If you already have a room, ASC will generally give you (i.e., free) pretty detailed, prioritized recommendations for room treatment. If you want help designing a room, they offer a service for that also, but it is not free.
Room Treatments Advice
- Thread starter nicoff
- Start date
If you already have a room, ASC will generally give you (i.e., free) pretty detailed, prioritized recommendations for room treatment. If you want help designing a room, they offer a service for that also, but it is not free.
jadedavid
New member
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Good, me too.
Bad. the science is perceptual.
That's why i asked if you wanted to make a microphone happy, or your ears. Not always the same.
Same as if you went to Dr for medical treatments.
You tell them what the symptoms are, where you feel pain, or dizziness or whatever.
He measures you, prescribes treatments.
You still have not stated a single symptom. You won't name your speakers. There is nothing yet to "treat", unless you mean your eyes.
It's very fashionable in audiophile circles to have stuff stuck all over rooms, no matter how ridiculous perceptually and anti-science they are. Looks cool though.
cheers,
AJ
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,095
Let's take a look at what you said in your first post:
You were "in the process of dividing off the very long room in my basement to make an audio room." You call up ASC and ask their rep to help you figure out how to design your room and you want to know where to put room treatments in your fictional room. No wonder he gave you "multiple possible options" because there wasn't really anything to work with. You had no room, you weren't sure of the room dimensions because you were looking for someone to tell you the optimum room dimensions you should build your room to, and of course he had no idea of what your room would look like if it was ever built, what equipment makes up your system, and the room treatments you would need. All he could really do based on your phone call was to give you what he gave you which was multiple possible options. And then you post here that this was not what you would expect from a professional company.
Seriously...
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
That's not what science found. The exact opposite. Toole and others research, showed that (different) speaker rankings did not change with various rooms. If the room effect had higher weighting than speakers, that would not happen. But it did.
Further, he and many others tested listeners in treated/untreated rooms. Including "Audio pros" who swear by treatment.
For "end user", not studio work listening, the vast majority preferred untreated in "trust ears" tests.
When Dr Toole published his book, which is a compilation of his and a mountain of others research, this generated an uproar among Studiophile believers. It conflicted badly with their "knowledge" and beliefs. Certain "treatment" peddlers lashed out with word salad articles (but zero blind listening tests to the contrary, of course). He tested all the wrong people (sound familiar?). Studio pros "know" that treatments are beneficial for mixing due to their self training, etc, so it must also be better for at home listening, despite Toole et als evidence.
That lead to this, "middle of saga" study: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190717/16640.pdf
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640
Sorry, the first link cannot be accessed without AES membership, but if you can, there it is. The 2nd is a summary. It tested now just "Studio Pros" and their "trained" hearing.
Can you guess the results?
I'm not saying the room doesn't matter. But the evidence for turning into an iso-ward padded cell for better perception, is not there, audibly.
Visually and maybe to be appropriate for audiophiles, sure.
cheers,
AJ
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
That's not what science found. The exact opposite. Toole and others research, showed that (different) speaker rankings did not change with various rooms. If the room effect had higher weighting than speakers, that would not happen. But it did.
Further, he and many others tested listeners in treated/untreated rooms. Including "Audio pros" who swear by treatment.
For "end user", not studio work listening, the vast majority preferred untreated in "trust ears" tests.
When Dr Toole published his book, which is a compilation of his and a mountain of others research, this generated an uproar among Studiophile believers. It conflicted badly with their "knowledge" and beliefs. Certain "treatment" peddlers lashed out with word salad articles (but zero blind listening tests to the contrary, of course). He tested all the wrong people (sound familiar?). Studio pros "know" that treatments are beneficial for mixing due to their self training, etc, so it must also be better for at home listening, despite Toole et als evidence.
That lead to this, "middle of saga" study: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20190717/16640.pdf
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640
Sorry, the first link cannot be accessed without AES membership, but if you can, there it is. The 2nd is a summary. It tested now just "Studio Pros" and their "trained" hearing.
Can you guess the results?
I'm not saying the room doesn't matter. But the evidence for turning into an iso-ward padded cell for better perception, is not there, audibly.
Visually and maybe to be appropriate for audiophiles, sure.
cheers,
AJ
AJ, I'm not sure what Toole was trying to prove to be honest, let's just say that I have witnessed not only in my own room what $20k worth of proper treatment does to enhance the enjoyment of sound but in many others as well. I have also witnessed way too many "bare" rooms at various audio stores and let's just say I don't know how they can sell anything from those rooms. It is a night and day difference.
One brief example and long before I even attempted at treating my own room due to inexperience was my friend's system. He spent a significant amount of money on rather impressive gear and his speakers of choice were the Proac Response 3's back in the day. Great speakers, good sound, system was sounding mighty good. One day he calls me up and says "you have to come over right away and listen". I did and of course his room was turned into what looked to me at the time like a lab of some sort, with all kinds of panels and bass traps everywhere....
He proceeded to put on our favorite "reference" track and my jaw hit the floor. THAT was the first time I ever heard sound projected not only way beyond the speakers and physical boundaries of the room width and depth wise as if the walls did not exist at all but the musicians were standing in front of the speakers and one could almost feel their presence in the room as a 3D holographic presentation without the actual visual cues obviously. I simply could not believe the holographic and 3-dimensional presentation of his speakers. There were no speakers at the time that I could think of that I have heard elsewhere that could throw such a wide, deep and holographic presentation. None...
It wasn't his speakers, it was the room that made all the difference in the world and completely overshadowed ANY upgrades in components he ever made before that point in time. Fortunate for him, his friend who was a recording engineer and a fanatical audiophile knew exactly what, where and why needed to be in his room. Now that is ART of SOUND.
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
Forgot to mention my friend’s speakers were way beyond the 1/3 of the room forwards so nearly in the middle of the room since it was a “dedicated” listening room after the engineer was done positioning them. Obviously that would not be possible in all cases. But as a dedicated listening room, I’ve still have not heard better and my own custom built room with $20k worth of treatment paled by comparison. There are true artist out there, we call them the “speaker whisperers”.... I’ve met a few in the industry.
jadedavid
New member
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Serge, he wasn't trying to "prove" something, he experimented to see what would result.
He included recording engineers who say and believe exactly what you do.
But the conditions of his test were very different from your anecdotal experiences, which cannot be debated. They were your subjective, anecdotal experiences. We just went over this in the Ear thread.
The pro violinists swore on the Strad too.
None of the studiophiles in Tooles test were aware of, or could see the treatments. The results were markedly different from their sighted beliefs. The McGill study I linked for you didn't involve Toole whatsoever. It was a follow up on his findings that generated a huge backlash from studiophile believers.
This time, they tested only studiophile believers (Tooles tests included them, but not exclusively).
The results were the same. In the blind tests, their eyes, beliefs etc, could not override their ears.
Yes, that's where all this comes from. That's who McGill tested. Btw, it's not the "room" being "treated". It's the horrific polar response of the audiophile speaker being mitigated. That's also what Toole (Canada) and a whole bunch of others (Salmi, KEF, Eureka project, etc Europe) found simultaneously.
The off axis/polar response has a large effect on perceive timbre, imaging, etc.
I'm not against studiophile/audiophile type folks making things "less worse" by treating their speakers polar issues with room bandaids and gauze everywhere.
But it's far from optimal. Unless eyes and belief can overcome. It can look pretty fashionable too.
cheers,
AJ
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
Serge, he wasn't trying to "prove" something, he experimented to see what would result.
He included recording engineers who say and believe exactly what you do.
But the conditions of his test were very different from your anecdotal experiences, which cannot be debated. They were your subjective, anecdotal experiences. We just went over this in the Ear thread.
The pro violinists swore on the Strad too.
None of the studiophiles in Tooles test were aware of, or could see the treatments. The results were markedly different from their sighted beliefs. The McGill study I linked for you didn't involve Toole whatsoever. It was a follow up on his findings that generated a huge backlash from studiophile believers.
This time, they tested only studiophile believers (Tooles tests included them, but not exclusively).
The results were the same. In the blind tests, their eyes, beliefs etc, could not override their ears.
Yes, that's where all this comes from. That's who McGill tested. Btw, it's not the "room" being "treated". It's the horrific polar response of the audiophile speaker being mitigated. That's also what Toole (Canada) and a whole bunch of others (Salmi, KEF, Eureka project, etc Europe) found simultaneously.
The off axis/polar response has a large effect on perceive timbre, imaging, etc.
I'm not against studiophile/audiophile type folks making things "less worse" by treating their speakers polar issues with room bandaids and gauze everywhere.
But it's far from optimal. Unless eyes and belief can overcome. It can look pretty fashionable too.
cheers,
AJ
AJ, are you not using treatments in your room/rooms at all?
I am not familiar with Toole's study so cannot comment. I am not sure what the agenda was? Was it to promote his own speakers or purely academic?
The fact that at the very least, treating the first reflection points of the room, side walls, ceiling, floor and diffusing the sound helps tremendously with listening fatigue. Listening fatigue has very little to do with the response of the tweeters or overall system balance, contrary to the popular belief. It is the brain struggling with localization of sound and being overloaded!
Here is a very simple but effective test. Use fluffy towels, cut into square pieces old carpet, whatever material that would offer an ounce of diffusion...
Sit yourself, or your helper in the listening chair. Have them move a mirror along the wall. When you see your speaker, stop and pin that material on that place on the wall at ear level. Do the same for ceiling and floor if possible. Then sit back and listen and come back and tell me you did not notice an overall better coherence and a much better focused imaging response from your system....
Even the Electrostatic and other bipolar speakers benefit tremendously although they radiate the sound differently.
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
I've found Toole's listening room. Now, with all due respect to Dr.Toole, I have NEVER had luck with such positioning of speakers for "great" sound. I've tried probably every square inch of my listening rooms at one point or another and having speakers jammed up against the wall does not constitute a great sound at all. One can not experience the depth of sound stage that way nor is the sound typically well balanced as far as tonality under those conditions. But then again I have not heard the "magical" positioning of speakers in his own room, so cannot say much more other than that never worked for me.
https://www.audioasylum.com/usr/1/14356/floyd_toole.jpg
https://www.audioasylum.com/usr/1/14356/floyd_toole.jpg
Attachments
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
No. By design. They would have negative effect.
edit - you jogged my memory, here is someone like you who is a very strong proponent of treatments. Scroll about 2/3rds down https://www.dagogo.com/3rd-2012-capital-audio-fest/
Academic. Funded by the NRC, published in AES for peer review. As was the McGill study, King, Blauert, et who are referenced.
That is not a scientific fact at all. I just linked you a study that shows the exact opposite. I could link 100 more, but unfortunately, AES membership is required. Then I remembered these, which are accessible:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation
https://www.audioholics.com/room-ac...ons-human-adaptation/what-do-listeners-prefer
I've corresponded with the good Dr., he's a very sharp guy. If you read the articles, he anticipates the ad hominens that will be directed at "him" as a smokescreen, in lieu of any contrary science (for obvious reasons, there is none). Lots of references to all the other scientists findings, not "him".
Serge, I have access to tons of stuff from other manufacturers, including "treatments". It's not anything I have not "tried myself", nor "experienced" with others systems. I friends with folks with recording studios. I've been in several, several times. As I stated, I have heard speakers with horrific polar response (the total 3D radiation of the speaker) sound "less worse" with acoustic bandaids everywhere. I understand that need. But that is "loudspeaker" treatment, simply applied to the room surfaces. If it makes one happy audio-visually, fine with me.
cheers,
AJ
Last edited:
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
This is with speakers with textbook smooth off axis like his, or something else....???
That part is critical
Attachments
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
Thanks for the links AJ. I'll give them a read when I have a bit more time to go over and digest the info. It is difficult to carry on a meaningful conversation since I am not familiar with the results.
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
This is with speakers with textbook smooth off axis like his, or something else....???
That part is critical
I've owned many speakers so I really would have to think about which of them may have been that smooth. Perhaps none! Maybe the Wilson Sasha came close but they certainly are not in their element being up against the wall at all.
Big B
Member
**
CPP
Active member
Salon 2's are upside down, interesting I wonder how they are standing up
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Too tall!
He obviously wanted this room as decor friendly as possible, it's a "living" room and the Salons are very deep, so he didn't want to put them out in front of stand which would place face around 4' from wall. They are also very tall, which typically puts the tweeter well above ear level. So he flipped them, lowering the tweeter/mids to ear level. A stereophile might be (visually) aghast at the positioning closer to front wall/near objects at side. Not ideal for stereo. But Toole isn't a stereophile
. He upmixes (Auro3D), so the "front" stage is actually all 3 speakers. Actually, thats an old picture. There's a thread somewhere where he explains all and now includes the front height channels, which he also utilizes. I do something similar myself, although I don't use a center and the LR channels are untouched, pure stereo. The upmixer is used only for surrounds, heights and indirect radiation form the rear of the fronts. All "direct" front sound is pure stereo. Different strokes for different folks.Of course, that is Tooles' personal system/tastes and has zero to do with the science cited in the links above, though of course, it is derived from it, not vice versa.
The science in the links are from a great many scientists worldwide.
I'd love to hear that system, judged in person with my own ears/eyes of course, rather than online pics.
Isn't that audiophile 1st Commandment?
cheers,
AJ
- Thread Author
- #39
AJ, thanks for link to the article by Dr. Toole.
Very interesting read. He and others concluded that:
- “The aural scene is ultimately limited by the recording.”
- This is what I have called the “circle of confusion”. The result is that the most “perfect” loudspeaker in the most “perfect” room, will not always, or possibly ever, sound “perfect”.
Toole even proposes that speakers/room be adapted for different types of music (say rock versus classical).
Very interesting read. He and others concluded that:
- “The aural scene is ultimately limited by the recording.”
- This is what I have called the “circle of confusion”. The result is that the most “perfect” loudspeaker in the most “perfect” room, will not always, or possibly ever, sound “perfect”.
Toole even proposes that speakers/room be adapted for different types of music (say rock versus classical).
TheOctopus
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,622
Great idea! Let’s see, what will it be tonight? The cozy and intimate “Jazz Room”? The bigger “Rock Room” Or should I retreat to the “Classic Hall” that doubles as a ballroom? Hmm, choices, choices