-
hey, nice looking room, dude.
can you tell us how this room sounds compared to the room without the lenses with respects to staging/imaging?
-
A quick question for you. Do you fill lead shot or sand in those PVC?
-
Roomlens
Hi JRA,
Thanks for your reply. But there is one thing that I don't understand.
With all the pipes at same length and without stuffing, does it means they only deal with one specific frequency? Should I use different length or dia if I want to curb different frequency or I should put stuffing to tune? Anyway to calculate? Please enlighten. Thanks.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio333
Hi JRA,
Thanks for your reply. But there is one thing that I don't understand.
With all the pipes at same length and without stuffing, does it means they only deal with one specific frequency? Should I use different length or dia if I want to curb different frequency or I should put stuffing to tune? Anyway to calculate? Please enlighten. Thanks.
JRA will speak his peace. But I don't think the intention is that the tubes act as resonators but rather as defusers, in which case they will handle a fairly wide range of frequencies I believe.
-
Oops, sorry I thought I had answered those questions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by the hand of boredom
hey, nice looking room, dude.
can you tell us how this room sounds compared to the room without the lenses with respects to staging/imaging?
Sorry, I will Copy and Paste but will add some comments.
These things are no joke.
Sound is crystal clear and free from coloration.
I had expected and wanted sound stage to be bigger, but that has not been the case. Again, sound stage NOT bigger but freakishly clear. I imagine this is due to elimination of flutter echo and disperson of higher freq.
But music still sounds great without these hideous poles.
I have taken them out of my room due to their aesthetics. This is the reason why I'm not an audiophile. I still take them out occassionaly and enjoy them for what they offer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by usbmusic
A quick question for you. Do you fill lead shot or sand in those PVC?
No, but I'm sure sound do resonate inside of tubes. I'm just not concerned about that, and doubt I will hear the difference.
I believe the key point is to stagger the distance between tubes. The difference distance should diffuse different sound freq.
The DIY site I saw had suggested to use poly-stuffing to reduce resonance.
One thing I hadn't considered is the material used for tubes. I'm sure different material and thickness will impact the sound, but they are too ugly for my taste.
-
From one of the links to the original product:
Quote:
The Argent RoomLens is a reactive resonator that disperses and refracts sound rather than passively damping or absorbing it.
While I have no doubt they are doing something, it's pretty unclear what they are trying to claim about it. Reactive resonator? It is a passive acoustic treatment device, but it sounds like they are trying to make it appear more than it is with technobabble! Sound refracts when passing through a different medium in which sound travels at a different speed. This isn't what is happening with this device. It's most likely it is an acoustic diffuser. If it is tuned in any way then they could possibly be helmholz resonators of some kind, but that doesn't fit with any of the discussion.
The main change I'd expect is imaging, depending on placement.
http://www.ultrasystem.com/Roomlenssetup.html
The first example almost becomes an extension of the speaker baffle. This will impact baffle diffraction in some way.
The problem I see is that you are introducing early reflections, which are the main enemy of accurate imaging. Any reflections that occur within a 10msec window are critical, as the brain uses this information to determine location of sounds. This is known as precedence effect. Diffusers in general cause the sound to bounce around a room with a longer path, resulting in a greater delay. More of the reflected sound arrives after the 10ms window and this is a good thing for imaging.
But why place diffusers so close to the speakers as in some of the examples? My cynical side suspects that this is suggested because it will create the most obvious difference. If people can't hear any difference (more likely when placed further from speakers), then they are more likely to think they have wasted their money and been duped. It's one thing to hear a difference, another for it to be an improvement in accuracy. You have to be a little wary when you want it to be better. Very tempting to jump to the conclusion that any subtle difference you hear is actually better. It's very hard to do a blind test, and the time taken to change things tends to invalidate the results.
They do look novel, and I don't mean to ruin the fun, but I suspect you would be better with some carefully thought out BBC diffusers. You can download info on them online and they actually have credible measurements showing their performance. Unless of course you prefer the mystique and voodoo of these creations, or the look. Or having novel audio gadgets that are a talking point. If you want to get really trippy, you could have a lot of fun with a heat gun on some PVC pipes to get some curves.
Anyone interested in diffusers and room treatment should read a Harman white paper you can download at the Harman website. Google Harman white papers on acoustic room treatment or similar. PDF download.
-
Thanks for the info, Paul.
Since my initial fun, I have taken them out of the room. Music sounds just fine with or without them. As you know strategic placement is always neccesary to maximize room treatment. Last thing I'm interested in now is to worry about these changes. Sound absorption at the first reflection point is more effective than what this thread suggests.
But one thing for certain is that music sounded very very clear with these poles next to my speakers.
-
I don't doublt it - those are fine speakers and should sound very clear in any room that isn't terrible! I showed the photo to my housemate, she was impressed just by the look.
Now that you've built them, I'd suggest have a look at the Harman paper. You might get some ideas on how you could use them, or try different versions that you might like better.
-
I'm not sure what she was looking at, but thank you.
As for your post, just to simply agree with or blindly praise others do not help us learn, so I appreicate your post.
Can you post a link to this Harman website?
I haven't been able to find it on Google.
Thanks,
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
I've been looking for them on Audiogon, but I got sick of waiting and couldn't get myself to pay such amount.
To make one unit, I ended up paying $0.75 for lumber and $14 for PVC pipes (3ct).
2"x4"x8' - cut them into 3.5" squares and cut out 2 3/8" holes.
2"x8"x8 - Cut them into 8 sections of 12" width.
5 ft, 2" PVC pipes, but they are not equal in legth as seem below.
Wood glue - non euphoric :out:
These things are no joke.
Sound is crystal clear and free from coloration.
I had expected and wanted sound stage to be bigger, but that has not been the case. Again, sound stage NOT bigger but freakishly clear. I imagine this is due to elimination of flutter echo and disperson of higher freq.
I messed up first post. I have not ever posted on any forum before, that I can remember. Anyway what I would like to know is if the each tube of the Room Lens are sealed at both ends. I would also like to know what is meant by '' Wood glue - non euphoric.'' What does non euphoric mean?
-
I believe the Room Lens are sealed at ends, but my cheap DIY units do not have ends plugged off.
I'm sure someone with "Golden Ears" can claim to hear the difference, but that to me sounds like they are......
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2212/...25200d0536.jpg
JRA
|