Live sugar works well.
The mystery of good acoustics
As any knowledgeable audiophile will tell you, the room should be regarded as an essential “component” in one’s audio system. Jim Smith’s useful book Get Better Sound is dedicated to this maxim, as are two long chapters (14 and 15) in Robert Harley’s otherwise consumerist manifesto The Complete Guide to High-End Audio (for a review of the latter book, see my post to this site titled “Audiophile virtues”). And there are internet sites to help you determine the best parameters. Here are two: the amroc room mode calculator (https://amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=26&w=20&h=13&ft=true&r60=0.6) and the Cardas Speaker Placement calculator (http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php).
And yet, acoustics, not to mention psychoacoustics, remains mostly a mystery. In 1969, when the reconstruction needed to fix the jinxed acoustics of Lincoln Center was finally completed, the great music critic Harold Schonberg wrote in the Times: “Acousticians grimly shake their heads when they talk about it. The cause of their science had been set back a century. Science? After the opening of Philharmonic Hall, on Sept. 23, 1962…the feeling in lay circles was that the ‘science’ of acoustics had as much validity as a prediction by a Delphic oracle or an astrologer in a tabloid newspaper.” The top acousticians in the world had spent years analyzing the world’s best concert halls, and yet the fruits of their labors and expertise had fallen, well, flat in New York. Why?
Why are Amsterdam’s Concertgebouw (1888) and Vienna’s Musikverein (1870) so blessed? Every seat in both of those houses is a good seat acoustically: subtle details are always audible without loud climaxes being shrieky or overwhelming; voices and instruments sound natural; orchestral balance manages to be right even dramatically “off axis,” and so on. The “science” of acoustics was primitive at best in the nineteenth century, and yet, despite the inevitable progress any science makes over time, no one really understands the magic of either of those venues sufficiently to recreate it today.
Let me offer two anecdotes that bring this mystery home to me personally. A dozen years ago, I visited a former student, and a fellow audiophile, who had become wealthy in computer engineering. At that time, he was living in a house his company had rented for him in Sacramento: architecturally undistinguished, it had a large living room with somewhat peculiar geometry and high cathedral ceilings. His system sounded fantastic in that room; the best I’d ever heard by that point in my experience with high-end audio. Then, the following year, he moved into a loft apartment in San Francisco’s Noe Valley. It, too, was large, with high ceilings, but it was almost cube-like in shape; he brought that same superlative system along with him. But in the new space, the same system sounded only passable, not exciting. Why?
My own system was mostly assembled before I moved from a simple cookie-cutter house to my present abode. In the former house, I had no complaints—but I had no idea what I was missing. In my present living room, the same components compare very favorably with systems costing more than ten times as much owned by fellow members of our local audio club. It’s simply a different, and vastly better, “system” than it was before, although it contains the same components. Again: why?
Remember the lesson of Lincoln Center before you rush to a confident answer. Jim Smith, with all his experience setting up systems for well-heeled audiophiles, doesn’t know the answer if the best in the business hired by New York’s cultural powers-that-were did not. So I don’t know the answer, and neither do you; room calculators, diffusers, and bass traps will only get you so far. Maybe this is a good thing; it keeps us experimenting, gives us perpetual hope for improvement. Maybe it also explains, in part, why so few audiophiles spend nearly as much time discussing room acoustics as they do obsessing over tubes vs. solid state, or power cords, or whatever else money can buy that might, just might, improve their sound without actually changing where they live.
But I have a theory.
First, prefer odd room geometry if you can. This claim is anecdotal, not dogmatic; if you have a different opinion, let’s hear it. But it’s my impression that odd geometry corresponds more reliably with good sound. Perhaps this is because the effects of one part of an irregularly shaped room will not be exaggerated, or cancelled, by the same effects produced by a mirror image on the other side. Anthony Grimani, of Grimani Systems, suggests that odd dimensions help to reduce standing waves. Placing your speakers at different distances from the side walls may also help, for the same reasons: whatever resonances are set up on one side will not be exacerbated by the other stereo channel, if the two speakers are different distances from their respective side walls. I’m guessing (this is ALL guessing!) that odd dimensions above will also be beneficial. A trapezoidal ceiling will be better than a flat ceiling, for instance. The lesson, if any of this is right, would be that the by far most common arrangement—a rectangular room, with the speakers placed as far out into the room as is practical from one of the short walls, and the listening position also placed as far into the room as possible—is likely to be better than putting your speakers right up against the far wall, your listening chair right up against the opposite wall (leaving the majority of empty space in the room free of audio objects, and therefore more useful for regular domestic purposes)…but it will not be optimal. A simple rectangle is not a good shape for a listening room, if you have an alternative. Again: this is a pure hypothesis, ungrounded in any kind of “science,” but consistent with my admittedly limited experience (see the two personal anecdotes above).
Second, materials. Different materials—dry wall, bricks, bookshelves full of books, furniture made of wood, upholstered furniture, hardwood floors vs. carpet, “acoustic” ceilings (popcorn or tiles) vs. dry wall vs. wood beams…—will absorb and reflect different frequencies, and various resonances and diffractions, in different ways. What’s best? I don’t know. But I don’t recall these parameters being discussed in any of the references I’ve mentioned above, which are specifically addressed to the importance of room acoustics. I’d guess, using the same logic as arrived at irregular geometry, that a mix of different materials is likely to be best.
One thing’s pretty much for sure. A recent post to this site praised the delights of listening outdoors. I was appalled by that post for social reasons. I live on 5 acres, and my nearest neighbor is about a quarter mile away, but still I would never consider subjecting them to my music by playing it outside! Anyway, audio equipment is designed to be listened to in enclosed spaces, not in the out-of-doors. With no reflected sound at all, I can’t believe an audio system can recreate the experience of being in a concert hall, or a jazz club, or any other likely music venue (even Woodstock, or the Hollywood Bowl, have reflecting structures that shape the sound). I’m unwilling even to try this in any case, out of respect for my neighbors.
So: Have you any secrets for maximizing room acoustics? Shape, furnishings, acoustic treatments? Magical devices (e.g., Schumann resonance generators)? Psychopharmaceuticals?
29 responses Add your response
OP,
I think you hit on the big items. I stumbled on my current audio space rather by accident… I bought the house. My dealer/friend says it is about the best space he has ever heard (in 30 years). It is asymmetric in about every way. The side walls are not equidistant from the speakers. I have racks of albums and CDs all over.
I’m post another photo in my “main system” showing the space. . It is a broad large Z shape being 25’ on the top and bottom —, it is about 35’ from the top of the Z to the bottom. With hallways leading off. The ceiling is not one height either. Dampened with thick wall hangings… it is just amazing. No skill on my part… just blind luck. |
Let’s ask the expert master @deludedaudiophile |
Yup! I totally forgot. From all your dozen previous handles, you are here only to “debunk”. Nothing to offer or help others. Sick dude.
By the way, what’s your audio system? Do you have one? I have asked this same question every one of your previous handles. You have never answered me. Or anyone. This time around, can you post your system? I don’t see anything under Systems here |
Sorry weird dude, you seem to have me confused with someone else. I am quite helpful and if you need me to help build you some panels I have a great woodworking shop, it is a good break from the day job which is often very theoretical. Most people don't have systems posted on here. Seems rather showoffy ... not my style, but I have some cool toys I may post if it makes you happy. You may need that in your life since you are wasting time doing whatever it is you think you are doing. Happy day. |
This is my hobby. Figuring out when you will resurface with a new username. Below is the list of all your previous usernames. Starting from the last. The last one I have to admit was pretty funny 😂. You created this specifically to post screenshots of my PMs to you when you were posting as Audio2Design.
The most epic one was AtDavid
———-
thynamesinnervoice
cindyment
snratio
yesiamjohn
sugabooger
dletch2
audio2design
dannad
heaudio123
audiozenology
atdavid |
Thanks for hijacking an interesting post @thyname . People might have actually learned something on this thread but you have let your obsession over this person, whoever they might be, ruin it for most readers. Quit being a Karen. |
«NO speaker can beat the room»... I dont remember where i read these words coming from the mouth of an acoustician....😁😊 No speakers at any cost will beat, by their upgrading power ALONE, over another good speakers we owned before it, the power of acoustic control over them two...
Here are these 6 aspects of acoustic control parameters in a room i experimented with : 1 -Balance between absorbing surfaces, 2 -Reflecting one, 3 -Diffusive one.... This was "classical" passive material treatment of a room... Now these 3 new other factors are related to my concept of the mechanical active control of a room ( what i called a mechanical equalizer): 4-control over reverberation time and timing of the wavefronts by using reflecting devices at the right spot...( the great advantage of a small room is the possibility to control reverberation time and timing in a positive way, in a way that amphiteater or great hall could not so easily, making speakers/room synergy better) 5- control over the distribution of the pressure zones with a grid of H.R from one speaker to the other around the room...And with some other devices... 6- fine layering and tuning of the flow of the sound waves by working with tubes of different size and straws for example in the right location on the shear velocity of the waves and their sound pressure...We must learn also to work with the speaker A and his image for the ear A and with the speakers B and his phantom image for the ear B, i learned that by using a folding screen like a lense for the soundwave and concentrate them aroundmy head to recreate a intimacy that beat my headphone... It is a phenomena related to acoustic crosstalk and acoustic crossfield... i remind you that all my leearning come from listening experiments not fron a foirmula taken in a book...I am not an acoustician anyway i dont need one to tune a room..But i will need one to explain all acoustical mysteries i dont understand but which i sense...
In a small room remember that at the speed of sound 1100 feet by second, the sound weaves cross your small room of 13 feet, like mine for example, cross it 84 times per second...Your room atmosphere is in a way tense or sensible like a violin cord for the ears/brain. who take decision and make his computing between your 2 ears in couple of milliseconds... Do you begin to understand why even a straw or tube diameter/lenght/volume, can change the sound of a room /speakers relation ?
These 3 last aspects described above could be controlled with Helmhotz mechanical method NOT completely by electronical equalization only ... ( Imaging, soundstage, dynamic, timbre percption, listener envelopment/ sound source dimension and his ratio , colors,etc any acoustic qualities are all related with one another and changing one is changing the others a bit also, the key is changing all of them together with mechanical control in a fine tuning incremental optimizing process of listenings experiments) Electronic E.Q. can be a useful tool but cannot tune a room nor be a PART of the room like a mechanical equalizer...And E.Q.uing with a frequency test ask for a location which could be accurate only in a millimeter range, anywhere else causing havoc... Then the piano will not sound the same from the same pair of speakers in a non controlled room and in a controlled one...Not even close...
Dont upgrade good speakers with costly one BEFORE studying and experimenting with acoustic... My acoustic devices and experiments were all homemade and cost me nothing... I can then claim that great hi-Fi experience is possible at low cost contrary to what is claimed or supposed almost everywhere by almost everyone... People dont know acoustic and never seriously try experimenting with it in a dedicated SMALL room... Anyway if electronic engineering design is a mature technology for 70 yeears now with major improvement behind, acoustic of SMALL room is a new venture for few decades only because customers demands was not there enough till very recently.... A living room is not an audio dedicated room... I am happy to be retired and i could experiment for the last few years in acoustic and made the above discoveries for myself... A dedicated audio room is the ONLY one luxury in audio not the price tag of the gear at all... Basic relatively good gear is enough to give a very good audiophile experience FOR MOST PEOPLE... Claiming the opposite is most of the times ignorance of acoustic....Reviewers sells gear not acoustic information...Then the customer is conditioned to upgrade the gear not to understand acoustic... By the way i am only a not skilled, non crafty, ordinary dude, but dedicated in my passion : listening music with a good sound but at NO COST or very low one... Is it possible? Yes i proved it to myself and my goal here is to point to the right direction for improvement and spare people their money... I learned a bit of acoustic by listening experiments not by resolving equations...Anyway acoustic phenomenon are too complex in a small room with his multidimensional numerous parameters to be reducible to simple linear equations...It is mostly non linear phenomena... Anyway the ears could beat computer on the qualities recognition... It is the reason why blind people develop bat skill and learn to see sound... Human ears evolve million of years to recognize "timbre voices" not tested frequency but qualities in the sound source not reflective waves for themselves but music...A map is not reality....Each room is differentby geometry,topology, and acoustic content and small room acoustic is NOT big room or amphiteather acoustic... Acoustic has a taste, a color, a touch, and a life of his own so to speak in a poetical way...A room vibrate like a body 😁😊😊😊
P.S. My system basic value is around 500 bucks but every part is well chosen and after 7 years i dont think to upgrade any part at all thanks to acoustic... The photo in my virtual page by the way are too old and are in no way able to describe my actual room.... It is way nuttier and more silly now than some here said it was, trying to discredit my claims and discoveries...But my room is more a LABORATORY, not a living room and not the usual audio room, and "at no cost", none of my devices homemade and with improvised design are esthetical and suited to a normal living room... More skilled people than me must make their own device more beautiful and more efficient... I say that my room is a laboratory because nobody teach me acoustic here and how to control a room... -Passive treatment is NOT active mechanical control for example, they are COMPLEMENTARY but one cannot replace the other at all, -square small room are not "bad" if we know how to adress them , ( there is no bad room only improved one, my room : 13 feet by 13 feet and 8 feet 1/2)) -and near listening will be affected by the room acoustic like regular listening position in a small room...( then thinking that near listening will make acoustic treatment and control unnecessary is wrong) These 3 facts for example were personal discoveries contradicting popular claims in audio thread....... And to give you an idea about my speakers/room relation NONE of my 7 headphones, hybrid, electrostatic or magneplanar or dynamic are interesting to listen to now , they are in my closet retired.... I begin my audiophile journey by buying headphones and modifying them with success hoping to reach the better...But Headphones are not for most of them satisfying on all acoustical count even when modified positively... I decided to try my luck with speakers... After i have sold my stupendous Tannoy dual gold 12 inches speaker...I was lucky enough to buy the best speaker Mission ever designed for 50 bucks : Mission cyrus speakers 780 for sure they dont have the Tannoy potential but they are smaller and very good with acoustic control... Ratio quality/price more than good...But this is only relatively good basic gear, nothing to brag about...Acoustic is more important than the gear piece... I learned for 2 years of acoustic homemade treatment and many months of experiments in acoustic control non stop... I am retired and time was no problem only money was... 😁😊 😁😀😊😁😊
|
What i like the most about the OP is what he knows`: acoustic is very complex matter and full of mysteries... Bass trap sellers dont sell acoustic, they sell easy ready to install partial solutions.. The greatest fun in this hobby is not buying gear and plug it ... Not at all... It is tuning a room around a chosen audio system and for it.... it takes time i must say.... But it was a working non stop fun at no cost or almost 2 years...My room is ugly...And you learn hor to listen ...i know how to change all acoustical cuesof my room at will...But i cannot explain it with few linear equations thats not enough.. It takes ears to feel a room... It is impossible to do that in a living room and to be esthetical, it will cost big money.. If you pay an acoustician to create an esthetical audio room it can easily cost near 100,000 bucks... They dont use junk discarded tubes or straws for example like i did... 😁😊 But the soundwaves dont mind to be reflected or throw in ugly tube....They are sensible to densities, and number ratio and locations and they dont act the same for each one of your ear.... .
|
Delightful post. Thanks for writing it. I’ve done a lot of experimenting and I think the odd room configuration may be helping me. But I’ve done a lot of strange experiments, too, especially with what @mahgister mentions,
-- click here for a photo of some experiments early on in my process. Regarding your comment about Jim Smith and the "best in the business hired by New York’s cultural powers", all I can ask is how they missed the factors you mention -- room geometry and varying materials. I’m glad you discoursed on them here in this OP and I learned from what you said. It’s hard to imagine those folks missing those fairly obvious factors. Then again, even the most intelligent people screw up a basic O-ring, right? |
It appears to me that his system has been posted since 2020. Now about that. @snilf you have composed a well thought out and well written post. Most here could learn from your use of grammar and sentence structure, but that's neither here nor there. However, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around your system pics with the big ole leather loveseat between the speakers. If you have spent as much time as you say with room acoustics, treatment, etc., shouldn't you understand that's a huge "no-no"? Then there's the bottleneck of a NAD receiver in the mix, but I digress.
|
@secretguy Any other advice for us? Please, go on. |
ozzy62: Yes, of course, you’re absolutely right. And it’s not just the loveseat; the coffee table, too, is an obvious no-no. But I addressed those objections (or rationalized them!) in the narrative. My "system conception" includes the visual aesthetic of the room. It’s not even a matter of WAF; I want my listening environment to be as appealing to the eye as possible. And we do use that room for other things than listening to music. However, as I also mentioned in the narrative, I have tried moving both loveseat and coffee table to see how much I’d benefit. Yes, the soundstage does open up a bit, as you’d expect. But not all that much. So I mostly live with the compromise. When I’m finicky, I push the coffee table as far away from me as possible; that gets me a little closer to the ideal. As for the NAD receiver, yes, again I agree: at least in principle, it is the weak link in the system. But, as the narrative explains, I’ve auditioned other amps (in particular, I’ve twice had a friend’s Primare A30.1 integrated amp in place of the NAD for weeks). And I found I actually like the sound of the NAD slightly better! Plus, of course, it has all those other "objective" advantages: a tuner; a first-rate phono stage; tone controls; 150 high current watts (the Teslas are only 88db efficient). I know it seems unlikely that it should sound so good; maybe I’m deceiving myself, or maybe it’s just that I’m used to it. Or maybe there’s that elusive system synergy going on here. But instruments sound like they’re producing music with wind on wood, or horsehair on strings, or...rather than with electrons. What can I say? |
Recording studio control room designers try to do this all the time. Even within the recording community there's always disagreement on which control room designs with which equipment packages "sound best". Every great studio sounds different but are still considered acoustically accurate environments. There's plenty of information out there about how they go about it, the materials they use, wall and ceiling angles, diffusion and absorption. Read some books on studio design and apply the ideas that fit your room situation. |
I know i may not be believe but in a very controlled room, a single straw with a certain lenght and a specific diameter, on a specific volume tube or bottle located on a specific place in the room will have an audible specific effect... Then anything in a room create an impact...By virtue of his mechanical properties and acoustical content and location... Everything... And you can acoustically design a studio for a general recording engineering use with ANY audio system you will pick after....... No such studio will sound the same because of the different audio system you can try in it...And because of the variable relation between the specific signature of such and such audio system and the signature of the troom... You can go further than that... You can accomodate a specfic room in a general acoustic way for any audio system, but you can use the room acoustically and optimized it for a specific audio system... The sound will be unique and will give to the chosen audio system a way to reach his peak working potential... Each audio system has already his signature by virtue of his electronic design ... Then you can create a studio room for ONLY ONE system, and you can creeate your own room for your own actual system... If you do so the room or the studio will be specifically tuned for one system and will not work so much well in this optimal way for another audio system.... It is what i call tuning a room or controlling a room by active mechanical method, in constrast with only a passive material treatment so good it is...
But a studio dont necessarily need to be mechanically tuned this way why? ( save if the owner of the studio will be Glen Glould for example 😁 ) Because the mechanical tuning is done by some unique owner with his ears ...And the studio will be run and used by different people with different ears... It is the reason why there is also a difference between the acoustic optimization of a studio for general use and the acoustic optimization of a small audiophile room for only one owner and the optimization of a small concert hall or a very big one...... The room is yours then only you can tune it... Each pair of ears must be tuned together so to speak in the same room and must educate themselves and this two ears must pilot and guide the optimization process... Nothing is more fun and time consuming... Making it esthetical is a challenge that will be more costly ...I could not.... I know that it is not everybody who own a dedicated room, but we all can learn about acoustic and gain the maximum profit from it at a minimal cost and it will ve way more better than throwing money in gear upgrade... This is the goal of all my posts, inform you of this underestimated fact in audio life where all advertising is about costly upgrade...A deceiving path for most of us with limited amount of money... I was astounded by acoustic power improvement compared to anything else... For sure you will need to decrease the electrcal noise floor of your house...Nothing in acoustic can replace this... You will need to control the system and room vibration , nothing in acoustic will remedy for that... But nothing will replace acoustic treatment and evem more mechanical room tuning and control for your specific speakers and specific ears...
|
You can say in conclusion that every system in every room is different. People need to experiment with a lot of trial and error. The geometric room theory confirms the off axis corner set up you see at some audio shows. This allows you to turn a square cube room into a geometric off center room. Message to everyone play around, there is no wrong, on size does not fit all, have fun on the journey, and most important enjoy the music! |
Yes....
|
| Post removed |
@snilf thanks for your original post, I have had similar experiences in my listening rooms that you have made good explanations for : ) - kevin |
Yes odd geometry is better....I even put trapezoidal Shape in the corners of my ceiling.... My room is a square....But i have an enormous wood furniture desk which almost touch the ceiling in one corner, and in the other corner , i have a big wooden cupboard... Against one corner of the cupboard one of my speaker is on a big desk, a few inches pressed againt the cupboard and the wall... The other speaker is free in the open but few inches from the wall... My audio system is on the desk behind my computer screen between the 2 speakers...
Here for materials it is simple for me, the rule is a BALANCE between absorbing , reflecting and diffusive ratio of the surfaces and acoustic content of the materials... I even use aluminum surface to create this balance and ratio... 😁😊
I use 12 cheap schumann generators (S.G.) and 3 types ionizers... These devices make an audible effect but this are ONLY secondary helping tools...And if people cannot hear any effect in their room it is because their room is not under control already or a big one... The effect of the S.G. is a better imaging and an some more air between each instruments... It help to create a better listener envelopment/sound source width ratio... The most important tools for me was near 100 Helmholtz tubes resonators, all mechanically tuned, and tubes diffusers....They modify the pressure zones distribution of the room and liberate me from the constraint of the room geometry up to a point...
For the psycho-acoustical control, i use the location of the different Helmholtz resonators and diffusers, location is critical... And i used for the speakers A the "head" , some tubes resonators and diffusers and for the speaker B the "tail" of this acoustic serpent, i used also different tubes of different size near the speakers or on it, but not located in the same position near tweeter and the bass driver (dyssimetry between speaker A and B).... And in the "body" of this acoustic serpent, where is my chair, i use a screen with two foldable panels made of wood behind my head, on them i have different diffusers and tubes searching for a balance between reflection and diffusion.... This screen create an effect by concentrating the first wavefront and the reflection coming from the speaker A and the speaker B for the ear A and the ear B in some ratio of acoustic crossfeed and acoustic crosstalk... The effect at the end of this wood screen, fold in some large angle (160 degree) focusing the waves around my head, is an intimate effect like in an headphone.... But the sound fill the room with no relation to the speaker.... The soundscape float out of the speakers and sometimes around me and almost behind me, or beside my ears it is relative to each recording cues .... This screen help to create a better listener envelopment/sound source width ratio (LEV/ASW ) because this ratio is linked to the relation between all reflected waves and the first wavefronts coming from speaker A and B to ear A and B... There is never only 2 speakers in a room but four speakers in a way ....😁 Two are real and the two others are phantoms one created by an effect of the ear/brain relation computing the ratio coming from speaker A to ear B and vice versa... The localization of the sound is then like if it was coming from 4 speakers not 2 ... For sure nobody teach me the tuning of my small room (13 feet square by 8 1/2 ), and i am not an acousticaian... There is only some general rules i picked in acoustic science papers, the rest come from listening experiments.... All my devices are homemade, i bought only no cost or low cost materials... Like i already said my dedicated room is not esthetical, but my goal was to LEARN not to decorate, and my goal was to TEST some new ideas not to reproduce already general known rules easy to install in a living room... Acoustic of very small room is not a well known subject matter at all...It is why i created these listenings experiments... I dreamed years ago to have a High End experience with a 500 bucks system with well chosen pieces but low cost... I succeed... My post here is not to give a recipe, each room is different, it is to motivate your creativity anbd give your some direction to begin with ... ONLY ACOUSTIC EXPERIMENTS teach us how to learn... Plugging 50 different pieces of gear will teach you almost nothing... But you will be a good sellers... 😁😊
Room Acoustic is the sleeping princess, all the gear pieces are only the 7 working dwarves, and the kissing prince is your ears/brain....
|