest
ascertainment.

At the time, better sound was not possible with the current techniques. In other words, new techniques were invented to achieve the desired results. That doesn't happen by prescribing myths about magical shapes and dimensions. That happens through good engineering. The honest story is the designers were awesome. Now if they could just get a good sounding piano in that room they'd be all set...

While I’m at it, I might as well put the icing on the cake
so to speak. Mike, I’ve known you for what, 7 or 8 years now? It’s obvious that
in those years you’ve acquired much knowledge, and that’s great. But what
you’ve acquired in knowledge, IMHO, lacks an even greater amount of understanding.
Einstein once said “creativity is more important than knowledge”. In this
context I’ll also add that in my world understanding is more important than
knowledge. I think you would be better off spending more time understanding the
problem before you go about trying to measure it.

My professional track record speaks for itself.

[artto]

"My professional track record speaks for itself"

You're right, it does.

[DrWho]

"My professional track record speaks for itself"

You're right, it does.

[]