"Loudspeaker-Room" Maximum Performance Acheived

[mikebse2a3]

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

When I hear recordings in mono, what I hear is a sound that is immediately perceived as flat and dull in comparison to a good stereo recording.  This includes mono recordings that have been impressed onto two tracks (i.e., "stereo", but actually still mono played through stereo loudspeakers).  What I do hear on mono, much more clearly, is loudspeaker reproduction flaws.  If you want to hear the issues, play each loudspeaker one at a time. 

I also hear some loudspeaker flaws easier when one loudspeaker is playing.

 

My experience at this point is a mono signal/recording played through stereo loudspeakers sounds inferior versus mono played through one loudspeaker. I believe this is caused by how our hearing/brain  works and the complex acoustical interaction with the room is less for the listener to decode for one loudspeaker versus when two loudspeakers are reproducing mono.

 

My experience is Multi Channel (2 or more) when done right(ie: frequency, dynamics...etc...are equally reproduced) is always more realistic and engaging unless they have been recorded unnaturally from an imaging perspective (instruments or vocalist placed unnaturally).

 

 

mikietn

[mikebse2a3]

2 hours ago, Don Richard said:

It is very difficult to compare two large loudspeaker systems to each other unless they are in the same acoustic space, playing identical music, and both properly set up.

This is true of any comparison of loudspeaker or equipment for that matter also.

 

miketn 

[mikebse2a3]

Let me try to clarify my thoughts because I see many answers that seem to indicate some feel that there is a priority of attributes (frequency, dynamics, etc....) and imaging is one of them to choose from also.

 

Imaging is a result/measure of and not really a choice. Imaging is a result of each of many attributes of a signal/recording being combined by our ear/brain to form an image. There seems to be a direct correlation that every time each of these are reproduced more accurately and preserved and delivered to the listener through the direct path combined/integrated with the room's acoustical path(filter) the imaging will be perceived in a much more realistic and pleasant way. 

 

It's not a matter of if someone is has reached a point of happiness or compromise that they can live with for aesthetic or other reasons.

 

Imaging perception is an audible measuring method to know when you are getting the maximum performance from your loudspeaker, room acoustics and their integration.

 

The new room I'm working on now is a good example of this. As I bring the room acoustics into proper balance and optimize the integration of the loudspeaker into the room the results are perceived in the improved imaging and the listener position becomes much less critical of being in the optimum position.

 

If you want the best of any attributes on your list of priorities then Imaging can and should be used as a tool to measure/monitor your progress as you optimize your system/room. 

 

miketn

[Chris A]

I agree with your assessment of imaging: it's the sum total of the performance attributes that have been thrown around in conversation.  It's the result of doing everything right--loudspeaker performance, driving electronics, source material (most importantly), and room acoustics.  

 

What I've found is that a lot of folks assume that you have to be in one spot--the sole listening position for one person as if your head is in a vise--to hear it.  That's just not the case if your loudspeakers are up to the task and your acoustic integration of the loudspeakers into the room is done well. 

 

The additional performance attributes that I added--the width and depth of room's "sweet spot", and decay performance of room--are typically ignored by those that apparently only expect to only be able to hear their loudspeakers sitting or standing in one spot, and that don't consider these additional two attributes to be part of "imaging" in the broadest sense.

 

With proper acoustic treatments and arrangement of furnishings to integrate your loudspeakers into the room properly using acoustic measurements in a feedback loop of information...most of your room becomes the active listening space.  

 

It took a while--and a few serendipitous choices, such as:

1) choosing the right loudspeakers/drivers with high quality electronic crossovers

2) the listening room chosen (sufficient dimensions, care in placement of furnishings),

3) finding the best positioning of the loudspeakers within the room,

3) measuring/adjusting room acoustics (diffusion+absorption, including bass traps), and

4) carefully dialing-in EQ all loudspeaker channels (by hand).

 

Do I have more to do? Of course...always...

 

Chris

[Chris A]

Observations about maximizing loudspeaker-room performance:

 

I've found that if the strong early reflections (i.e., within ~2.5 ms delay or one yard/metre distance) are well controlled via room absorption/diffusion and controlled midrange and midbass horn directivity, the entire room's sound becomes clear, spacious, and detailed.  If anyone walks into that intervening space (90 degrees left to 90 degrees right of centerline...well outside the lay-line to the loudspeakers), the distortion of the ambience of the room is immediately apparent and very disturbing of the listening experience.

 

However, in rooms where the early reflections are not controlled, the room's sound is confused, opaque, and insensitive to all but someone walking directly in front of one or more loudspeakers. 

 

In rooms with too much absorption--especially on the side walls--the room sounds clear and detailed, but not "ambient" and sensitive to someone walking in from the sides outside of the direct lines to the loudspeakers.  This is a high price to pay for overdoing the absorption. 

 

This effect is quite pronounced, and it is the way that I use to immediately determine the acoustics in  listening rooms that are new to me. Getting the room set up well acoustically makes all the difference in the world in the listening experience.

 

Doing the acoustic treatment and loudspeaker positioning wrong will nullify the performance of even the best loudspeakers that money can buy...although loudspeakers with good directivity control do much better in cluttered rooms, such as full-range multiple-entry horns like Danley's and DIY multiple-entry horns, and full-range conventional multi-way horns, i.e., Jubilee, Khorn, La Scala, and Belle. 

Chris

[twk123]

54 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Observations about maximizing loudspeaker-room performance:

 

I've found that if the strong early reflections (i.e., within ~2.5 ms delay or one yard/metre distance) are well controlled via room absorption/diffusion and controlled midrange and midbass horn directivity, the entire room's sound becomes clear, spacious, and detailed.  If anyone walks into that intervening space (90 degrees left to 90 degrees right of centerline...well outside the lay-line to the loudspeakers), the distortion of the ambience of the room is immediately apparent and very disturbing of the listening experience.

 

However, in rooms where the early reflections are not controlled, the room's sound is confused, opaque, and insensitive to all but someone walking directly in front of one or more loudspeakers. 

 

In rooms with too much absorption--especially on the side walls--the room sounds clear and detailed, but not "ambient" and sensitive to someone walking in from the sides outside of the direct lines to the loudspeakers.  This is a high price to pay for overdoing the absorption. 

 

This effect is quite pronounced, and it is the way that I use to immediately determine the acoustics in  listening rooms that are new to me. Getting the room set up well acoustically makes all the difference in the world in the listening experience.

 

Doing the acoustic treatment and loudspeaker positioning wrong will nullify the performance of even the best loudspeakers that money can buy...although loudspeakers with good directivity control do much better in cluttered rooms, such as full-range multiple-entry horns like Danley's and DIY multiple-entry horns, and full-range conventional multi-way horns, i.e., Jubilee, Khorn, La Scala, and Belle. 

Chris

I agree 100%. Distortion from primary reflection point echos are the quickest way to destroy imaging and realism. The whole point of compression drivers and horns is to move very little and thus keep distortion to a minimum but if you are hearing your speaker and then the echo from your wall you throw all that engineering out the window.

 

Once you have the basic principles taken care of such as near field reflections, comb filtering and keeping the bass controlled the rest is a matter of taste and a balance of absorption and diffusion.

[Chief bonehead]

On August 7, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Chris A said:

 

With proper acoustic treatments and arrangement of furnishings to integrate your loudspeakers into the room properly using acoustic measurements in a feedback loop of information...most of your room becomes the active listening space.  

 

I don't think mike or I would disagree with this at all. Btw. Ask kev how much his "sweet spot" has increased. 

[Quiet_Hollow]

On 8/6/2016 at 11:43 AM, TheHummer said:

I.m from Europe and it's proven that we listen different than the Americans.

 Link?  I've gotta read this.

On 8/6/2016 at 11:43 AM, TheHummer said:

I.ve heard the magico on a show in holland with Mcintosh,and Klipsch is not in any way better than you tell us here.

...with McIntosh no less. Where's Artto?