red pill sanctuary
Seasoned Member
Today's misguidance is tomorrow's future!
Posts: 173
|
Thanks to all that replied and your input is valuable.
Thank you JB for your honest opinion concerning your listening evaluation.
Although we are a bit apart on what you and I get from this room in a couple of aspects, it has to be expected that for many reasons, none of us ever see or hear things identically, or in the same degree of "absoluteness".
I can tell you this, I bent the law of physics as far as one could ever expect too do while confined to limited room dimensions such as what I am forced to deal with. Like many others, my options are limited, and I have no other choice. We simply have to make the best of what we have and learn to accept that reality. If I were to take all of my acoustic devices down to the much larger fireplace room downstairs, taking advantage of that more ideal space, then naturally, just by getting closer to golden ratio dimensions alone would make a huge improvement. That is not going to happen in my house as long as the wife has anything to say about it. I have thought about this so many times, but always knew it could not happen. If I were single, this would have been the audio room setting from the start.
So yes, It is hard enough to make a room my size even remotely good for music, let alone making it sound like a huge open space. If you want a huge open space, set your equipment up outside and your problem is over. Not sure how long that would last with the neighbors. It would get old very fast having to keep bringing that equipment back into the house after every listening session. But if you expect the best outcome, that is the only true approach to a completely natural and untainted soundfield. No need for acoustic treatment in a natural setting.
If anyone fails to understand why I went to such great lengths with the acoustic treatment in my audio room, the answer is obvious and absolutely necessary to make a room with almost square dimensions transform into something acceptable, let alone high end. I guess I found my "fulcrum" between these two points as a leverage of balance where I can live with it and be content. Without this extreme level of acoustic transformation, this room simply could not be used for music. It is pointless to design a perfect racing car only to drive it on a washed out dirt road full of ruts and holes. The results are very limited and nowhere near ideal.
If you had heard how terrible this room sounded before treatment, you would understand exactly just how much I improved this room with what I did. Yes, there are limits to boundaries and perception of space, and every room is going to be bound by those limitations. As stated, we are governed by the laws of physics which we simply can't magically influence. The difference is to make the space within your boundaries sound comforting, and in agreement with what you hear WHILE understanding those limitations.
I am more concerned with the element of natural sound that freely expands in all directions "within" these understood dimensions where so many acoustical conflicts come into play. The acoustic war is a tough battle to conquer. There will always be limitations and compromise within any listening room, no matter how well designed it is. Like I said, if you expect perfection, then you better take it outside.
My main concern is the control of room modes within this almost "impossible" room size. As you know, a square or round dimension is the absolutely worst case scenario you could build from. I corrected my situation by virtually "removing" the walls with acoustic friendly "walls" which actually work in harmony to reduce the effect of standing waves. As I told you in the past, my revised room dimensions fall well within Bolt's range. There are rooms much larger than mine that don't even do that! Volume is not the whole story, it is the actual dimensions that make the difference in controlling a reasonable degree of decent acoustics. A room like mine requires a massive degree of absorbent while at the same time having to make sure the room isn't rendered acoustically dead. This is the absolute worst situation to engineer and do it right.
I want to make a note concerning the latest room change I made prior to the listening evaluation. I had no time to evaluate this addition prior to the listening session. I really had not the time yet myself to evaluate the change. My observation is this during the time JB was listening to the new setup. I sat in a location at the farthest rear point in the room (NEVER RECOMMENDED DUE TO BASS BOOM), sitting up on the ternary diffuser platform about three feet above the normal listening position, directly behind the perfect listening "apex" sweet spot where JB was at.
I quickly realized that from the time before I added the final sidewall absorbers and the huge binary diffuser at the front of the room just before this visit, this area used to sound very muddy and quite awful at the rear of the room. This is normal in any room due to the characteristics of standing waves in a room. **Note: this is why the 38 percent rule is so very important, and so very accurate in practice. I have proven this concept to hold great weight within its theory. The worst areas are always going to be at the front of the room, the rear of the room, and the center of the room. You always want to avoid those areas at all costs.
The negative aspect of this change which I now realize, the sound-stage is restricted as a result of the massive sidewall absorbers I just placed in the room. I lost the needed reverberance that was responsible for the wider sound-stage and sense of "space" that I was accustomed to before.
This is counter productive to the very reason why I placed these there in the first place. The intent was to eliminate first order sidewall reflections which smear the timing in music, and also place a veil upon the perception of that actual space. This should have increased the perceived degree of spatial imaging. What JB has detected, and now with my listening tests conducted since he left here, have brought me to the conclusion that what I heard before, and what I hear now are NOT the same degree of spatial expansion. The sound quality is great, detail and bass response is superb. I am however baffled as to this outcome. The only thing I can conclude is that the addition of these massive wall absorbers actually killed the robust reverb factor with over absorption. This just goes to show how easy it is to go too far with room treatment, or not implementing the correct acoustic treatment for a certain target area. This really is a double edged sword that can cut either way. My conclusion to this test is that I was better off without the sidewall absorbers.
So, getting to the point with the latest acoustic additions. I expected this area where I sat in the rear of the room to be a "less than acceptable" spot to enjoy the music. That is why my listening chair isn't placed there. But that night, I was amazed to discover that not only did this area sound reasonably good now, but I was clearly hearing the robust presence of spatial detail at every point around the room, including an area that seemed to be at least three feet behind my head. ( and I was sitting behind JB's sitting position in FRONT of me! ).
Why is that anything special you may ask? Because my head is placed directly against the hard surface of the huge diffuser I am sitting against. There is NO space behind my head at all. So you see, the space DOES actually extend beyond the physical restraints of the room dimensions. This may not become clear to you within a very limited degree of listening experience in this room, or within a very limited degree of musical variations which may, or may not provide the material needed to convey the extensions, or limitations, within the musical soundfield as portrayed in the recording. You can only hear the recording the way it was produced. Many recordings sound flat and restrained, no matter what the room situation is. They were produced to be heard that way. When certain phasing effects are purposely implemented within the musical canvas, then that is when it should also be conveyed within your room in that same degree as long as the acoustics are good.
We also have to consider our hearing limitations and variations of perception between one listener and the next. We simply do not all have the same degree of hearing potential, nor the same degree of perception. I guarantee you that no two people on this planet have the same hearing characteristics. I would love to have a couple of young people around twenty years old listen to the same thing we were subjected to in this room. I think the results would be quite interesting in regard to my statement concerning auditory fluctuations between all humans. As we age, our hearing suffers tremendously through that progression of time. Even though the critical factors of music are within the 40Hz to 8 kHz range, the range which extends to perceive the delicate nuances of higher frequencies ( specifically the "air" factor ) are well above this frequency range. The critical harmonics that make up so much of what defines a great audio system are also within this higher range. Most men can't hear much above 14 kHz after the age of 50. Many can't hear above 10kHZ. That is just the facts of life. Anyone that thinks they have much better hearing than that needs to take a professional audio-gram in a booth with actual test equipment. I think you will be shocked with the results.
I can assure you that a young person under the age of twenty can hear everything that lies within the music. They are the one's who are truly qualified to know just how good a music evaluation really is. I know very well that I no longer have this upper range of hearing. The last audio-gram I had from an official testing center was at the age of 32. I am proud to say that the tester was surprised at how intact my hearing ability actually was at that age, as that is certainly not typical. Even at that age, with well protected and preserved hearing, it is expected for a male to have a range limited to usually no more than 16 kHZ, at best. Take into consideration, dangerous noise levels resulting in premature, and permanent hearing damage, and this affects many of us even more than just natural age degradation alone.
I had an even balance which clearly ran strong to not only 16 kHz at that time, but with some extension up to 18 kHz which is simply remarkable and rare. I expect that if I were to test again now, I would be restricted to 14 kHz or less "best case" scenario. If you can top that at the age of 63, then you are one very lucky individual to say the least. A professional audio-gram is the only way to prove it. I remember having to actually hold my breath just to make sure I could register the delicate faint signals that were played with the headsets. I would not have heard those upper limit registers if I masked it with my breathing.
My point of this is to support the fact that our hearing potential is what actually governs our perception of quality, space, and time.
I can assure you that the limitations of being denied the upper frequencies are in direct relation to what can be detected in a "spatial" environment.
Just a simple fact of life that can't be denied. I wish I had the hearing potential of a sixteen year old. If I had, I know there are many things going on in this room that I just can't hear. And with age, that factor only declines. And that is where the laws of physics really apply. This is why that I understand my limitations, knowing that my limited perception is not entirely reality, only a certain "portion" of the whole. I can only offer my opinion based upon what I can detect, nothing more, nothing less.
And of course, we could get into the shapes of the human ear, and all of the variations which makes everyone unique in that form. Like the fine tuning of a delicate instrument, the shape of our ears and the structure within that complex are in effect, bound to the degree of "tuning" that nature gave us at birth. There are some of us who are born with perfect pitch. Many others are not. So many variables, so many degrees of separation. I always think about the situation with Beethoven. One of the great masters of music, with his greatest works created within a world of deafness. I see that comparatively as a world class racing champion who just happens to be blind! Some things in life are just plain defiant within reality, yet so amazing within the outcome which can't be denied.
Please do not take this personally, this is just the card life has dealt us whether we like it or not.
In the end, we all have opinions, and we all have different degrees of perception within our visual acuity, or our auditory acceptance. The result always leads to a debate it would seem. Sometimes we just have to "agree to disagree" and accept that. Just be happy with what you have and everything is just fine. I know that I for one am very satisfied.
Now, leading on to something much more interesting at this point in time. There really is something special about the Carver C9 Sonic Hologram Generator. As JB now himself has had the newfound experience with what this unit offers at virtually very little cost, is yet another defined moment in which to suggest that this circuit warrants a new life in which to enhance the quality of our music. I believe this is the time to reintroduce this circuit to the audio community and do so in a refined upgraded version that makes the cut for audiophile grade. There is not a more effective means at such a low cost to rectify the horrible restrictions which cross-talk creates from stereo speakers. You only have to experience it to really understand and appreciate the huge improvement offered. If a 45 + year old stock unit still in original form can provide this factor of acceptance, just imagine what an upgraded version with high quality parts could do. This circuit warrants all 1 percent precision components due to the required balance of the circuit to work effectively as intended. MADE IN THE USA....and there you have it. That was the America I remember. The chips are still available with better quality alternatives from Texas Instruments as an upgrade. Installing a higher grade transformer and audiophile grade caps will certainly make a difference. My conception towards a new upgraded version of the Carver C9 would have the push button controls removed and replaced with a variable means such as stepped attenuation for both the level of "Injection Ratio" and the width of the spatial generator. With a wide range of accurate stepped positions, the degree of tuning is extensive and precise with far greater control, with full accuracy across a much wider degree of precision.
|