|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
211.31.215.180
In Reply to: New room size starting with 22ft wide?. help and advise please posted by Shane from AUS on March 3, 2007 at 03:04:06:
My wife asked me one question, which I just laughed. I think it was Richard said I need to really have with 22ft width, 13 ft high and 33 ft long for the perfect listening room.
Generally I listen in the mid field, however last night I brought my chair up to the nearfield classic equilateral triangle.She asked if you listen that close to the speakers, why do you need such a big room?? Good question?..
Any thoughts as in the nearfield you are getting less of the room than in the mid or farfield.
If one prefer's to listen in the mid field - ie 20 ft or so away from the speakers, are there any different things you need to be careful of in room measurements?
Follow Ups:
Near field for bass, where the room has only a small effect on the frequency response, is placing the bass driver one foot or less from your ears!I listen from 4 feet away from my speakers and would call distances up to 6 feet "near field" for home audio ... 6' to 12' could be called "mid-field" ... and over 12' I'd call "left field" (a big mistake in most rooms as you would hear too much room reflections, and not enough direct sound from the speakers, unless the room was a very large well-damped home theater.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
You're right about near field listening reducing the impact of the room on what you hear. That's because in a near field setup the length of the direct path from speakers to you is much longer than that of the path taken by the earliest reflections. That means the strength of the reflections is much lower than that of the direct signal so they don't influence what you hear to the same degree.A larger room gives you the opportunity to place the speakers further away from the walls, and many speakers perform better that way. That's a plus for any larger room, no matter where you place the listening position.
If you keep the speakers the same distance apart in a larger room, and listen at the same distance from them as well, the length of the early reflection path will be longer than it would be in the smaller room and the strength of those early reflections would be reduced even further. That will be a plus regardless of whether the listening position is near field or further away.
So, whether you listen in the near field or further away, a bigger room will give you the same advantages. The speakers can be placed further away from walls if that's where they will work better, and the level of early reflections will be reduced if you listen at the same distance.
Near field listening is not just for small spaces. I regard it as a choice that affects the musical experience. There are quite noticeable subjective differences to how you perceive the music in a near field vs a more distant listening setup. Different people tend to have their own views as to which they prefer. I think near field definitely works best in a small room, but then you don't have much of an option in a small room. In a larger room, it becomes a choice as to how you want to experience your music.
There is one small problem I noticed with the nearfield listening. Some tracks of certain CDs[ e.g 6th track of "Raven" from Rebecca Pidgeon] have music coming from the location of speakers instead of the soundstage behind the speakers.
We tend to think about sound being localised at the speaker as not being desirable but if you've got a soundstage extending from outside the left speaker to outside the right speaker, and also from just in front of the plane of the speakers to a fair distance behind them, as I have on many recordings, then you have to accept that it's possible on occasion that the 'correct' place in that soundstage for a performer will, on occasion, fall where the speaker is. Soundstages really don't come like swiss cheese, but with the holes conveniently placed where the speakers are located.There's definitely a problem if there is always sound localised at one or both speakers, regardless of recording. If it happens only occasionally on some particular records, and never on others, then I think it's just the way things were placed when the particular record concerned was mastered. It happens with my system occasionally but it's not an issue on most recordings. I'm satisfied that it's just the way that particular recording is.
Chesky discs often throw a wide soundstage on my system and the wider the soundstage is, the more likely I think this is to happen. I also have discs which throw a very narrow soundstage with all performers placed very close to centre. There are some things which simply boil down to a choice by the engineer in the studio, and soundstage width and performer location within that soundstage are two of those things.
I find that the sound comes from the woofer in such recordings and when you sit close it is somewhat annoying (particularly when you are spoiled by speakers disappearing act). Nevertheless I prefer the long-wall placement well away from the sidewalls.
The Chesky recording I referred to is puzzling to me since the soundstage there has plenty of space to place the instrument behind the speakers.
"The Chesky recording I referred to is puzzling to me since the soundstage there has plenty of space to place the instrument behind the speakers."Well, different components and systems throw different size soundstages. Image placement tends to be set relative to soundstage boundaries. The outer images will be further from the centre if the soundstage is wider, and closer if the soundstage is narrower. Dittto for front to back depth of images.
Perhaps those images aren't located at the speaker position in Chesky's studio. They may not be located at the speakers in some of your friend's systems. What you're noticing could well just be an artifact of your particular system and/or room.
I changed CDPs from a Thule CD150 to an Arcam FMJ CD33 a couple of years back. The soundstage and imaging changed quite noticeably when that occurred, even dramatically on some tracks. The positions at which particular performers were imaged changed with the change in soundstage size. Should I blame the recording because I prefer where something images with one player over where it images with the other? Is it likely that one of them produces exactly the imaging that the engineer heard in Chesky's studio?
I repeat, if something is imaged at the speaker at all times, there's probably something wrong. If it happens only occasionally on a few records, I don't think there's a problem or that anything is wrong.
I'm sure you meant to say "in a near field setup the length of the direct path from speakers to you is much shorter than that of the path taken by the earliest reflections."I would add that you really need to have speakers whose sound integrates well from close range; humongous 5-ways probably won't be suitable.
acoustic engineers that can give me some solid advise that are in Sydney.Don't want to spend a lot of money as I only want to build a normal room with standard building material, however there maybe some options in materials that won't really add to the cost, but may make the end result more musically enjoyable.
No. Don't even know of any here in Brisbane though I do know there are a couple. Perhaps a phone book search under 'Acoustic Consultants' or 'Acoustic Services'. You could also try asking around. The local ABC studios may be able to name someone who worked on their studio spaces, for instance.I think it's worth saying that even if you get the dimensions 'right' or 'perfect', and there's a fair deal of argument over just which set of proportions is 'right' or 'perfect', you won't eliminate any problems. The same room problems will exist, but they won't be quite as bad. Getting the best results is still going to require acoustic treatment and the odds are that the amount of acoustic treatment required for an 'average' room of a particular size isn't going to be all that much different from/greater than that required by an ideal room. My preference would be to go for a reasonably proportioned room based on your 22' dimension for one wall, and spend the extra time and effort involved with obsessing about 'perfect proportions' in doing a slightly better job on acoustic treatment.
Have a read of Everest's 'Master Handbook of Acoustics'. He's got info on several versions of the 'ideal proportions' and a chart mapping out the general range into which all of them fall.
I do think talking about materials choices is a good idea if you can locate someone who can help, but very good results can be obtained in rooms constructed of standard materials.
...some feel the ideal room dimensions are the 'golden ration' of 1.618 to 1.My dedicated room comes close at 10.5' X 17' X 27' but still has standing wave issues as any room with parallel walls will.
Starting with a 22' width will make this difficult.
I'd call listening 20' away from the speakers "farfield". "Midfield" would be more like 10' and nearfield closer than that.
I must admit that I call 20 ft mid field, only because my speakers are about 13ft apart, so in then equilateral triangle formationj I thought this was "nearfield".
i have a different interpretation of the terms 'near-field' and 'far-field'.i think of 'near field' as different than 'close' and 'far-field' as different than 'far'. those terms have to do with the listening position's relative distance to the speaker relative to the distance between the speakers.
therefore when ears are closer than the width between the speakers you are in the 'near-field'.....the degree of 'near-field' can vary......"the very near-field" or "slight near-field". the same with 'far-field'.....farther than the width between the speakers.
obviously 'mid-field' is a listener at the precise point of the equalateral triangle.
if not used this way it seems it would be quite useless a description as near and far already cover that better and are no less precise.
i could be totally wrong.....that is always how i have used the terms.
...my speakers are 10' apart and I sit 10' from them and I consider this "midfield" - or normal.If I move my head 2' or 3' forward, I consider that "nearfield". The perspective changes and I'm more enveloped by the soundfield than sitting back observing it in front of me as usual.
If I move back a couple of feet, standing behind my Room Tunes, I consider that 'far field" and the soundfield is a little distant.
I used to use a nearfield setup. My room is 20' x 16'. My chair was against the back wall and the speakers were 1 feet from the side wall and 5 feet in front of me. The whole room was the soundstage. It was awesome. Even though 15' in front of me was essential empty space, I am glad it was there because it gave plenty of space for the musicians to occupy.I no longer use that setup because I now combine audio with home theater. If I had a dedicated two channel, I would go back to that for sure.
Shane;i currently listen in an equalilateral triangle at 12'6" in a 21' x 29' x 11' room. i have listened as close as 9' 6" and as far as 14' 6".
having a larger room allows more types of music to sound realistic. my previous 12' x 18' x 10.5' room was limiting when pushed in SPL's and also when called upon to recreate a large space. doing 'space' is really a neat thing. the music has a more relaxed easy feeling and i can listen longer with less physical stress. listening in a more confined space at realistic levels can be physically draining. i am speaking of 75db to 90db......not 100db.
bass performance is more realistic in a relatively large space.
trying different listening perspectives in a large space allows you to choose the balance you desire between intimacy, soundstage size and detail perception.
i consider 13' x 18' or less a small space. 14' x 19' to 16' x 21' to be a medium space......and above that a large space. ceiling height is a big issue with 8' or lower to be an issue. 9'-12' is good. over 12' will create lots of reflection issues. the right ceiling shape is also important.
Hi MikeYea, ceiling height is my main concern in the current room. Moving from 8 to 10ft or so will be a big difference to what I have now.
I need to maintain the current roofline, so I can't go crazy on ceiling height. One good thing is my property slightly moves down hill where i am extending, so I can afford a step down to bring the ceiling height up now.
I guess bottom line i have a pretty big room now, I am just going to make it a little bigger and hopefully more spacious in the top end with the ceiling height.
I am not looking forward to moving record cabinets to move my 4300 LP's thou.
Where do you store yours in your room, You can't really see where you store your 6000 LP's?.
hi Shane,i have about 3000 Lps (my 'A' records) in my room (48 feet of records) on the built-in shelves you see at the rear of the room.
i have another 1000 in some shelves in the hallway outside my room.
upstairs in my rec room (42' x 12') in what was the hayloft i have another 2000 and room for lots more. i had the floor reinforced upstairs in consideration of future Lp collection growth (along with the pool table).
best regards,
"22ft width, 13 ft high and 33 ft long for the perfect listening room." I wish acoustics were so simple.Here is a quote from Linkwitz:
"Many computer programs have been written that calculate the resonant modes of a given room and recommend optimum loudspeaker and listener placements. Usually, real rooms are much more complex than the calculated models. Walls are not infinitely stiff, rooms have windows, doors, openings, suspended floors or ceilings, etc. In addition, it is the polar pattern and the acoustic source impedance of the given loudspeaker that determines which of the potential room modes are actually excited and to which degree. The usefulness of such programs is marginal at best. Likewise, recommended proportions for room length, width and height should not be taken more seriously than other proportions that may be based on visual aesthetics."
Please do read the link before you waste money on some "perfect" building measurements.
building around the 22 by 28-30, by 10 ft high dimensions. That is a little bigger than what I have now.For practical and aesthetics, do you think it is OK to have windows on one side and not on the other. facing the speakers, I look into the back yard on the left hand side, but into the next door neighbour on the right. Thinking of normal windows and sliding door on the left hand side so I can interact and see the kids etc, but on the right side only have some small windows high up for airflow.
Is that going to make that bigger a difference?. I don't really want a room with no windows :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: