How your room impacts how you hear sound

[mas]

Shawn,

"I would agree. Decent components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a crappy room."

Not exactly 2 sides of the coin is it:

"Decent components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a decent room?"

"Crappy components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a crappy room?"

Neither case seems quite as clear cut now.

What is this ridiculous generalization you keep trying to make about "crappy components"? You and one or two others are the only ones that seem so preoccupied with this nomenclature.

This emotional preoccupation that you have with 'crappy' components is amazing. But since you are preoccupied with it and continue to look for silly and simplistic generalizations, and then complain that we do not explain your cartoon conception of a sound system adequately is your hangup.

And what is even more humorous is that you care about trying to make absolute judgments based upon vague generalizations and ill defined terms. And then you try to debate issues on your interpretation of them.

[oldtimer]

Oldtimer, sounds good to me !

Is that one of those " special " sound correcting earth shaped things hanging from the ceiling ? A couple of wet Persian rugs, or was it insulating plants, can't recall what is the correct order would work in front of the blinds, for sure.

Your babies are safe, don't worry I never forgot ! You live north of Houston or is it north of Dallas, I can't remember ?

The reason I asked is My sister is going to Houston in about 3 weeks, and it got me thinking.

It's actually a moon shaped "special sound correcting" thing hanging from the ceiling. A scale model of the moon with all geographical features labeled plus all the lunar landing sites marked as of date of manufacture (which was sometime just after Apollo 11). Had it since new, it's a little beat up from the time spent in college. The plant in front of the blinds used to be taller, it's on it's way out when and if the room gets rearranged (or maybe if a sub ever goes there).

I live north of Dallas/Fort Worth, have your sister make a small detour, it should only be around 8 hours (one way) out of her way (just kidding of course). Thanks for thinking about me, we'll get it done sooner or later.

[anarchist]

Max is finally in a war. Just a FYI, Mas, beyond being the master of uselessness, is also the master of employing more insults than thought in his posts as well.

There are a few sites you would be better served to learn about acoustic treatment than trying to get any real answer from Mas. If he ever did commit to providing an answer, it would be wrong in any case.

Good luck Max. So much for your diplomatic approach to posting, eh? []

[mas]

Oh shucks, you edited your post. It was going to be so simple to slam you on the original one.

You claim using acoustic treatments to tame the mids and highs can't result in an overly damped room? That is pure foolishness.

There are 4 purposes of acoustical treatment and the approach is different based on low vs high frequencies.

Tell us, smart guy, what is the best material for taming highs? What is the standard approach to removing standing waves? How do you prevent the sound from being focused in one area? How do you improve the sound stage? What if you have a flat ceiling vs a cathedral ceiling? Go on smart guy. I am waiting with baited breath for your insight.

Taming highs...

Oh, so you think that I advocate time based analysis in order that I can identify high frequencies?

And where have I even advocated overdamped rooms or the uncontrolled use of absorption? CITE ONE INSTANCE!

And where have I advocated the use of rugs or tapestries or Spiderman beach towels to absorb HF? I have consistently been against the use of such material or of the general need to damp HFs, as generally they are not only easily controlled, but not a problem! And diffusion is definitely the preferred method.

What is hilarious is that you and your partner keep debating room acoustics from the frequency domain perspective, which only solidifies your ignorance!

Now, if you wish to shift over to the time domain, you might come closer to actually addressing the concept of acoustical treatment.

The irony is that i really don't give a damn about the frequency domain, as it falls into place rather easily, or is very easily addressed, once the time based issues are addressed.

Just keep illustrating that YOU DON'T GET IT! Its a hoot!

[maxg]

Shawn,

"I would agree. Decent components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a crappy room."

Not exactly 2 sides of the coin is it:

"Decent components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a decent room?"

"Crappy components (amps/preamps/sources) in an outstanding room will trump outstanding components in a crappy room?"

Neither case seems quite as clear cut now.

What is this ridiculous generalization you keep trying to make about "crappy components"? You and one or two others are the only ones that seem so preoccupied with this nomenclature.

This emotional preoccupation that you have with 'crappy' components is amazing. But since you are preoccupied with it and continue to look for silly and simplistic generalizations, and then complain that we do not explain your cartoon conception of a sound system adequately is your hangup.

And what is even more humorous is that you care about trying to make absolute judgments based upon vague generalizations and ill defined terms. And then you try to debate issues on your interpretation of them.

And yet despite my all to obvious limitations I still managed to assemble a decent sounding system in my room - go figure!

FWIW crappy components was lifted from crappy room in the original post - it isnt my decription - I borrowed it.

Try this then:

Bose cubes - brilliant room Vs KHorns - average room.

[mas]

And now the kids response is prove this, explain that, summarize acoustic theory in 10 words or less with specific examples, oh, and how do you treat high frequency problems, while they still haven't figured out the importance of the time domain and are still living in the frequency domain.

Like I feel compelled to dance as you idiots throw quarters up on a stage.

I think you need to go back to playing with your EQs and debating what cap will change the world.

[anarchist]

And where have I advocated the use of rugs or tapestries or Spiderman beach towels to absorb HF?

Ok. That is funny. I don't know where anyone claimed you did but "Spiderman beach towels." Truly funny. May be the only thing you ever said worth reading.

I have consistently been against the use of such material or of the general need to damp HFs, as generally they are not only easily controlled, but not a problem!

The world according to Garp. "High frequencies aren't a problem." Thousands of posts on taming brightness but Mas says "they are not a problem."

Now, if you wish to shift over to the time domain, you might come closer to actually addressing the concept of acoustical treatment.

Read my post smart guy. 4 reasons for acoustic treatments. Time domain is only one. Is this your problem? The inability to digest more than 1 thought at a time. Quickly, tell me the other two reasons? Ah, never mind, you wouldn't get it right anyway.

"Spiderman beach towel" I am still laughing. Fantastic. You should have quit there.

[mas]

The world according to Garp. "High frequencies aren't a problem." Thousands of posts on taming brightness but Mas says "they are not a problem."

Now, if you wish to shift over to the time domain, you might come closer to actually addressing the concept of acoustical treatment.

Read my post smart guy. 4 reasons for acoustic treatments. Time domain is only one. Is this your problem? The inability to digest more than 1 thought at a time. Quickly, tell me the other two reasons? Ah, never mind, you wouldn't get it right anyway.

What is amazing is that this fellow seems to think that the high frequencies bounce around over here, while the mids are there and the lows are there! I bet he has all of the 'frequency balanced Monster cables!

High frequencies are SIMPLE to address! But if we address the time anomalies and create a well behaved semi-reverberant field from the later arriving specular reflections, the high frequencies cease to be a problem.

And it will amaze him that we don't even have to look at the frequency response to determine that, although its always there is you wish to.

And then there is the reference to Bose, as if that even means anything in this example, as obviously he lacks any real understanding of the problem with Bose design. A cube can sound just fine. It may be restricted in its band pass, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a cube. In fact, if its Q is well defined, it can be used quite effectively. And the fact that it says Bose on it does not invalidate it. Just one more example of a fundamental misunderstanding of concepts.

These flatlanders just don't get it. But then I suspect they each have an EQ in their rack to fix all of the frequency response anomalies they manage to discover in their room.

[maxg]

Robert,

I think we are now partners according to Mas. I used to have cohorts but I have moved on since then apparently.

Am I in a fight? Nothing much coming from the other side other than snide remarks and pomposity. I haven't worked up a sweat yet.....[]

Mas,

This is a thread titled "How your room impacts how you hear sound"

If ever there was a thread offering an opportunity for you to share your knowledge this was it.

An opportunity missed for reasons unknown. One can only assume that your knowledge stops at the smattering of technical terms you have picked up and the arrogant, holier than thou attitude which impresses no-one.

[anarchist]

Yet another useless post and a bunch of assumptions to make Mas feel good about his inadequacies while sidestepping the questions. If you actually ever gave an answer, people would realize quickly you were full of crap and rely on long posts with no substance to feign the appearance of knowledge.

Tell us, Mas, what is the minimum volume of an optimal listening room. Simple question with a simple answer. Think you can manage it?

I bet not.

I understand Max. Its like your opponent showing up at a gun fight with a knife. Or getting in an a$$-kicking competition with a one-legged man. There is almost no joy in it. Oh well. Pretend you are at a zoo then... "throw another quarter on stage" and we can continue to watch the monkey dance around his opportunity to demonstrate his self-proclaimed intellect.

[mas]

At this point in this thread you suddenly get religion and want an explanation of acoustical analysis and room treatments and why don't I address all of your 'newfound' questions.

Right.

We did have an opportunity. Not only here, but in many other places in the past. But rather than explore the possibilities from the inception, this quickly became an opportunity for several to do their usual 'if I don't understand it it necessarily means that others are stupid' dance. And despite the dance being done so amazingly well, now these same people want the "answers", numbered and in synopsized form.

Right.

Max, if you would like to talk about this sometime, preferably over skype, I think we can develop a greater understanding. And as far as Anachronism is concerned, I think Clint Eastwood expressed it best: "Does F O mean anything to you?"

[jacksonbart]

Mark,

"In 6 years on this forum, I can't recall seeing more than a photo or two of members' rooms turned into acoustically treated "sound rooms.""

On this forum there are a few, not many though. On other forums I could show you dozens/hundreds of acoustically designed/treated rooms. Some of which are downright gorgeous to look at. Many are dedicated rooms though.

A dedicated room is if not the best thing I ever did to my system is certainly second place. My wife loves the room BTW.

Shawn

Shawn

What was the best thing you did?

[oldbuckster]

Well, I see mas has made himself at home on another thread..............Boy am I glad, at first I thought he just had a problem with me, Carry on Guys, this could be interesting..............It's just an Audio Forum...Go Figure...................

[maxg]

Mas,

You surprised me. Thank-you for that invitation - I will take you up on it after easter and once I have installed skype. Never used it - we have our own internet telephony here (with cheap calls to the US as an alternative) and I also have MSN messenger which allows video calls (very handy with a Grandma in another country 2000 miles away) for FREE!!!

I will send you my hotmail addy via email so you can add me if you have Messenger.

Thanks again.

[anarchist]

"Does F O mean anything to you?"

Yeah, it means you forgot the S. As in, you, mas, are full of $hit. Once again, you couldn't answer the question and it was a really simple one. An acoustics expert should know it readily but then you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of acoustics, just more of your time/space continuum BS you got from watching Star Trek.

I know its difficult for a genius like yourself to digest all these posts - hell, you have difficulty interpreting your own posts so let me make it simple for you. Two questions.

There are 4 primary functions of acoustic treatments Mas, what are they?

What is the minimum volume of an optimal listening room, Mas?

Answer them or just admit your screen name should be mas mierda.

[pauln]

"Does F O mean anything to you?"

Yeah, it means you forgot the S. As in, you, mas, are full of $hit. Once again, you couldn't answer the question and it was a really simple one. An acoustics expert should know it readily but then you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of acoustics, just more of your time/space continuum BS you got from watching Star Trek.

I know its difficult for a genius like yourself to digest all these posts - hell, you have difficulty interpreting your own posts so let me make it simple for you. Two questions.

There are 4 primary functions of acoustic treatments Mas, what are they?

What is the minimum volume of an optimal listening room, Mas?

Answer them or just admit your screen name should be mas mierda.

Well this is starting to look like another thread headed for the Lock Box. That said, I sympathize with some of MAS' frustration; as alas, I too am so highly intelligent, extraordinarily educated, and mentally advanced that sometimes ordinary people drive me nuts with their inferiority, It's real tough being so smart, so let's lay off MAS for a bit.[A]

In the meantime, I'll just suggest that the challenge to MAS to answer the questions is not a substancial challenge, as I got this off the internet in 5 seconds at this excellent site: http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

There are four primary goals of acoustic treatment: 1) To prevent standing waves and acoustic interference from affecting the frequency response of recording studios and listening rooms; 2) to reduce modal ringing in small rooms and lower the reverb time in larger studios, churches, and auditoriums; 3) to absorb or diffuse sound in the room to avoid ringing and flutter echoes, and improve stereo imaging; and 4) to keep sound from leaking into or out of a room. That is, to prevent your music from disturbing the neighbors, and to keep the sound of passing trucks from getting into your microphones.

Acoustics experts recommend a minimum volume of at least 2500 cubic feet for any room in which high quality music reproduction is intended.

[anarchist]

Quite good. 5 seconds... you are an expert google searcher. []

None of this stuff is a challenge and is rather pedestrian because 4 hours on the net and you have access to just about everything. The whole time domain (the spiral etc.) is also out there and easily discovered and understood. You can learn more about nothing than anyone needs.

Want to know what acoustic treatments are available? Its on the net. Want to know what acoustics solves? Its on the net. Want to determine how to built an acoustically sound room? Its on the net. Want to calculate your room nodes? Its on the net.

Think anyone here has a monopoly on acoustics? Not at all.

[DrWho]

"But a "properly functioning" amp, pre-amp, cables, have IMO and experiance have less of an impact on the sound one hears than the room."

Not to pick this statement apart (in other words - to pick this statement apart) had you said "properly matched" as opposed to "properly functioning" then I would agree with you.

Of course - getting to properly matched is the journey we are all on - and it is not limited to the amps pre-amps and cables.

All of this raises another question - when is the right time to address room issues?

If I have a system and treat the room to make that system sound good in there do I need to re-treat the room is I change something?

Paraphrasing the example that Shawn made several pages ago - an amp that is weak in bass when matched with a given pair of speakers might need very different treatments from an amp that is strong in the bass. If you treat the room for one - all of that work might have to be undone or redone with the new amp.

Aside from that the one big advantage of investing in equipment over investing in room treatments is that equipment is more likely to be transferable should you move house - or room within the house.

Just thoughts.....

I appreciate trying to keep things practical, but do you really believe a "boomy amp" sounds the same as a "boomy room"? And that by negating the boominess of an amp that you can negate the boominess of the room? Heck, do you honestly feel any amount of flavor of electronics can negate the flavor of any room?

In light of being practical and avoiding the ambiguities of general claims, I would love to hear about specific examples.

[DrWho]

Would like to hear others opinions here, but I would also say room treatments should be dependant on the system components, those with the most impact being the speakers and source.

Probably not the comments you're looking for, but I'm continuously amazed by the strong viewpoints maintained by those that have never even heard a properly treated room. It's kinda like the random bloke just getting into audio that thinks his Bose are the epitomy of music reproduction until hearing some Klipsch - yea, it's that big of a difference.

(and just imagine how freaky awesome that can be when you've got great source material with great electronics....)

[DrWho]

There are primarily 4 purposes of acoustical treatment and the approach is different based on low vs high frequencies.

Tell us, smart guy, what is the best material for taming highs? What is the standard approach to removing standing waves? How do you prevent the sound from being focused in one area? How do you improve the sound stage? What if you have a flat ceiling vs a cathedral ceiling? Go on smart guy. I am waiting with baited breath for your insight.

Oh gosh, if only it were so simple! [] Your post reminds me very much of the "kids" I demonstrate loudspeaker modelling to and then plague me with questions like "what's the best driver?" "What if the box is bigger than your car?" etc etc...

If you're trying to make a point about being practical that's one thing, but holy fricken cow....do you really want an answer to all those questions?

The irony about mas is that if you actually take the time to sit down and be open-minded, he'll share all sorts of cool practical info. Might as well go back 40 years, tell PWK that he doesn't know anything about speakers and then ask him "what is the best horn?"