The mystery of good acoustics
As any knowledgeable audiophile will tell you, the room should be regarded as an essential “component” in one’s audio system. Jim Smith’s useful book Get Better Sound is dedicated to this maxim, as are two long chapters (14 and 15) in Robert Harley’s otherwise consumerist manifesto The Complete Guide to High-End Audio (for a review of the latter book, see my post to this site titled “Audiophile virtues”). And there are internet sites to help you determine the best parameters. Here are two: the amroc room mode calculator (https://amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=26&w=20&h=13&ft=true&r60=0.6) and the Cardas Speaker Placement calculator (http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php).
And yet, acoustics, not to mention psychoacoustics, remains mostly a mystery. In 1969, when the reconstruction needed to fix the jinxed acoustics of Lincoln Center was finally completed, the great music critic Harold Schonberg wrote in the Times: “Acousticians grimly shake their heads when they talk about it. The cause of their science had been set back a century. Science? After the opening of Philharmonic Hall, on Sept. 23, 1962…the feeling in lay circles was that the ‘science’ of acoustics had as much validity as a prediction by a Delphic oracle or an astrologer in a tabloid newspaper.” The top acousticians in the world had spent years analyzing the world’s best concert halls, and yet the fruits of their labors and expertise had fallen, well, flat in New York. Why?
Why are Amsterdam’s Concertgebouw (1888) and Vienna’s Musikverein (1870) so blessed? Every seat in both of those houses is a good seat acoustically: subtle details are always audible without loud climaxes being shrieky or overwhelming; voices and instruments sound natural; orchestral balance manages to be right even dramatically “off axis,” and so on. The “science” of acoustics was primitive at best in the nineteenth century, and yet, despite the inevitable progress any science makes over time, no one really understands the magic of either of those venues sufficiently to recreate it today.
Let me offer two anecdotes that bring this mystery home to me personally. A dozen years ago, I visited a former student, and a fellow audiophile, who had become wealthy in computer engineering. At that time, he was living in a house his company had rented for him in Sacramento: architecturally undistinguished, it had a large living room with somewhat peculiar geometry and high cathedral ceilings. His system sounded fantastic in that room; the best I’d ever heard by that point in my experience with high-end audio. Then, the following year, he moved into a loft apartment in San Francisco’s Noe Valley. It, too, was large, with high ceilings, but it was almost cube-like in shape; he brought that same superlative system along with him. But in the new space, the same system sounded only passable, not exciting. Why?
My own system was mostly assembled before I moved from a simple cookie-cutter house to my present abode. In the former house, I had no complaints—but I had no idea what I was missing. In my present living room, the same components compare very favorably with systems costing more than ten times as much owned by fellow members of our local audio club. It’s simply a different, and vastly better, “system” than it was before, although it contains the same components. Again: why?
Remember the lesson of Lincoln Center before you rush to a confident answer. Jim Smith, with all his experience setting up systems for well-heeled audiophiles, doesn’t know the answer if the best in the business hired by New York’s cultural powers-that-were did not. So I don’t know the answer, and neither do you; room calculators, diffusers, and bass traps will only get you so far. Maybe this is a good thing; it keeps us experimenting, gives us perpetual hope for improvement. Maybe it also explains, in part, why so few audiophiles spend nearly as much time discussing room acoustics as they do obsessing over tubes vs. solid state, or power cords, or whatever else money can buy that might, just might, improve their sound without actually changing where they live.
But I have a theory.
First, prefer odd room geometry if you can. This claim is anecdotal, not dogmatic; if you have a different opinion, let’s hear it. But it’s my impression that odd geometry corresponds more reliably with good sound. Perhaps this is because the effects of one part of an irregularly shaped room will not be exaggerated, or cancelled, by the same effects produced by a mirror image on the other side. Anthony Grimani, of Grimani Systems, suggests that odd dimensions help to reduce standing waves. Placing your speakers at different distances from the side walls may also help, for the same reasons: whatever resonances are set up on one side will not be exacerbated by the other stereo channel, if the two speakers are different distances from their respective side walls. I’m guessing (this is ALL guessing!) that odd dimensions above will also be beneficial. A trapezoidal ceiling will be better than a flat ceiling, for instance. The lesson, if any of this is right, would be that the by far most common arrangement—a rectangular room, with the speakers placed as far out into the room as is practical from one of the short walls, and the listening position also placed as far into the room as possible—is likely to be better than putting your speakers right up against the far wall, your listening chair right up against the opposite wall (leaving the majority of empty space in the room free of audio objects, and therefore more useful for regular domestic purposes)…but it will not be optimal. A simple rectangle is not a good shape for a listening room, if you have an alternative. Again: this is a pure hypothesis, ungrounded in any kind of “science,” but consistent with my admittedly limited experience (see the two personal anecdotes above).
Second, materials. Different materials—dry wall, bricks, bookshelves full of books, furniture made of wood, upholstered furniture, hardwood floors vs. carpet, “acoustic” ceilings (popcorn or tiles) vs. dry wall vs. wood beams…—will absorb and reflect different frequencies, and various resonances and diffractions, in different ways. What’s best? I don’t know. But I don’t recall these parameters being discussed in any of the references I’ve mentioned above, which are specifically addressed to the importance of room acoustics. I’d guess, using the same logic as arrived at irregular geometry, that a mix of different materials is likely to be best.
One thing’s pretty much for sure. A recent post to this site praised the delights of listening outdoors. I was appalled by that post for social reasons. I live on 5 acres, and my nearest neighbor is about a quarter mile away, but still I would never consider subjecting them to my music by playing it outside! Anyway, audio equipment is designed to be listened to in enclosed spaces, not in the out-of-doors. With no reflected sound at all, I can’t believe an audio system can recreate the experience of being in a concert hall, or a jazz club, or any other likely music venue (even Woodstock, or the Hollywood Bowl, have reflecting structures that shape the sound). I’m unwilling even to try this in any case, out of respect for my neighbors.
So: Have you any secrets for maximizing room acoustics? Shape, furnishings, acoustic treatments? Magical devices (e.g., Schumann resonance generators)? Psychopharmaceuticals?
This is my hobby. Figuring out when you will resurface with a new username. Below is the list of all your previous usernames. Starting from the last. The last one I have to admit was pretty funny 😂. You created this specifically to post screenshots of my PMs to you when you were posting as Audio2Design.
The most epic one was AtDavid
———-
thynamesinnervoice
cindyment
snratio
yesiamjohn
sugabooger
dletch2
audio2design
dannad
heaudio123
audiozenology
atdavid |
Thanks for hijacking an interesting post @thyname . People might have actually learned something on this thread but you have let your obsession over this person, whoever they might be, ruin it for most readers. Quit being a Karen. |
«NO speaker can beat the room»... I dont remember where i read these words coming from the mouth of an acoustician....😁😊 No speakers at any cost will beat, by their upgrading power ALONE, over another good speakers we owned before it, the power of acoustic control over them two...
Here are these 6 aspects of acoustic control parameters in a room i experimented with : 1 -Balance between absorbing surfaces, 2 -Reflecting one, 3 -Diffusive one.... This was "classical" passive material treatment of a room... Now these 3 new other factors are related to my concept of the mechanical active control of a room ( what i called a mechanical equalizer): 4-control over reverberation time and timing of the wavefronts by using reflecting devices at the right spot...( the great advantage of a small room is the possibility to control reverberation time and timing in a positive way, in a way that amphiteater or great hall could not so easily, making speakers/room synergy better) 5- control over the distribution of the pressure zones with a grid of H.R from one speaker to the other around the room...And with some other devices... 6- fine layering and tuning of the flow of the sound waves by working with tubes of different size and straws for example in the right location on the shear velocity of the waves and their sound pressure...We must learn also to work with the speaker A and his image for the ear A and with the speakers B and his phantom image for the ear B, i learned that by using a folding screen like a lense for the soundwave and concentrate them aroundmy head to recreate a intimacy that beat my headphone... It is a phenomena related to acoustic crosstalk and acoustic crossfield... i remind you that all my leearning come from listening experiments not fron a foirmula taken in a book...I am not an acoustician anyway i dont need one to tune a room..But i will need one to explain all acoustical mysteries i dont understand but which i sense...
In a small room remember that at the speed of sound 1100 feet by second, the sound weaves cross your small room of 13 feet, like mine for example, cross it 84 times per second...Your room atmosphere is in a way tense or sensible like a violin cord for the ears/brain. who take decision and make his computing between your 2 ears in couple of milliseconds... Do you begin to understand why even a straw or tube diameter/lenght/volume, can change the sound of a room /speakers relation ?
These 3 last aspects described above could be controlled with Helmhotz mechanical method NOT completely by electronical equalization only ... ( Imaging, soundstage, dynamic, timbre percption, listener envelopment/ sound source dimension and his ratio , colors,etc any acoustic qualities are all related with one another and changing one is changing the others a bit also, the key is changing all of them together with mechanical control in a fine tuning incremental optimizing process of listenings experiments) Electronic E.Q. can be a useful tool but cannot tune a room nor be a PART of the room like a mechanical equalizer...And E.Q.uing with a frequency test ask for a location which could be accurate only in a millimeter range, anywhere else causing havoc... Then the piano will not sound the same from the same pair of speakers in a non controlled room and in a controlled one...Not even close...
Dont upgrade good speakers with costly one BEFORE studying and experimenting with acoustic... My acoustic devices and experiments were all homemade and cost me nothing... I can then claim that great hi-Fi experience is possible at low cost contrary to what is claimed or supposed almost everywhere by almost everyone... People dont know acoustic and never seriously try experimenting with it in a dedicated SMALL room... Anyway if electronic engineering design is a mature technology for 70 yeears now with major improvement behind, acoustic of SMALL room is a new venture for few decades only because customers demands was not there enough till very recently.... A living room is not an audio dedicated room... I am happy to be retired and i could experiment for the last few years in acoustic and made the above discoveries for myself... A dedicated audio room is the ONLY one luxury in audio not the price tag of the gear at all... Basic relatively good gear is enough to give a very good audiophile experience FOR MOST PEOPLE... Claiming the opposite is most of the times ignorance of acoustic....Reviewers sells gear not acoustic information...Then the customer is conditioned to upgrade the gear not to understand acoustic... By the way i am only a not skilled, non crafty, ordinary dude, but dedicated in my passion : listening music with a good sound but at NO COST or very low one... Is it possible? Yes i proved it to myself and my goal here is to point to the right direction for improvement and spare people their money... I learned a bit of acoustic by listening experiments not by resolving equations...Anyway acoustic phenomenon are too complex in a small room with his multidimensional numerous parameters to be reducible to simple linear equations...It is mostly non linear phenomena... Anyway the ears could beat computer on the qualities recognition... It is the reason why blind people develop bat skill and learn to see sound... Human ears evolve million of years to recognize "timbre voices" not tested frequency but qualities in the sound source not reflective waves for themselves but music...A map is not reality....Each room is differentby geometry,topology, and acoustic content and small room acoustic is NOT big room or amphiteather acoustic... Acoustic has a taste, a color, a touch, and a life of his own so to speak in a poetical way...A room vibrate like a body 😁😊😊😊
P.S. My system basic value is around 500 bucks but every part is well chosen and after 7 years i dont think to upgrade any part at all thanks to acoustic... The photo in my virtual page by the way are too old and are in no way able to describe my actual room.... It is way nuttier and more silly now than some here said it was, trying to discredit my claims and discoveries...But my room is more a LABORATORY, not a living room and not the usual audio room, and "at no cost", none of my devices homemade and with improvised design are esthetical and suited to a normal living room... More skilled people than me must make their own device more beautiful and more efficient... I say that my room is a laboratory because nobody teach me acoustic here and how to control a room... -Passive treatment is NOT active mechanical control for example, they are COMPLEMENTARY but one cannot replace the other at all, -square small room are not "bad" if we know how to adress them , ( there is no bad room only improved one, my room : 13 feet by 13 feet and 8 feet 1/2)) -and near listening will be affected by the room acoustic like regular listening position in a small room...( then thinking that near listening will make acoustic treatment and control unnecessary is wrong) These 3 facts for example were personal discoveries contradicting popular claims in audio thread....... And to give you an idea about my speakers/room relation NONE of my 7 headphones, hybrid, electrostatic or magneplanar or dynamic are interesting to listen to now , they are in my closet retired.... I begin my audiophile journey by buying headphones and modifying them with success hoping to reach the better...But Headphones are not for most of them satisfying on all acoustical count even when modified positively... I decided to try my luck with speakers... After i have sold my stupendous Tannoy dual gold 12 inches speaker...I was lucky enough to buy the best speaker Mission ever designed for 50 bucks : Mission cyrus speakers 780 for sure they dont have the Tannoy potential but they are smaller and very good with acoustic control... Ratio quality/price more than good...But this is only relatively good basic gear, nothing to brag about...Acoustic is more important than the gear piece... I learned for 2 years of acoustic homemade treatment and many months of experiments in acoustic control non stop... I am retired and time was no problem only money was... 😁😊 😁😀😊😁😊
|
