advertisement


System Components

I have had my eyes tested so I don't need glasses. What Merlin is suggesting is that I need an electron microscope in order to appreciate the artist's work and that a fully functional pair of naked eyes are insufficient for the task.

Another analogy is that a quality print of the original work is no good unless it is in a gilt frame.
 
I don't think he's suggesting that the naked eye is insufficient for the task of delivering enjoyment, simply that you can do better.

Most audio systems sound perfectly enjoyable in 'normal' untreated rooms, but they can be made to sound better with some effort spent on optimising the room.
 
Robert said:
Steve, the effects are in precisely the areas that you have sitting right at the top of your priority list. Every contribution made by the room to the final sound that you hear is delayed relative to the direct sound - it's the biggest cause of what gets referred to as time smear.
Forget smearing from stands, cables and amps because the room (any room) is producing effects many orders of magnitude greater.
Click to expand...

The smearing of the room I can listen through. I cannot listen through smearing at source.

That said, your passive treatments do only good and no harm unlike that bloody Trinnov that does absolutely nothing about room reflections.

I would also say that given the di-polar characteristic of your Quad Electrostatics you definitely need the acoustic foam. I dread to think how your system would sound without it.

Dr John is on now and there is no shortage of snap or drive. I think you could do with another beer/listen session.
 
Steven Toy said:
The smearing of the room I can listen through. I cannot listen through smearing at source.

That said, your passive treatments do only good and no harm unlike that bloody Trinnov that does absolutely nothing about room reflections.

I would also say that given the di-polar characteristic of your Quad Electrostatics you definitely need the acoustic foam. I dread to think how your system would sound without it.

Dr John is on now and there is no shortage of snap or drive. I think you could do with another beer/listen session.
Click to expand...

Actually the Trinnov ,to an extent can deal with first reflections, its four capsule microphone is able to differentiate between direct and reflected sound, however even Trinnov admit the difficulty of dealing with frequencies above 300Hz ,and suggest a combination of passive and active correction.
Keith.
 
Room correction is a misnomer. It is about improving the combination of speaker(s), speaker positioning, listener positioning, and room, and then only in the modal region, i.e. below 200-300Hz or so. Any corrections applied above this belong to speaker correction, and must not take the room into account.
 
Werner said:
Room correction is a misnomer. It is about improving the combination of speaker(s), speaker positioning, listener positioning, and room, and then only in the modal region, i.e. below 200-300Hz or so. Any corrections applied above this belong to speaker correction, and must not take the room into account.
Click to expand...

So 'room correction' does nothing to ameliorate the effects of time smear above 300Hz (where most of the music is.)

Well I never...!
 
Werner Hi why wouldn't you want to diffract /diffuse HF in your room, something placed at the first reflection points really helps here, and in Munich treating the parallel side walls completely removes an awful flutter echo.
Keith.
 
Sorry, I was of course talking about electronic room correction.

In (non-electronic) acoustic treatment diffusion is very important, as it kills singular reflections (some of them bad, some innocuous) without making the room dead (a living room needs RT60 = 300-500ms to be liveable). But that's all above 300Hz. Below it is all about room modes/standing waves, and the havoc they wreak. Correct bass trapping virtually enlarges the room, making more of the spectrum statistical, and less of it modal. Sadly bass trapping is physically not very feasible in most rooms.
 
Steven Toy said:
I have had my eyes tested so I don't need glasses. What Merlin is suggesting is that I need an electron microscope in order to appreciate the artist's work and that a fully functional pair of naked eyes are insufficient for the task.

Another analogy is that a quality print of the original work is no good unless it is in a gilt frame.
Click to expand...

Just to correct you I am saying that normal eyesight is perfectly good enough - just as it would be in the Tate.

But again to continue the analogy, if quality headphones are the equivalent of 20/20 vision, most domestic living rooms (and from the look of it yours) are like wearing old NHS thick rimmed glasses and smearing the lenses with a thin coat of vaseline.

You might well enjoy the latter. It won't however allow you to see anything for what it is.
 
Or a decent headphone amplifier.

Headphones are an alternative method of accessing your music (and it might be added probably the most popular by a mile these days). They were offered up here as an example of listening without the room interferring. One listen will tell you just how "out of time and tune" music through main system is.

But the holy grail lies without the need for headphones and without the contribution of the listening environment. Companies involved in DRC should be applauded IMHO for trying to advance the science of replaying the recorded arts.
 
I had a Rega Ear headphone amp to go with the Sennheiser HD 600s.

The amp/speaker system I have now plays more in tune and in time than my headphone system ever did, plus I get bass I can actually feel.
 
Then your headphone system was faulty. That's the physics of it I'm afraid.
 
Purite Audio said:
I respect Serge, but I can't see how he can rail against valve amps ,whose high output impedance changes the loudspeakers frequency response and yet be content to allow his room to do the very same thing.
Keith.
Click to expand...

Because the room does the same thing to speech, to everyday noises, to my wife's dulcet tones...the Trinnov only worked on the HiFi.

If I could pass the entire world through the Trinnov so everything in the world was equalised, then perhaps it would sound natural and everything else without Trinnov would sound unnatural.

As I can't do the former, then I prefer nothing to be corrected, and let the room's natural acoustic be heard.

It's a case of correcting the HiFi only, which is what the Trinnov does (and does very well I might add) or correcting for every other sound in the same room. I prefer my HiFi to sound like everything else in the same room.

S.
 
Steven Toy said:
Would you treat your room so that your wife's voice sounded more real in there?
Click to expand...

Can't get more real than real, so I'm happy with how she sounds in the room as it is. Yes, the room has been treated, both to reduce the RT60 time and to remove flutter echoes, but apart from that, I'm happy that what the room does is perfectly acceptable for a domestic listening room.

S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top