 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.95.1.41
In Reply to: RE: Why Kill Valuable Musical Information/ Dynamics of Sound-Waves at the First-Reflection Point? posted by Dryginger2 on June 21, 2015 at 17:14:56
The valuable musical information has already been recorded onto your audio recording.
Any information about the size of the room/hall, the recording venue, whatever it's shape, size or materials, has been captured onto the recording itself.
ADDITIONAL reflections from nearby walls (usually much closer to the speaker sound sources than any of the recorded reflections or sound patterns) will only sonically confuse the previously recorded sounds, truncating the longer delays of the recorded venue.
That is why placing absorbing material at the 1st reflection point can have such a beneficial effect in terms of allowing one to hear what is actually on the recording itself.
The reflectors your placed right next to your speakers, will undoubtedly affect the sound, as they are forming a crude horn of sorts, sort of like cupping your hands around your mouth to speak.
It does tend to boost and comb filter the midrange, and to the unfamiliar, make things sound "exciting" or "more alive". But just as cupping your hands around your mouth wears thin rather quickly as a way of regularly speaking and trying to communicate, the added emphasis and roughness caused by such crude horns will also not be as neutral or realistic in the long run as the truly flat and smooth response you should be getting from your speaker without the aid of the crude horn walls.
None of what I wrote above is guessing or supposition, or "just my opinion", it is fact, as I earn my living as a loudspeaker designer, and have for the last 28 years or so.
I have experimented with such types of horizontal only horn walls, I have tried every room treatment option in the book, came up with many DIY options for inexpensive room treatments, because they are the real McCoy, and not just a boondoggle created by greedy manufacturer's.
The long and short of it is, what you recommend is a very specific and personal thing, not likely to be enjoyed by everyone, and certainly it is not a long term way toward audio happiness.
In fact, because it alters the tonal balance and FR of the system, you are now "fighting ghosts", where some tweak or equipment "upgrade" may help linearize what you have done to the system, only to find later when it is changed or removed, that the very tweak and equipment changes that seemed to make improvements to your system then, are now holding you back and preventing your system from reaching it's full potential.
I urge any one else attempting to use this technique to keep in mind that just because something sounds different, it is not necessarily better.
Jon Risch
Follow Ups:
I like horns just fine - I think one of their best points is the tightly controlled dispersion but to use reflectors reminds me of trying to close Pandora's Box.
(excuse this) The cat is already out of the bag, after all.
But, stranger things have worked in audio and every room is an acoustic mystery/puzzle waiting for the best solution.
Jon,Please answer three questions regarding your remarkable comment.
First, why did you not use your authority, as both a former loudspeaker designer and moderator, to previously warn everybody of the dangers of using a single pair of panels on the inside before launching a broadside on a later thread that doubles up on the concept on the inside and the outside?
Second, have you ever TESTED the music quality outcome from two pairs of panels as pictured above that you so emphatically condemn and against which you issue such an unequivocal warning as if it were some potential safety hazard?
Third, how can a greater volume of harnessed amplified information and dynamic energy fail to be valuable if it's arrival avoids detectable frequency-cancellation? Please do advise me because I can hear the testing answer on site and am told that I have particularly good ears by the manager of the local high-end audio store and another discriminating audiophile.
Thank you.
DG
Edits: 06/23/15
1. I can't read every post the day it is posted. I actually have a life outside of this asylum, and a real job where they expect me to produce minor miracles about every other week.
2. As I said, I have tried every trick in the book to get sound quality out of the cheapest speakers in the universe, all the way up to SOTA efforts using ribbon drivers and dual voice coil neodymium woofers.
I have heard and measured what this does, and it isn't a neutral sound, but a colored sound.
3. The greater volume you speak of only occurs in the midrange and to a more limited extent, the HF's. The size of the panels is insufficient to support LF's, and the fact that they are not contiguous with the speaker boxes, means that the coupling is only partial, thus spotty and haphazard with respect to frequency.
So there is a boost to certain of the mid-frequencies, and a response that is comb filtered in the upper ranges as well, and this, as I said before can sound "exciting" and "forward" and "present". More is not necessarily better, nor is louder.
As for the added energy avoiding detectable frequency-cancellation, that is the rub, it IS hard to detect the comb-filtering and hear it as other than an added presence or false "detail" to the music. But also as I said, time will tell, and if it does not become fatiguing, or wear thin over time, then your speakers, in that room, with that gear, had a serious lack of mid-range energy to begin with, and this particular band-aid will still only go so far.
As I said, some folks will like it, you obviously do NOW.
Whether you, or anyone else will a year from now, is another story.
Jon Risch
Jon,
Thank you for finding time to respond so swiftly. It would be interesting to know what percentage of comb-filtering at which frequency ranges is required to make tone deterioration first audible to the human ear. Always previously considered tone to be a reliable general indicator of sound purity but, if I understand you correctly, the presence or absence of false details flags impurity too fine for tone to reveal.
DG
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
