View Full Version : Can a nearfield listening position ever be too realistic?
Out of necessity I sit just 8 ft from my speakers (near field) in a room with plenty of acoustic treatments.
Over the years the system has been improved out of all recognition leading to a much more realistic presentation. This has the effect of bringing the performance into the room and with it a mixed blessing. Effectively it means that I am sitting 8ft from a female opera singer or rock band and most would agree this is not what we experience in reality.
In summary my speakers are verging on studio monitors and its very few people that get enjoyment over several hours with such a presentation. This is not about digital nasties or graininess but more the ability to relax in front of such a 'monitor' system.
Any tips or observations?
Thanks Chris
i wouldnt say 8ft to be nearfield. At that distance tho a lively tweeter can be offputting so you could turn speaker slightly off axis to you or up or down etc
i wouldnt say 8ft to be nearfield. At that distance tho a lively tweeter can be offputting so you could turn speaker slightly off axis to you or up or down etc
Thanks Grant that's a good tip but not one I have tried since updating my midrange/tweeter to the Cube Audio FC8 concentrics.
Regarding near field. My speakers stand nearly 5ft tall and 20" wide and it certainly feels nearfield :)
I sit about 6ft from my speakers and my room has acoustic treatment and I love how it sounds. I have never had any doubts about the distance or what I hear or why I hear it. If I like it then the job is done. If you find it fatiguing then perhaps something has to change.
8 feet is more mid-field, near field is if you are sitting at a mixing desk with the speakers just a couple of feet from your ears.
have to say I have also found a 'monitor' presentation to be a bit too much for long term listening, although depends what I am playing, rock music can get a bit too much after a couple of albums. Not because it is too bright, or harsh or anything but it's just so full on and explicit.
Recently I've been using my old Philips pre-amp in place of the Nelson Pass pre and that sort of 'softens' everything just a little and I can listen all day to anything with that in the system. But on the minus side I don't get that open window into the studio like with the Nelson Pass, and I do like having that.
It's a trade-off, I don't think there is any perfect solution.
I sit about 6ft from my speakers and my room has acoustic treatment and I love how it sounds. I have never had any doubts about the distance or what I hear or why I hear it. If I like it then the job is done. If you find it fatiguing then perhaps something has to change.
Thanks Rob. its just a question of what??
Sometimes when you concentrate on the big picture its easy to miss the obvious.
Incidentally here is a picture of my set up. You can see its all a bit 'in your face'
30419
I was watching this video yesterday and it maybe of interest? Discusses listening positions in relation to speakers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtPOesEzlzg
8 feet is more mid-field, near field is if you are sitting at a mixing desk with the speakers just a couple of feet from your ears.
have to say I have also found a 'monitor' presentation to be a bit too much for long term listening, although depends what I am playing, rock music can get a bit too much after a couple of albums. Not because it is too bright, or harsh or anything but it's just so full on and explicit.
Recently I've been using my old Philips pre-amp in place of the Nelson Pass pre and that sort of 'softens' everything just a little and I can listen all day to anything with that in the system. But on the minus side I don't get that open window into the studio like with the Nelson Pass, and I do like having that.
It's a trade-off, I don't think there is any perfect solution.
I'm, sitting here nodding with agreement :) I can downgrade the components of my system and listen for hours, but I have worked hard for decades to get to this point and its a bit disheartening.
8 feet is more mid-field, near field is if you are sitting at a mixing desk with the speakers just a couple of feet from your ears.
I would agree if you are talking small monitor speakers like the Yamaha NS10s, but with 5ft tall speakers I'm not so sure those definitions apply. If you sat a couple of feet away, the bass drivers would be aimed at your ankles. :)
I was watching this video yesterday and it maybe of interest? Discusses listening positions in relation to speakers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtPOesEzlzg
Thanks James. I watched that right through and he agreed that when listening to big panels or dipoles you can get too close. The big downside to moving the listening chair further away, which he ignored, is that you approach close to the wall behind your head with all its own reflections. But I plan to give this a go and perhaps to drape the rear wall with acoustic treatment. (tapestry or rug).
I'm, sitting here nodding with agreement :) I can downgrade the components of my system and listen for hours, but I have worked hard for decades to get to this point and its a bit disheartening.
I sort of feel the same way. I always wanted to replicate that 'rawness' you get in the studio where it feels like there is nothing between you and the music and I got that, but in truth I mostly don't listen so seriously most of the time, and if I just want to relax and have music on whilst I read then it's just too much. Unless I'm playing something fairly mellow like an old jazz album.
Distance doesn't really make a difference, my 'serious' listening spot is 18 feet back from the speakers...
I console myself that I chased it, I got it, now I can move on ;)
What about the ratio of direct to reflected sound? Really Macca 18ft?
What about the ratio of direct to reflected sound? Really Macca 18ft?
yes really, although a lot of the time -like right now - I sit off to the side about 8 foot away.
More room treatment might help in my case (I do have some already) but I think Chris has gone to town on that already (unless I'm mixing him up with someone else).
Lawrence001
14-06-2022, 13:43
What about the ratio of direct to reflected sound? Really Macca 18ft?If you sit 18 feet from a jazz group in a small bar, what is the ratio like then? Many will want to hear their music like that so it should be fine.
unamplified instruments in a small venue is very full-on but we don't complain about that, but then you don't go out to a venue to hear a band in order to relax (or at least not relax in the same way).
When I get in from work (when I had a job that is) I like a couple of hours of the music just washing over me, a very explicit monitor set-up isn't great for that. Conversely on the weekends when I'm already chilled, that's when I want to be amazed by the transparency.
If you sit 18 feet from a jazz group in a small bar, what is the ratio like then? Many will want to hear their music like that so it should be fine.
All those other people in the audience will mellow most frequencies. The ultimate room treatment.
I don't think I would enjoy listening a few ft from Sarah Brightman giving it some welly for an hour. :) and so it is with my Hi Fi.
I don't know if she was wearing that starship trooper uniform and was still 19 or whatever I think I'd cope.
Thanks James. I watched that right through and he agreed that when listening to big panels or dipoles you can get too close. The big downside to moving the listening chair further away, which he ignored, is that you approach close to the wall behind your head with all its own reflections. But I plan to give this a go and perhaps to drape the rear wall with acoustic treatment. (tapestry or rug).
Yes the rear wall could be an issue if too close but to be honest with open baffle speakers I would have thought first reflection points would be an issue. I would maybe treat rear wall with some dispersion treatment if it is a problem.
Interestingly I have just been over to a mates new listening room which has been acoustically engineered to the extreme and has very few room nodes. It is a very large room indeed and with superb room acoustic treatment it has meant the listening experience actually does not change dramatically as you move back and forwards or even to the side in the room. But this is a very sorted listening room. Just proves if you put effort into room acoustics you end up listening much more to the system and not the room.
Thanks Rob. its just a question of what??
Sometimes when you concentrate on the big picture its easy to miss the obvious.
Incidentally here is a picture of my set up. You can see its all a bit 'in your face'
30419
Well I did have speakers about the size of yours in an even smaller room than I have now :eek: They were full range driver 10stone monster back loaded horns and they were fine to me. This is what I have at the mo, some OB's and 96dB sensitive.
https://i.imgur.com/2IINOzr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0P2D754.jpg
The pics make it look a little closer to my head than it is.
If you sit 18 feet from a jazz group in a small bar, what is the ratio like then? Many will want to hear their music like that so it should be fine.
This raises the question of how much reverb is already on the recording, and how much we add with our room, it being more in the far field.
I sit 15' away from my Quad ESLs. The speakers are at the 'live' end of the room and my listening position is at the 'dead' end.
I have been happily listening to this set up for the last forty years, and I can, if I choose, listen to it for hours on end.
IMO the objective is not to have the performers sounding as if they are in your room (I can't imagine what the Berlin Philharmonic would sound like squeezed into the room!), rather it should sound as if you are transported to the venue of the performance. In other words, somewhere in the vicinity of the speaker plane, the walls of your listening room should disappear, to be replaced by the walls of the performance venue, which may extend well beyond the physical walls of your room.
Of course this only really applies to live recordings, and to those who attend concerts. But with studio recordings the stereo' presentation is down to the whim of the recording engineer.
my speakers are about an inch away and if i use my nuras, the tweeters are inside my ears:eek:
Lawrence001
15-06-2022, 15:21
Yes the rear wall could be an issue if too close but to be honest with open baffle speakers I would have thought first reflection points would be an issue. I would maybe treat rear wall with some dispersion treatment if it is a problem.
Interestingly I have just been over to a mates new listening room which has been acoustically engineered to the extreme and has very few room nodes. It is a very large room indeed and with superb room acoustic treatment it has meant the listening experience actually does not change dramatically as you move back and forwards or even to the side in the room. But this is a very sorted listening room. Just proves if you put effort into room acoustics you end up listening much more to the system and not the room.Interesting, I mentioned in another forum about anechoic chambers and someone said they'd been in one and you wouldn't want to stay in it to listen to music for long.
If the sound in your mates room doesn't change as you move around it implies most potential reflections are being absorbed, which sounds close to an anechoic chamber to me.
There's a big difference between a heavily treated room and an anechoic chamber.
I bet the room Jim is talking about looks nothing like this:
https://i.ibb.co/Tqh5k7d/ANECH.jpg (https://ibb.co/sJ3r2Nz)
this is an anechoic chamber in salford uni
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AKcNTAQ0f7g/maxresdefault.jpg
Lawrence001
15-06-2022, 16:26
Well he did say acoustically engineered to the extreme [emoji23]
Interesting, I mentioned in another forum about anechoic chambers and someone said they'd been in one and you wouldn't want to stay in it to listen to music for long.
If the sound in your mates room doesn't change as you move around it implies most potential reflections are being absorbed, which sounds close to an anechoic chamber to me.
Err its certainly not an Anachoic chamber, indeed far from it. It is a perfect blend of live reflection and absorbtion. I made some notes when listening too this new room and certain aspects surprised me. We were listening to B&W 801 D4s with chord mono block amps and a DAVE on the front end so quite a powerful and well sorted system. The room is massive and 2 years of acoustic engineering have certainly paid off and made for a very interesting listening experience.
My point about listening position is difficult to explain and has to be heard to be understood. Whereas most of us usually have a sweet spot, the system I heard in that room had more than one sweet spot, you could listen from further back or from an angle and still hear a very convincing performance. Reminded me of listening to a live performance where there are usually many positions in the gig from where you can hear great sound.
Interesting that this thread draws comparisons between "you are there at the performance" and the "performers are in your room".
Perhaps there are two ways to tune a system??? I have the latter, but sometimes think, for relaxation, it would be better to have the former.
Yes I think listening position generally can dictate how you perceive the performers/ music and in the end it is down to preference I guess. I like my system to give a performance as if I were listening to a small group or performer playing on stage in front of me with plenty of depth and width. I would not like to be too close as it were in amongst the performance.
bass below 1khz is none directional ...therefore it doesn't matter at what height its fired at. To be directional, the sounds wavelength must be less than the distance between your ears.
Hi Chris, basic rule of thumb: the smaller the room the more it needs absorption. You have the side walls close to your ears and consequently early reflections creating smear, congestion and obscuring detail. Looking at the photo you provided I notice a radiator on the left which will cause problems. I also see some room treatment but the damage from the strong early reflections is your biggest concern.
As an experiment temporarily try some absorption like a couple of mattresses or duvet or similar at the first reflection points on both side walls. Use lots initially to get an idea, which if you like can then be reduced in stages till you find your room having less effect on the music. If you remove the room's huge influence then you get to hear the studio or music venue .. the target.
I have posted before on measuring the room so I won't repeat all that but it's the way to go and removes any guesswork. The science works.
Thanks Sailor
Looks like another phase of room treatment is required. How do diffusers fit in the package. That radiator is a source of annoyance and I may move it👍
You need to be a minimum distance from a diffuser whose area of operation is above the Schroeder Frequency in the 'reverberant field' Below SF is the modal region which is the domain of the dreaded bass trap. I don't know the length of your room but if you have about 3m behind your listening position you possibly could use some on the rear wall, it depends on the type of diffuser and its lowest frequency being diffused.
My previous post mentioned small rooms need absorption.
Medium sized rooms need both absorption and diffusion.
Large rooms need mostly diffusion.
And all the above need bass traps.
I think in your case diffusion will not bring much to the party so suggest absorption which will. I am in the same position as you or worse! I have a stinkin' radiator either side exactly at the first reflection points. And it was me who placed them there during renovations, then we had a rethink about our layout. Now normally I would have simply moved them but I had torn down the old dilapidated staircase which proudly stood right in the middle of the listening room and rebuilt a new one against the rear wall. Concrete was poured into the pipe channels and then the whole room carpeted. I think if we had not decided to sell the property I would have moved them.
I have well tamed the acoustics in my 7X5m room with T60 right where it should be but the first point reflections (radiators) when temporarily covered with some left over rockwool just snaps things into better focus.
If you are serious about improving things, and from your posts and list of components I would guess you are, consider getting a pack of Owens Corning 703 or equivalent. I found rockwool here which was fine. Comes in a pack of 8 or 9 sheets 2'x4' and 2" thick, more than enough for 2 absorbers. If you can DIY, make them yourself, it's easy.
Good advice - I would suggest that if you are into having as wide as possible stereo image trying diffusion rather than absorption for the first reflection points.
Hey Martin, thanks. I don't know if you looked at the photo of Chris' room. It's rather narrow, too narrow for the diffusers to work as intended. Check out a forum like gearslutz which has a large section on acoustics where T60 charts, DIY treatments and all the explanations on how to construct diffusers to perform within a certain bandwidth and the proximity to them that is possible.
He needs absorption
I agree absorption might be better but on that one, even the experts disagree. A diffuser will still diffuse regardless of room size, whether the effect is beneficial or not is going to be subjective.
You can still get a small room down to an acceptable reverberation time without damping every little bit of it as I'm sure you'll agree?
Personally I am using absorption at first reflection but my room is a bit larger from the look of it and also I have not yet built a diffuser to try out although it is on the cards when I can scavenge some suitable wood from a skip.
I agree absorption might be better but on that one, even the experts disagree.
No, on this point the experts do agree. Perhaps you are reading the 'wrong' experts. Try Beranek (heavy going), Geddes, Welti and Todd. Also in addition to the forum 'Gearslutz' there are many useful and informative videos which will present all this in a much easier to understand format.
A diffuser will still diffuse regardless of room size, whether the effect is beneficial or not is going to be subjective.
Martin, you are missing the point. Of course the diffuser will diffuse, never said it wouldn't. The point is that the diffuser will not be able to contribute in a positive way if they are positioned too close to the listener. When correctly deployed diffusers will enhance not ruin the sound. Fact, nothing subjective about it.
You can still get a small room down to an acceptable reverberation time without damping every little bit of it as I'm sure you'll agree?
Again, you are missing the point! The correct T60 may have been achieved but what about the strong early reflections I mentioned? Have you considered that? This is the whole point. If the reflections reach the ears before just a few milliseconds they will create a messy congested sound as I explained, whereas if the diffusers are at the minimum recommended distance or further there is a sense of openness and space adding to the authenticity of performance. It's great to get T60 sorted but understand that you need to have the absorbers in the right place.
On a diffuser, say a PRD (primitive root) as opposed to (quadratic) where square section wooden blocks are used in random fashion, the length of the longest block, usually about 200mm sets the lower limit of function and the section of timber, anywhere from 20mm to 50mm sets the upper limit of function. Mine, still to be assembled, are using 42 x 45mm cross section and longest at 220mm. Where it's impossible to achieve the required distance the timber can be kept shorter, therefore increasing/raising the lowest frequency. In the case of the narrow room under dicussion the diffuser after being constructed will have a much reduced bandwidth so what is the point.
Your entire post makes the subject appear daunting and it isn't.
Where are you getting your information from? You admit to not having tried diffusers so by extension you have no experience in this field which is fine but if the OP takes your advice and installs diffusion right next to his ears he will have mud.
Hey Chris, my suggestion is grab a set of closed-back headphones, even cheap ones and listen to your system. They effectively remove the room for a sanity check. I also listen to Dee Dee Bridgewater ..Live at Yoshi's, track 2. There is a very well recorded tambourine which being played close to a mic. lets you hear it with snappy dynamics and appears to be right in the room with you. A great album and well recorded, recommended. I heard this girl in Co. Cork at the international jazz festival 2019 or perhaps it was the year before. What an entertainer, she's a real hoot.
Your entire post makes the subject appear daunting and it isn't.
.
It is an extremely complex subject, sorry but if you think it is all done and dusted then you are wrong. Even the people you quote do not agree on everything.
of course each one will say he has all the answers, that's just how it is. My suggestion was to experiment, since each use case is different and user expectations and desires vary a lot. For example I am not interested in having some super-wide 'beyond the speakers stereo image', I'm also aware that to get that requires trade-offs in other areas. Someone else may have different priorities.
There are a huge number of variables involved, for example what is the off-axis dispersion of the speakers? Is it wide or narrow? That alone will make a difference. There's no one size fits all here.
I am glad that for once we are discussing a subject here that actually makes a real difference to sound quality though :)
Have a good set of closed back headphones, so will give that a try 👍 I will try a track that seems a bit too up front on my system to see if it’s on the track or not. If it’s not then that’s a target, which is good. Being a scientist I love this type of challenge.
just bear in mind that headphones have their own set of colourations.
If you assume that the problem is not the recording then you'll be right ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
Lawrence001
22-06-2022, 12:34
Have a good set of closed back headphones, so will give that a try [emoji106] I will try a track that seems a bit too up front on my system to see if it’s on the track or not. If it’s not then that’s a target, which is good. Being a scientist I love this type of challenge.What are they? I've found most are brighter/more detailed than speakers. HD650s, Audioquest Nighthawks and Audeze LCDs (moreso pre fazor) being some that are not.
I've never felt that in my current listening room I have had any trouble with early reflection smearing things; maybe I'm just cloth eared, but my HI-Fi friend thinks my room is excellent. I have only damped reflective corners with curtains, but many now are using numerous things on walls.
Headphones are so different in presentation that comparisons with speakers in rooms has to be careful; only certain things can be validated with them IMO.
just bear in mind that headphones have their own set of colourations.
If you assume that the problem is not the recording then you'll be right ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
Martin, I need to make a correction. I have not played with this stuff for a while. I mentioned Welti and Todd when in fact the man's name is Todd Welti.
https://www.aes.org/member/profile.cfm?ID=682293182
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15044
The second post is the reason I have advised against using the Bonello Criteria.
I am very curious: Which of the experts I mentioned disagree and what is the disagreement about? I know that Welti on the subject of a distributed bass array (DBA) recommends a systematic approach while Earl Geddes favours random placement with at least one sub in a corner, any corner. This is just one method that differs but achieves the same result. I recommend you call up one of Ethan Winer's YouTube videos. Very informative and easy for you to understand.
The headphones were mentioned for one reason which has nothing to do with colourations but as mentioned to simply and effectively remove the room's strong effect on what is heard. Surely you can understand that, failing which the OP would have to book an appointment for an anechoic chamber and at great expense and upheaval cart the system off to hear the effect of removing those pesky room acoustics.
Chris, interested in your findings when using the 'phones.
Hey Charles, this is how it should be done. But to do it properly as my friend has in the link below takes a lot of time and a huge amount of money.
Have a look through this detailed blog and you can maybe pick out the relevant bits that you think could maybe work for you but I have heard the finished result and it is very impressive to say the least.....
The blog starts with "Building a music room"
http://sonoritydesign.co.uk/index.php/blogs/
I have HD 650s so should be OK.
Am on holiday at present so will get on this next week. 👌
With ‘in my face albums’ I lose interest in the music after about an hour, so will be interesting to compare this response on headphones.
Martin, I need to make a correction. I have not played with this stuff for a while. I mentioned Welti and Todd when in fact the man's name is Todd Welti.
https://www.aes.org/member/profile.cfm?ID=682293182
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15044
The second post is the reason I have advised against using the Bonello Criteria.
I am very curious: Which of the experts I mentioned disagree and what is the disagreement about? I know that Welti on the subject of a distributed bass array (DBA) recommends a systematic approach while Earl Geddes favours random placement with at least one sub in a corner, any corner. This is just one method that differs but achieves the same result. I recommend you call up one of Ethan Winer's YouTube videos. Very informative and easy for you to understand.
The headphones were mentioned for one reason which has nothing to do with colourations but as mentioned to simply and effectively remove the room's strong effect on what is heard. Surely you can understand that, failing which the OP would have to book an appointment for an anechoic chamber and at great expense and upheaval cart the system off to hear the effect of removing those pesky room acoustics.
.
headphones will simply substitute one set of issues for another, they are not remotely the equivalent of listening in an anechoic chamber.
Far more effective would be to employ quilts, cushions, pillows to see of the problem can be solved/reduced that way before actually paying for proper treatments. We don't actually know if this is a room issue or a system issue, that could at least be ascertained that way with minimal fuss and no expense. Everyone has cushions and pillows.
I watched a lot of Ethan Wieners videos about ten years ago. They are useful but you have to bear in mind he is in the business of selling treatment and his general thrust is 'The more the better' which is not necessarily the case although some may prefer that/ it may work well in some rooms with some speaker systems.
Regarding diffusers I'd refer you to Toole's 'Sound Reproduction' (3rd edition pg 170) where he concludes 'It continues to be a topic for more research in the present context.'
Since the loudspeaker, the room (both shape and construction) and the listener's taste are all variables a blanket recommendation is never possible. If it were then there would be no such thing as acoustic consultants. Hence I recommend individual experimentation. Of course Chris is free to disregard that suggestion.
I am taking in all info - nothing is discarded without good reason.
I am ‘lucky’ in having an additional method of judging audio. I have tinnitus in one ear from years of riding a noisy Harley. Most of the time I happily ignore it and it retreats into insignificance. If however the hi fi is not right then it triggers the tinnitus.
I sympathise, I have some in my left ear, not that bad though but it does vary. In my case Eric Clapton at the Manchester Apollo. 1986. My ears rang for three days.
I sympathise, I have some in my left ear, not that bad though but it does vary. In my case Eric Clapton at the Manchester Apollo. 1986. My ears rang for three days.
working accident did for mine; both ears. took me a good few years to get used to it. it doesnt bother me much now but its there; like most things, you get used to it and adapt.
Just a mention to those that may not have not noticed, that I use open baffle speakers and I guess much of the text book stuff is most relevant to box speakers.
No, the principles of how sound behaves in a room are the same, even box speakers can vary significantly in how they distribute the sound. The loudspeaker is always a variable.
The proper way to do this is to begin by measuring and see what is happening. But there's a learning curve to that. Failing that, experimentation is the next best thing.
personally I've just addressed a few obvious problems, bounce from the corners. I did have a large pot plant in one corner which I got rid of without thinking of the consequences. Immediately began to notice the reflections from that corner. A potted plant will act as both absorber and diffuser. I replaced it with a large roll of loft insulation, problem solved. In the other corner where the door is, same problem, solved with some absorption panels on the door itself.
Just basic, common-sense solutions.
I am intending to replace the loft insulation with another plant, purely for aesthetics, but not got around to that. It's very surprising how effective a plant is.
Suspect by measuring and doing a proper implementation I could improve the sound somewhat further but it's not a trivial task. It already sounds good and with the corner reflections tamed there is no longer anything about the sound that irritates, which is good enough for me.
All rooms are going to be compromised to some extent unless they are built from scratch for the specific purpose of audio replay.
Room acoustics and their influence on your system is huge but most folk tend to ignore this due to aesthetic considerations or time and cost. However when you consider how often some folk swap their equipment searching for that ideal sound and the cost involved it is crazy not to try and do at least a little to resolve room issues. Indeed I have done a fair bit with just furnishings which have improved the acoustics of my room and more importantly my system no end and at zero cost!
In fact they have been so significant I have often wondered how much effort and expense I would have to have gone too to change equipment and speakers to suit? Now you could always go down the DSP room/ system acoustic correction which uses algorithms to analyse room acoustics and then apply digital generated correction. However with all DSP I have never been that convinced as it seems to throttle the performance of your system especially speakers and you end up thinking where has all the Bass gone from my large floor standers, I bought these speakers because I wanted stomach churning Bass not some light weight book shelf effort! Just kidding but I have heard this effect for myself at a friends house and to be honest his system sounded better with no room correction and some slightly over blown bass in some regions on some recordings.
I have actually taken my system elsewhere to hear what it sounded like in a different environment and it is shocking how massive the difference was just because of the change of room acoustics and size of room!
So I feel its definitely worth putting as much effort and expense as you can bear into working on better room acoustics as they can make so much difference to how your system can sound and mostly always for the better. After all if you don't do anything you are just playing the room and not the system and you are not realising the full potential of your gear? I have always been surprised just how quickly the improvements can add up and transform how and what you hear from your system with room treatment.
Lawrence001
23-06-2022, 10:24
Far more effective would be to employ quilts, cushions, pillows...
...a blanket recommendation is never possible.
I was going to pull you up on the second point but I guess blankets are not technically the same as quilts.
I was going to pull you up on the second point but I guess blankets are not technically the same as quilts.
I thought I'd leave that in and see if anyone noticed :)
@Jimbo, thanks for that link. I was not aware of 'sonoritydesign'
@Jimbo, thanks for that link. I was not aware of 'sonoritydesign'
Your welcome. Sonority design are a small business which is run by a friend of mine. He has spent the last 8 years building 3 acoustically modified rooms, the last and largest is detailed in the link to his blog.
Martin, I am not sure what you are tying to do here. It appears to be a hidden agenda. You have refuted every single point I have made. More than once you mentioned that the experts disagree yet when I asked you which experts disagreed and what the disagreement was about you declined to answer. The experts do agree and I say again: you are reading the wrong experts. Your bold statement: 'even the experts disagree' is simply dismissive. Prove it!
On page 4 my post 31 I suggested: ( As an experiment temporarily try some absorption like a couple of mattresses or duvet or similar at the first reflection points on both side walls. Use lots initially to get an idea, which if you like can then be reduced in stages till you find your room having less effect on the music. If you remove the room's huge influence then you get to hear the studio or music venue .. the target.)
On page 5 your post 46 you provide this: "Far more effective would be to employ quilts, cushions, pillows to see of the problem can be solved/reduced that way before actually paying for proper treatments."
This is essentially the same advice and is now getting silly. You said he should use diffusers but when I explained they would be too close to the listening position you hit me with: 'even the experts disagree on this' You have now gone in a circle and I respectfully withdraw from this discussion.
@Chris (OP) We can take this to PM if you have any questions. Happy to help.
Martin, I am not sure what you are tying to do here. It appears to be a hidden agenda. You have refuted every single point I have made. More than once you mentioned that the experts disagree yet when I asked you which experts disagreed and what the disagreement was about you declined to answer. The experts do agree and I say again: you are reading the wrong experts. Your bold statement: 'even the experts disagree' is simply dismissive. Prove it!
On page 4 my post 31 I suggested: ( As an experiment temporarily try some absorption like a couple of mattresses or duvet or similar at the first reflection points on both side walls. Use lots initially to get an idea, which if you like can then be reduced in stages till you find your room having less effect on the music. If you remove the room's huge influence then you get to hear the studio or music venue .. the target.)
On page 5 your post 46 you provide this: "Far more effective would be to employ quilts, cushions, pillows to see of the problem can be solved/reduced that way before actually paying for proper treatments."
This is essentially the same advice and is now getting silly. You said he should use diffusers but when I explained they would be too close to the listening position you hit me with: 'even the experts disagree on this' You have now gone in a circle and I respectfully withdraw from this discussion.
@Chris (OP) We can take this to PM if you have any questions. Happy to help.
I did not say he should use diffusers I suggested it as an alternative course of action. You rule it out entirely, that is the only point we disagree on.
As for experts I quoted you Toole on the subject (even gave you chapter and verse). Please re-read my post #46 which quotes him verbatim re use of diffusion 'It continues to be a topic for more research in the present context.'
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.