New set-up does not sound the way it should.

[StevenSurprenant]

And you expect a very well recorded and mixed product done in a sonically neutral room to perform flawlessly in your untreated and unEQ'd room, with a severely under powered amp, and medium efficiency speakers. So who's expectations are really off the chart here?

So what you're saying is a person needs inefficient speakers and a lot of power to have good sound?

Do you know ANYTHING about audio? Flat is a reference to a frequency response of a speaker or amp, not of the performance on the source. I bet you think a butt is a brain.

Flat implies that a sound (instrument?) is recorded so that the the amplitude over the entire frequency range is an exact copy of the original sound, db per db at every point in the spectrum.

Actually no it should not. You cannot make a comparison between a live event with thousands of reflections of various lengths to our own small rooms with relatively short and and much more dense reflections and zero audible reverberation(which defines the size of the room). You cannot expect 4-7 microphones to pick up those thousands of reflections in the hall(which gives it its liveliness), and two speakers to reproduce them all. If you are still comparing live to a recording, either you are stuck in ignorance, or you just don't have a basic understand of what separates the two.

I'm not talking about recording room reflections, only the sound of the instrument, something that might be impossible to do and even if it were, there is no way to play it back.

Can you tell me brightness how an accurate recording mixed in a sonically neutral studio will sound the same in your untreated room with its own unique sonic signature, own resonances, own nodes? It won't, and you are showing that you are not using your brain here.

Therein lies the problem. You create a recording that sounds good in the studio. If my listening room is acoustically treated in a manner that an average home owner with interest in audio would do and my speakers are EQ'ed, why would I not have nearly the same sound as in the studio? Why are so many people reporting brightness. Frankly, I don't hear the brightness that they are referring to.

Then you have piss poor speakers Steven. Don't blame the recording for that. In my systems, a piano sound like a piano, and violin sounds like a violin, a cello like a cello, and the human voice like a human voice with its own unique sonic character.

You need better speakers.

Really, better speakers? I hear the same things you hear, the piano sounds like a piano and so on, but certainly not comparable to the real thing sitting in my living room. I've listened to some of the best systems money can buy, (well... a few years ago), and none of them can compare to live. Admittedly, I've only listened to systems under $120,000 and most of them that I considered good were in the range of about $30,000 - $50,000. I've heard lower priced systems that were pretty good to. I would still not claim that any of these systems are the equal to live, it just isn't so. Well anyway, that's my reference and in some ways my speakers are better performers than some of these systems and in some ways not. Needless to say, while my homebrew speakers are fairly decent, I would never directly compare them to the best, I would be putting my foot in my mouth if I did.

More ignorance of technology. 3D recording and playback has been around for decades in the form of ambisonic technology. For a guy who thinks he knows everything, the exact opposite is proving more true.

That's not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about recording and playing back a instrument that is devoid of any room acoustics that it was recorded in and have it sound identical to the same instrument in the same room. The only sounds would be the instrument itself and it's reflections in the room that it is being played back in, just like the real thing.

First, violins don't radiate their sound omnidirectionally at all frequencies, high frequencies are very directional, the mids less so, and the lower notes are omnidirectional. Secondly one omnidirectional microphone is all you need to capture the sound of a violin, and you sure in the hell don't need a 3D capture or playback system to hear one played back accurately. So your conclusion is just as flawed as your knowledge of audio in general.

I understand this and that is the problem. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Try and record a violin without any reflections of the room it's in and play it back so that it sounds like the real thing in my living room. It can't be done. What a recording offers is a representation of the instrument and the sonic character of room it was record in. When I play "that" back, I get the violin, the room it was in, and the sonic signature of my room. It will not sound like my friend playing in my room.

I realize that your speakers are far from perfect, and distort and degrade a perfectly good signal. I don't expect that you would be able to play anything back accurately, so I continue to dismiss any criticisms you would have of any source. Your system is not well set up, your room is full of issues, and your perspective is so far off the chart, it borders on foolishness.

Again, really? Come on, you're pulling my leg, trying to hurt my feelings, aren't you?

And you my friend are showing your ignorance on steroids.

It does not make sense to you because you are woefully uneducated on acoustics and how to build a quality system. Get that education, and things will be much more clear for you.

Are you serious? ROFL

Follow your own advice. I never said anything about perfect, it does not exist. I said the studio is the reference, and everything else is a crap shot. Do you have the cranial capacity to understand the difference?

Reference, really? (again I find myself saying that) I've got a stack of recording that tell me just the opposite. They all sound different and they all vary in quality. Now if you were to tell my that the best recordings I have are of reference quality, then you would also be saying that most studios throw the reference to the wind. I will admit that my very best ones are very very good.

And you, its the recording always because my system and room are perfect in every way. Your room is untreated, and you don't use any form of EQ. Are you telling me room modes don't exist? Are you telling me that model ringing does not exist? What I am telling you is to address these issues before complaining about the source. A great recording will sound like crap in your room the way it is.

Again, I repeat myself. My best recording are very very good. I sit in awe at how it sounds and what it does to my emotional being. This is without EQ and only modest room adjustments.

I prefer to wait till that individual with the diarrhea mouth just reveal it, and you have done just that. 6 watts of amplification with a speaker with 91dbs sensitivity is not going to get you much in the way of dynamics. An untreated room is not going to be that great for ANY playback system. An unEQ'd sub is not going to sound very good, and will not blend well with the mains. And yet with all of these issues, you still want to blame the recording? Deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection, deflection. This is your MO for sure. Take all of the focus off of my piss poor system and room, and beam all that energy on to the recording. Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling.

You make it so hard to take you seriously....really.

First off, I only play my system at a peak of about 75db and that is when I play it loud, although once in a blue moon with certain music I will crank it up to 90db. I never did like music very loud. This still leaves me plenty of headroom. I've used other more powerful amps, but for whatever reason, this little amp makes them sound dull and lifeless in comparison. I also had a Pass Labs amp (very nice) and Mark Levinson amp, both class A and this little amp sounds better. For a while I was running with an active crossover bi-amping each speaker which gave me even more available power, but I never used it all.

One of my main priorities in sound is clarity because I find that some systems don't sound very good at low volumes. At certain times, I play my system at, and I'm guessing, about 20db (it's too low for my meter to record). It's when I am reading or if I use it to fall to sleep. If fact, most people don't even notice that the stereo is playing because their movements and speaking masks it. At those volumes, I can barely hear the bass, but it still sounds good.

I didn't say that my room was untreated, but in the way you mean, no it isn't. I don't use a sub with the stereo, at least not now. I do use a sub with the surround system, but I really don't care much how that sounds, it's more than good enough for movies. Mostly I watch movies through the TV speakers.

Anyway, I know you tried to hurt my feelings with your words, but that's who you are. I don't understand the need to do this, but its what you do...

Tell you what. Tell me something you recorded, preferably a vocal with good soundstaging and I will let you know what I think of it. It's entirely possible that you do good work.

BTW, I've heard a couple of speakers that seemed bright. At first I thought they sounded good with extended highs, but I did notice that after extended listening, the highs seemed too sharp and dominated the sound. Perhaps this is what people are referring to.

[Feanor]

...
I am just throwing some things out there that perhaps you could address to improve your room's acoustics. EQ'ing alone will not work. EQ for the bass, and passive treatments for the mid's and high's(and to supress modal ringing) works. Think big tool belt on this issue, but I fully realize you have limitations as well.

And I appreciate you comments & advice. The fact is, though, that my listening room is a multi-purpose room where it just isn't practical to apply ideal, or even pretty good, treatments. My problem is pretty common I'd guess.

The bottom line here is that the sound is pretty good: better for the EQ'ing than not, and better for having the HF's rolled-off than not.

[StevenSurprenant]

Feanor - You might find this interesting...

Hearing is Believing - The Ultimate Small Mixing & Mastering Room - YouTube

[Feanor]

Feanor - You might find this interesting...

Hearing is Believing - The Ultimate Small Mixing & Mastering Room - YouTube

It was interesting. It seems to me that the heavy absorption and diffusion recommended by the video sponsor is pretty much what Sir Terrence is advocating too. I think you & I, on the other hand, recognize that most people are unable/unwilling to convert their listening rooms into what amounts to a quasi-anechoic chamber in order to achieve that ideal room linearity. My wife is a very tolerant person but she has her limits when it comes to my listening room = our living room.

So in the end we are left with the question unanswered, Why do engineers so often record with a balance that is too bright for real-world, home listening environments?

[StevenSurprenant]

My take on all of this is...

Audio has been important to me for a very long time and when I speak to people with lesser interest, they think I'm not being realistic and over the top. With T, the roles are reversed, I think he is over the top.

About the video... That room had bare walls and floors and no furniture to absorb any sound. It was a little smaller than my listening room, so in that regard, it was apples to apples except that I have a large opening to the side going into the kitchen near the right speaker. I also have carpeting, furniture, and window coverings that help tame reflections. I also have a large TV directly behind and between the speakers. The front of the speakers sit almost 3 foot away from the wall behind it. My room, as it is, doesn't sound anything like the room in the video did without any treatment. It sounds more like that room with treatment.

There was a time when I had even more sound absorption on the walls, but it deadened the sound too much from my listening position. There is a balance that must be reached. Too much absorption and the room begins to sound like an anechoic chamber, too little and it sounds like the room in the video. Sometimes diffuser panels are called for to disperse the reflection points, but I've never tried that, or felt the need.

I have Auralex foam which I have moved around the room to see if I can improve the sound and the only place it has made any impact is behind the speakers stacked on each side of the TV. The improvement was very very slight (hardly noticeable). I even covered the TV with the foam with no improvement. I had the same results when I had my Quads, except the improvement was a little greater (foam behind the speakers).

Just so you understand, what improved was the resolution and space of quieter detail in the soundstage like instruments and singers in the background. I assume that reflections were creating nulls and peaks that was obscuring some details while emphasizing others.

As for T's recommendations, I would not think they have much value in the home environment and even if they did, the improvement would be slight, unless the home owner lived in a home with hard floors, bare walls, and perhaps tall ceilings. I have been in homes like that and they are an acoustic nightmare.

If you look at the homes of people who are into highend audio or in a store where they have taken great care to set up their highend systems, they don't look (there are always exceptions) like a recording studio and any treatment they use is minimal. In many, if not most situations, it just isn't that big of a problem and doesn't require electronic gear to measure and adjust. The differences between two types/brands of speakers is infinitely a greater difference. Don't think that I'm saying that room treatment isn't necessary, you just don't have to go to extremes to achieve reasonable results.

The other thing is that audio is an imperfect medium and while it can sound very good, it is only a reflection of a live performance. Many of us spend years trying to improve on this reflection, but it has it's limitations. I think this is where many of us go astray. I was trying to get T to admit that a recording can never replace a real instrument playing in our listening room, but the issue was skirted.

Anyway, you've got some good stuff and I imagine that it sounds fantastic.

If you want to play around a bit with sound absorbtion, go to the foamfactory. You can get some foam much cheaper than Auralex foam and it's probably almost as good. At the very least, it might be fun to do and you might find that you don't need it.

sound proofing deadening, acoustic insulation foams, echo elimination, home studio soundproofing foam,

There is also another product that I used for my speaker build. It deadens much much much more (yes "much") than the foam. It also quiets down lower frequencies that the foam. Sonic Barrier 1" Acoustic Foam w/PSA 18" x 24" 260-525

The advantage of this material is that it takes up less room and you can easily cover it with material so that it looks good on your wall. Also, you could probably use less of it than the foam.

You would be amazed at the differences between a bare wall sound reflection, the foam and especially the Acoustic foam from Parts express.

[Feanor]

Thank you, StevenS,

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

First reflections can be a problem as can bass "humps"; if so, the former can be controlled by wall deflection/absorption and the latter by bass traps. But agree that you don't have to go crazy to get satisfactory results. Equalization might not be as effective as absorption but I believe it can help. As a practical solution to the overall "too bright" problem, equalization is quite effective.

Thanks for the Foam Factory and Sonic Barrier references. I once used Sonic Barrier inside a DIY speaker and it seems to work well.

[StevenSurprenant]

I agree, just EQ it to what sounds good to you and all is good.

BTW, sometimes I forget that most people here have somewhat the same background and so some of things I say are preaching to the choir. Sorry about that...

[StevenSurprenant]

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

This is an issue that he probably doesn't understand so he blames the room which doesn't really answer the question. I don't know...

It occurred to me that when I had my room over dampened (sounding acoustically dead), turning up the higher frequencies might have compensated for some of that over absorption. I wonder if that is what's going on in the recording studios? The acoustic environment in a studio is not representative of a normal listening room so what they hear there will not sound like the same material played back at home.

That may explain why T insists that we treat our homes like recording studios?

[JohnMichael]

I am reading this thread and there are some judgements about one another you may find edited out. Make your points with judging another. Share what you believe by giving good information and not by trying to discredit someone elses opinion. You might gain more credibility that way.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So what you're saying is a person needs inefficient speakers and a lot of power to have good sound?

If this is what you interpret from my response, there is absolutely nothing happening upstairs. It is called dynamics. The ability to play very soft, and very loud if the recording calls for it. With a speaker with 91db sensitivity, and just 6 Watts, there is no way in hell your system can track all of the dynamics of a movie soundtrack unless it is nothing more than a talkie. A movie soundtrack(especially action movie) can have close to 90db of dyanmic range(loudest to softest signals), and there is no way in hell 6 watts can push that level of dynamics out of a 91 dbpw speaker.

Flat implies that a sound (instrument?) is recorded so that the the amplitude over the entire frequency range is an exact copy of the original sound, db per db at every point in the spectrum.

You still have it wrong. Flat is a measurement that has nothing to do with recording. Microphones can be flat, an amp can be flat, and a speaker can be flat, but not a recording which has changes in frequency response from moment to moment. I thought this was common knowledge?

I'm not talking about recording room reflections, only the sound of the instrument, something that might be impossible to do and even if it were, there is no way to play it back.

It is quite possible in a anechoic chamber, but that instrument would not sound anything like itself with all of the harmonic overtones sapped away. And yes there is a way to play it back. You record that instrument in the anechoic chamber, and you play it back at home through your speakers. Duh!

Therein lies the problem. You create a recording that sounds good in the studio. If my listening room is acoustically treated in a manner that an average home owner with interest in audio would do and my speakers are EQ'ed, why would I not have nearly the same sound as in the studio?

Maybe because you didn't measure the room first. If you willy nilly slap up treatments before actually measuring the room, the results you get are going to be all over the map.

The object is not to recreate the "studio" sound, but get the best performance out of your system in your room that you can. Most "average" home owners don't even shoot for that target, and you are a perfect example of that.

Why are so many people reporting brightness. Frankly, I don't hear the brightness that they are referring to.

Once again, you are overselling(bordering on just making crap up). In the last two days I have been on AVSforum, Bluray.com, DIYaudio.com, and hometheatershack.com looking for these widespread complaints about brightness in recordings. Guess what..I could not find one complaint on the so called issue. Not one complaint from websites that have 5-10 times the users, and 10-20 times the traffic. So either you are making up something that is not there, or you are listening to your own voice in an echo chamber.

Really, better speakers? I hear the same things you hear, the piano sounds like a piano and so on, but certainly not comparable to the real thing sitting in my living room. I've listened to some of the best systems money can buy, (well... a few years ago), and none of them can compare to live. Admittedly, I've only listened to systems under $120,000 and most of them that I considered good were in the range of about $30,000 - $50,000. I've heard lower priced systems that were pretty good to. I would still not claim that any of these systems are the equal to live, it just isn't so. Well anyway, that's my reference and in some ways my speakers are better performers than some of these systems and in some ways not. Needless to say, while my homebrew speakers are fairly decent, I would never directly compare them to the best, I would be putting my foot in my mouth if I did.

No system is equal to live. We have established that, so you can move on. However, there have been some demonstrations that are pretty darn close. One of those demo's was done at AES in Davies Hall that completely blew us away. The San Francisco Symphony was doing a concert, and right in the middle of the performance they stopped playing, got up, and walked out. However the music continued to play as if the orchestra was still playing, and nobody could tell where the orchestra stopped, and the recording began. It turns out it was after the first song. I am going to say that the speakers and amps where perhaps the finest I have ever heard, and since they were arrayed in the same width as the orchestra, and the hall acoustics played a huge role(not to mention the uber high quality signal processing), I was most likely hearing more room than the recording or the orchestra itself in the first place.

That's not what I'm taking about. I'm talking about recording and playing back a instrument that is devoid of any room acoustics that it was recorded in and have it sound identical to the same instrument in the same room. The only sounds would be the instrument itself and it's reflections in the room that it is being played back in, just like the real thing.

How in the hell can anyone suggest this? You are not using your brain at all? If I recorded an instrument anechoically, it will not sound like itself when played back in ANY room. And if it is played back in another room, it will have that room's sonic signature all over it and still lack harmonics which gives the instrument its timbre. This comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and nothing is done in this fashion in real life EVER. So it is irrelevant to the topic.

I understand this and that is the problem. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Try and record a violin without any reflections of the room it's in and play it back so that it sounds like the real thing in my living room. It can't be done. What a recording offers is a representation of the instrument and the sonic character of room it was record in. When I play "that" back, I get the violin, the room it was in, and the sonic signature of my room. It will not sound like my friend playing in my room.

Another rather stupid comment. Live is live, and a recording is a recording. Only a air head would try and bridge the two. The acoustics of the hall are an integral part of the sound of any acoustical instrument. Have you ever heard a recording done outdoors with no acoustical shell? It sounds like crap, because acoustical instruments were designed to be played by in concert halls with their own acoustical signature intact. You need walls so the harmonic overtones of the instrument can mix with the air, and blend in with the acoustics of the hall. Your lack of understanding in this area is causing you to create scenarios that are not reflective of real life.

Again, really? Come on, you're pulling my leg, trying to hurt my feelings, aren't you?

I don't care about your leg or your feelings. We are not discussing them are we?

Are you serious? ROFL

Well Steven, in all of the discussion we have had, you have managed to get 99% of the discussion absolutely wrong. That tells me that you don't know what you are talking about, and perhaps should do more learning than talking in the first place.

Reference, really? (again I find myself saying that) I've got a stack of recording that tell me just the opposite. They all sound different and they all vary in quality. Now if you were to tell my that the best recordings I have are of reference quality, then you would also be saying that most studios throw the reference to the wind. I will admit that my very best ones are very very good.

This is getting so freakin painful it is getting sickening. Have you ever heard of a point of reference?

Point of reference

an indicator that orients you generally; "it is used as a reference for comparing the heating and the electrical energy involved"

In this case, the studio where the sound was mixed is the reference for comparing what you hear in the home. No sound was mixed in your room, it is mixed in the studio. A recording mixed in my sonically neutral studio will not sound anything like it would in your untreated room - it will have too much of your room signature to do so. This is why we treat our rooms, and equalize our subs, to do the best we can to neutralize the sonic signature of the room. If the studio's sonics are neutralized, and your own room is as well, then the only difference you will here is the differing spatial or sonic presentation of the different speakers used in mixing and playback.

Again, I repeat myself. My best recording are very very good. I sit in awe at how it sounds and what it does to my emotional being. This is without EQ and only modest room adjustments.

This is subjective opinion that cannot be used outside your room, or with anyone else's ears. What sounds good to you, might not sound good to me. And a unEQ'd sub does not sound very good in small rooms. So what you are saying here is that acoustically your room is perfect. BS!! Let me measure that room. Two of the most dominate acousticians of our time say that you MUST use EQ at bass frequencies, and then we have a nobody who has not even a basic audio education saying he does not need it. What a bunch of whoey.

One of my main priorities in sound is clarity because I find that some systems don't sound very good at low volumes. At certain times, I play my system at, and I'm guessing, about 20db (it's too low for my meter to record). It's when I am reading or if I use it to fall to sleep. If fact, most people don't even notice that the stereo is playing because their movements and speaking masks it. At those volumes, I can barely hear the bass, but it still sounds good.

A meter will record 20db unless it costs a nickel. If your meter cannot record a sound, that is called silence.

I didn't say that my room was untreated, but in the way you mean, no it isn't. I don't use a sub with the stereo, at least not now. I do use a sub with the surround system, but I really don't care much how that sounds, it's more than good enough for movies. Mostly I watch movies through the TV speakers.

There are two reasons why a subwoofer does not sound very good. It is low quality in the first place, or it is not interacting with the room seamlessly because it is not EQ'd. Both of these point to user error. How does one use room treatments if they don't measure the room first? You can put good tools in uneducated hands, and they will be useless.

Anyway, I know you tried to hurt my feelings with your words, but that's who you are. I don't understand the need to do this, but its what you do...

I have said this so many times I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I don't care about your feelings. I will never care about your feelings, I am not interested in them. You are nothing more than writing on a screen to me.

Tell you what. Tell me something you recorded, preferably a vocal with good soundstaging and I will let you know what I think of it. It's entirely possible that you do good work.

Oh pleeeze, I am not going to play this game with you. Like your feelings, I don't care about your opinion either. If you want to hear what I have mixed, buy any first tier Disney Bluray or DVD title.

BTW, I've heard a couple of speakers that seemed bright. At first I thought they sounded good with extended highs, but I did notice that after extended listening, the highs seemed too sharp and dominated the sound. Perhaps this is what people are referring to.

Now we are getting somewhere, and it took long enough.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My take on all of this is...

Audio has been important to me for a very long time and when I speak to people with lesser interest, they think I'm not being realistic and over the top. With T, the roles are reversed, I think he is over the top.

You would think I was over the top because you believe is just slapping a system together, sitting it in a unmeasured room, randomly throw up some foam treatments(which are completely ineffective at frequencies that are the most troublesome in small rooms), and play your system at such low levels, all of the small details, micro and macro dynamics are completely lost to the ambient noise in your room. You reach WAAAAAY to low for me, and obviously I reach WAAAY too high for you. This is what happens when you have an educated approach to audio, versus a profoundly uneducated one.

About the video... That room had bare walls and floors and no furniture to absorb any sound. It was a little smaller than my listening room, so in that regard, it was apples to apples except that I have a large opening to the side going into the kitchen near the right speaker. I also have carpeting, furniture, and window coverings that help tame reflections. I also have a large TV directly behind and between the speakers. The front of the speakers sit almost 3 foot away from the wall behind it. My room, as it is, doesn't sound anything like the room in the video did without any treatment. It sounds more like that room with treatment.

Steve, my problem with you is that you think people are stupid. There is no way in hell your room could sound anything like this room. You have not measured a damn thing, have no bass traps, no controlled diffusion, no properly placed absorption, and nothing to control modal ringing. Carpeting, furniture and window covers have absolutely no measured co-effecients. It is all random. This room has been measured, and treatments added after the measurement to correct room adnormalities. And how does one listen to a low resolution MP3 audio file, and think they are hearing anything close to what was happening in that room in real time?

There was a time when I had even more sound absorption on the walls, but it deadened the sound too much from my listening position.

When you start off blind, you remain blind. Did you measure the room first? No you didn't, another crap shot.

There is a balance that must be reached. Too much absorption and the room begins to sound like an anechoic chamber, too little and it sounds like the room in the video.

You can't get a balance using your approach. You have to measure the room first before you put anything in the room. Isn't this common knowledge?

Sometimes diffuser panels are called for to disperse the reflection points, but I've never tried that, or felt the need.

If you have never tried it, how do you know you don't need it. Every room needs diffusion. Not just any diffusion, but control scattering diffusion.

I have Auralex foam which I have moved around the room to see if I can improve the sound and the only place it has made any impact is behind the speakers stacked on each side of the TV. The improvement was very very slight (hardly noticeable).

If it was hardly noticeable, you didn't put it in the right place. Once again, you can give an uneducated person great tools, and they will still be useless. Auralex foam put on a bare wall is absolutely ineffective. Foam must be placed on a baffle, and that baffle must have space between it and the wall to be effective. Foam is a poor value for its performance. When doing acoustics right, you use sound panels, not foam.

I even covered the TV with the foam with no improvement. I had the same results when I had my Quads, except the improvement was a little greater (foam behind the speakers).

Jeeze Louise, no wonder you heard no improvement. If you are going to use foam(or any other room treatments), you don't concentrate them in one area - as only that area will improve. You spread the treatments around the room so you absorb or diffuse in a uniform way.

Just so you understand, what improved was the resolution and space of quieter detail in the soundstage like instruments and singers in the background. I assume that reflections were creating nulls and peaks that was obscuring some details while emphasizing others.

As for T's recommendations, I would not think they have much value in the home environment and even if they did, the improvement would be slight, unless the home owner lived in a home with hard floors, bare walls, and perhaps tall ceilings. I have been in homes like that and they are an acoustic nightmare.

How would you know Mr. Assumption, you have never tried it. This is like saying I hate pizza but have never tasted it. Or I don't think a hot dog would taste good without ever having a bite of one. There are hundreds of thousand of people with dedicated hometheaters that would totally disagree with this ignorant comment. Did you look at the measurements in the video(or sorry, you wouldn't know what you are looking at in the first place). Those different measurements correlated exactly to what we hear. If the modal ringing was suppressed by the bass traps and diffusers, you would definitely hear a difference big time. If flutter echo is suppressed, you would hear a difference. Please do not comment on things you have never tried, or ever heard. This is how misinformation get's propagated.

If you look at the homes of people who are into highend audio or in a store where they have taken great care to set up their highend systems, they don't look (there are always exceptions) like a recording studio and any treatment they use is minimal.

First, who said a room has to look like a recording studio? You did, I sure in the heck didn't. I said several posts back it does NOT have to look like a recording studio because they now have treatments that look like paintings, or you can custom design your own treatment decor. All of my rooms are treated, but you would never notice because I matched my acoustical panels to the paint on the walls, or I used theme based acoustical panels that make you think you are looking out of a window. Secondly, I have been into many high end stores over my life, and not one of them sounded very good. The store is for showing off equipment, not acheiving high performance sound. Most all of these systems in stores are never measured, and have any correction done on them. The equipment is never optimized in the room, and it is sad you don't know this.

In many, if not most situations, it just isn't that big of a problem and doesn't require electronic gear to measure and adjust. The differences between two types/brands of speakers is infinitely a greater difference. Don't think that I'm saying that room treatment isn't necessary, you just don't have to go to extremes to achieve reasonable results.

Not that big a deal?. Well, when your audio perspective is basement based, I guess you are right. For those of us who thoroughly understand small room acoustics and are looking for the best sound from our investment, it is a huge deal. Every room in existence has a resonant point that can effect how a speaker interacts with it. If you have two parallel walls, you are going to have slap echo's and flutter.

Steve, your approach to audio is sickeningly bad. Any idea that you don't have to measure a room before adding treatments or EQ is just plain wrong. If you don't measure a room, how do you know how to treat it? Nobody in their right mind should follow what you are posting here, it is just plain bad information PERIOD!

The other thing is that audio is an imperfect medium and while it can sound very good, it is only a reflection of a live performance.

You sound like a broken record now. So because audio is imperfect, we should make it even more imperfect by just plopping a system in an unmeasured and untreated room like you do? I don't think so. You get the best out of that imperfection you can get.

Many of us spend years trying to improve on this reflection, but it has it's limitations.

Steve, you haven't even scratch the surface of improvement. And the only limitation has been your approach to audio. If I have managed to sonically neutralize my room, and set up my equipment so that it not only measures well, but sound great as well, then I have dealt with the only limitation I can control.

I think this is where many of us go astray. I was trying to get T to admit that a recording can never replace a real instrument playing in our listening room, but the issue was skirted.

I have never made any suggestion whatsoever that a recording can ever replace a real instrument. So why in the hell would I admit otherwise? Either you cannot read what is on your screen, or your emotions have taken over your thought process. I said pretty clearly a recording is a recording, and live is live. You cannot bridge or compare the two, its apples and apple juice.

Please read what is on the screen, and refrain from twisting it into something completely different.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is an issue that he probably doesn't understand so he blames the room which doesn't really answer the question. I don't know...

I blame the room because they for the most part are the problem. The are never measured, never treated properly, and people almost never pay attention to that component of audio playback. Just like there are bad recordings, there are acoustically bad rooms and poor performance equipment. Your idea and approach is that rooms are perfect, and science and research does not support that claim at all.

It occurred to me that when I had my room over dampened (sounding acoustically dead), turning up the higher frequencies might have compensated for some of that over absorption. I wonder if that is what's going on in the recording studios?

That is because you never measure the room before you put anything in it. We don't do that in the studio, so your comments about the studio are uneducatedly WRONG. Studios are measured(frequency response, reverberation time) then treatment is added(you don't do any of this). We don't just slap stuff up on the walls like you do, and expect wonderful things to happen. There is a strong emphasis on science when a studio is set up, and that does not happen much in people homes. You are a prime example of that.

The acoustic environment in a studio is not representative of a normal listening room so what they hear there will not sound like the same material played back at home.

And most normal listening rooms don't sound very good, and distort what we heard in the studio(acoustical issues). Funny, all of my Disney mixes I have done in the studio sound pretty darn close in sonic and spatial detail in my hometheaters. Why is that? Because I followed that standards that were set in the studio, and applied them to my hometheaters. While there is science based criteria for setting up a studio, there are no plaback standards in existence. So what you get with music is a crap shot. Multichannel music much like hometheater has standards to follow, so there is the possibility of less variance between the studio and home.

That may explain why T insists that we treat our homes like recording studios?

Studios are rooms with equipment in it. At home we have a room with equipment in it. Studios before treatment have a sonic signature. Our room untreated do as well. There reason both should have treatment is so your room does not color the sound coming from your speakers(which could also color the sound as well). There is no perfect interaction between the room and the speakers before treatment - science tells us this.

I am going to give you something to fill that head of yours with.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...ndRoomsPt2.pdf

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...ndRoomsPt2.pdf

This is a start. I know this is highly technical and scientific, but much like what you have done here I am sure you will muddle your way through it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am reading this thread and there are some judgements about one another you may find edited out. Make your points with judging another. Share what you believe by giving good information and not by trying to discredit someone elses opinion. You might gain more credibility that way.

JM, credibilty is gained by giving factual information, and it is lost by propagating misinformation. As long as the information is correct, you gain credibility. You don't gain credibility in your deliver of the factual information. People may not like the delivery, but factual information will always be credible.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you, StevenS,

I guess the original discussion was around why many recordings are too bright when played back with an accurately flat response. We didn't come to any specific conclusions, though Sir T defended the recording industry's practice, mainly by advocating that we all use room treatments similar to mastering studios'.

Bill, I have a collection of about 4000 CD's and I can only find about two hand fulls of them that were overly bright when played back in my systems. Most systems are not flat enough, but we can all agree here that gently rolling off the high treble is much more natural sounding than flat. We also agree that flat is too bright, and maybe that is why recordings sound too bright when played back with an accurately flat response.

First reflections can be a problem as can bass "humps"; if so, the former can be controlled by wall deflection/absorption and the latter by bass traps. But agree that you don't have to go crazy to get satisfactory results. Equalization might not be as effective as absorption but I believe it can help. As a practical solution to the overall "too bright" problem, equalization is quite effective.

EQ is for the modal region(below 200hz), and treatments are for 200hz and above where they are most effective. Room treatments are not very precise below 200hz, and not particularly effective as well. EQ above 200hz messes with the phase and transient response of the speaker in the most critical area of our hearing - which is why it is not recommended for problems above 200hz. EQ does not suppress modal ringing, but acoustical panels and bass traps do.

You have to use the right tools to get the job done right.