"They are here" vs. "You are there"

In the course of this thread, I have suggested at least three possible approaches to constructing a listening room, each with distinct consequences for creating the illusion that "you are there." A listening room may be constructed so that it…

(1)…acoustically emulates a recording space.
(2)…accurately reproduces what is on the recording.
(3)…sounds interesting, as judged by the individual listener.

RE: Approach (1). A lot of the discussion has focused on the benefits and liabilities of approach (1) – constructing a listening space that acoustically emulates the recording space. I have acknowledged that, although it may be an effective way to create the illusion that “you are there,” it is not a practical approach to constructing a listening room. Its impracticality results from the fact that, to the extent that your listening room emulates a particular recording space, it will fail to emulate acoustically dissimilar recording spaces. Hence approach (1) makes your listening room “recording-specific,” which, for most audiophiles, is an unacceptable drawback of this approach.

RE: Approach (2). Constructing a listening space that accurately reproduces what is on the recording is the prevailing approach in the design of professional recording studios. Accuracy is achieved by making recording studios, to a large extent, acoustically unreactive. However, most audiophiles, myself included, seem to prefer a listening space that is considerably more acoustically reactive than a typical recording studio. The evidence for this belief can be found by looking at the virtual systems here on A’gon.

It could be argued that most audiophiles simply ignore the acoustical treatment of their listening rooms, and so their rooms tend to be acoustically reactive by default. Or that most audiophiles would rather put money into new equipment than a better room. Or that acoustical treatments rank low in WAF, which makes their use less likely. I think there’s a lot of truth to those observations. Nevertheless, I believe that audiophiles also prefer acoustically reactive rooms for more rational reasons (“rational” in the sense of ‘consistent with their goals’). Some of those reasons: Unreactive rooms require a large amount of amplification to reach realistic SPL’s. Unreactive rooms can result in poor speaker performance for many consumer speakers, which are designed to interact with the listened space and “voiced” by manufacturers in a reactive room. Unreactive rooms are often perceived as less “lifelike,” and hence less musically involving. I would add this list that unreactive rooms are less likely to create the illusion that “you are there,” though I recognize that this is a point of controversy. For these and other reasons, I think approach (2), while the conventional approach to recording studio design, is of somewhat limited value to the average audiophile.

RE: Approach (3). Constructing a listening space that sounds interesting, as judged by the individual listener, seems like a natural solution to the shortcomings of approach (2). But it has its own liabilities. To begin with, it potentially suffers from the same problem as approach (1), namely, it may result in a the listening room that is “recording-specific.” In addition, tastes change over time, both as a consequence of age and as a consequence of acquired expertise. In light of that, approach (3) may also suffer from being too “listener-specific.” Finally, approach (3) gives little or nothing in the way of specific guidance to the audiophile other than “do what sounds right.” That advice, while simple to understand, is not simple to implement, since it does not describe any smaller, instrumental goals that would make the advice actionable.

Thus all three approaches above leave a lot to be desired. I believe that there is a fourth approach - to try to construct a listening room that sounds different for each recording. On small recordings, it would sound small. On big recordings, it would sound big. Its characteristics would change as the recordings change. In other words, the approach is to try to construct a listening room that…

(4)…sounds paradoxical.

Yes, I know, I have gone far down the rabbit hole with this one. But if you will follow me a little further, you will see that I have not gone completely mad. What I am trying to express is the idea that the acoustical characteristics of some listening spaces are psychologically ambiguous. That is, some listening spaces sound like they have different physical features under different conditions. With some recordings, the listening space sounds like it has one set of physical features. With other recordings, it sounds like it has another set of physical features. So, from a psychoacoustic standpoint, the listening space is paradoxical. Hence the term ‘paradoxical listening room.’ I have a hypothesis about how a paradoxical listening room is created, namely by the combination of:

(i) neutrality
(ii) complexity

RE: (i). Neutrality. In using the term ‘neutral,’ I am violating my oath not to mention that word on this thread, lest it be perceived as a violation of a cease fire that was arrived at after months of painstaking negotiation. However, it is the right word for the discussion at this point, and so worth the risk.

To say that a listening room is ACOUSTICALLY NEUTRAL is to say that it has a LOW AMOUNT OF CONSTANT INACCURACIES. An inaccuracy is “constant” when it stays more or less the same under varying conditions. An example of a constant inaccuracy is a room mode, the frequency and relative amplitude of which stay more or less the same across different recordings. A constant inaccuracy is another way of saying a "coloration." As colorations are reduced, the listening room becomes more neutral. And as the listening room becomes more neutral, it has the potential to become more paradoxical, provided that it is also sufficiently complex. Which brings me to…

RE: (ii). Complexity. To say that a listening room is ACOUSTICALLY COMPLEX is to say that has a HIGH AMOUNT OF VARIABLE INACCURACIES. An inaccuracy is “variable” when it changes under varying conditions. An example of a variable inaccuracy is a randomly diffused reflection, the frequency and phase of which change significantly across different recordings. As variable inaccuracies are increased, the listening room becomes more acoustically complex. And as the listening room becomes more acoustically complex, it becomes more paradoxical, assuming it is sufficiently neutral.

So, my hypothesis is that, in combination, neutrality and complexity create a listening space that is paradoxical, in the sense that its acoustical characteristics are psychologically ambiguous. A listening space that is ambiguous approximates the benefits of one that acoustically emulates the recording space, without the liabilities of the latter approach, namely making the listening room “recording-specific.” So, for the audiophile who listens to a wide range of recordings with vastly different recording spaces, a paradoxical listening space is the closest he can come to having a different listening room for each type of recording. In light of this, constructing a paradoxical listening room may be the best way to consistently create the illusion that “you are there.”

Hi Bryon - no, you are not going mad, though you have indeed gone far down the rabbit hole with this one. But that's OK by me - it is always interesting to read your posts! You are always very thoughtful and express yourself very clearly. Ultimately for me, the main point in all of this is that even your paradoxical listening room would greatly vary from audiophile to audiophile. And I still believe that both the recording and the speakers would still have a much greater effect on the "you are there" illusion. For instance, if one switched out the speakers in such a room, this would have a much greater effect on the sound than switching out acoustic treatments while keeping the speakers the same. Or would you not agree?

Ultimately for me, the main point in all of this is that even your paradoxical listening room would greatly vary from audiophile to audiophile.

Learsfool – There may be a variety of ways to create a paradoxical listening room, but I suspect they would have a lot in common - for example, the liberal use of mathematically-derived diffusion. An extreme example of this approach is George Massenburg’s Blackbird Studio C. That recording space is perhaps the apotheosis of efforts to construct a paradoxical listening room. According to Massenburg:

The room is conducive to accurate work because we have taken away the boundary effect by “eliminating” the walls.

Blackbird Studio C is described elsewhere in the following way:

The experience of this room is that one is unaware of sound reflection from the walls: it sounds almost anechoic, yet it has reverberation.

Of course, no ordinary audiophile can construct such an ambitious listening space. But Blackbird Studio C seems to me to be an “existence proof” that a paradoxical listening room is possible. And its acoustical design approach could be implemented, on a more modest scale, by ordinary audiophiles like us.

For instance, if one switched out the speakers in such a room, this would have a much greater effect on the sound than switching out acoustic treatments while keeping the speakers the same. Or would you not agree?

No, I don’t agree. But that is probably another infinite staircase. :-)

Hi Bryon - I have just read and digested the two links above. I fully understand where you are coming from now. One thing I will say is that Blackbird Studio C is designed to be a recording space, and most definitely NOT a listening space. I can tell by looking at the photos that if you were actually present in that room with musicians playing something in there, it would not sound like any space you have ever heard before, either live or recorded. As they say, it would be mostly quite dead, and any reverb heard in there would sound very strange indeed if you were actually physically present. It is definitely designed for multi-track recording of electronic instruments primarily. I am very curious what it would sound like to play my horn in there. The ideas behind it could certainly be implemented in an audiophile's listening room, but I am not at all sure that one would want to do this for orchestral music in particular. I have several thoughts I would like to share with you about some things in those articles, which I think would be better to send you in a private email, as they would be slightly off topic here - I will do this hopefully tomorrow, through the audiogon system, if you don't mind.

I agree that the question I posed at the end of my last post is probably another infinite staircase. :)

One thing I will say is that Blackbird Studio C is designed to be a recording space, and most definitely NOT a listening space.

Learsfool - According to the Blackbird Studio website, Studio C is a space for "editing, overdubbing, and mixing." In other words, it is NOT identified as a recording space. Maybe by "recording space," you meant re-recording space, i.e. mixing space.

In any case, Studio C is not designed to be a room for recording performers and instruments with microphones. It is a room for editing and mixing those recordings after they have been captured elsewhere. As such, it is a listening space "par excellence." In my view, ALL editing and mixing rooms are listening spaces. That seems to me to be an uncontroversial statement. Maybe I am missing something.

As they say, it would be mostly quite dead, and any reverb heard in there would sound very strange indeed if you were actually physically present.

My understanding is that Studio C is NOT acoustically dead, and that that was the whole point of using massive amounts of diffusion and very little absorption.

It is definitely designed for multi-track recording of electronic instruments primarily.

Again, my understanding is different. According to the website, Studio C is described as being designed for BOTH stereo and multi-track mixing.

I have several thoughts I would like to share with you about some things in those articles, which I think would be better to send you in a private email, as they would be slightly off topic here - I will do this hopefully tomorrow, through the audiogon system, if you don't mind.

Of course. :-)