Why do people care about gear measurements when most rooms suck?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Not that I see. My objective is to have an electronic signal chain that is as linear, noiseless and distortion free as I can afford, with more headroom than my speakers will ever need. Then, when it gets to the speakers and the room, that's all I'm dealing with. Frankly, I wish much more comprehensive measurements were available most of the time.
Tim
Tim
many people don't care about measurements that much. most of my audiophile friends most certainly don't care deeply about measurments. you are reading this forum too much i think and have a warped view of the world. it actually extends beyond the General Audio Discussion forum on WBF.
and quite a few rooms don't suck. less than perfect is different than 'suck'. and if a speaker is appropriate to the room size then many rooms can work quite well. i would disagree, 'that most audiophiles i know listen in aweful rooms.'
other than those 2 things i agree totally.
One thing to bear in mind is that rooms may affect the response response but not the distortion. So, there is some use in the specs... Of course, speakers dominate the distortion characteristics of virtually any real-world system.
That said, I have for many years found it interesting the amount of money and effort spent on gear and tweaks relative to that spent on the room, which does indeed dominate the sound for most of us.
That said, I have for many years found it interesting the amount of money and effort spent on gear and tweaks relative to that spent on the room, which does indeed dominate the sound for most of us.
and Mike L says:
I'm on Caesar's side.
I spent 10 years in "audiophile homes" installing a product that costs between $7K and $13K (digital room correction). I was probably in 200+ rooms during that time period (early 90's to early 2000's). And given the price point of what I was selling, these were very nice systems. (Lots of Wilsons [including the Grand Slam], Large Genesis; Avalons, Martin Logans, et al). Easily 80%++ of the rooms sucked. Easily!!
Zero room treatment; A large screen TV placed between the speakers; speakers pushed up against a wall; speakers placed asymmetrically in the room; speakers not the same distance from the MLP; coffee tables sitting between the speakers and MLP; room with 3 walls of glass; speakers sitting on hard concrete or wooden floors with no carpet or absorption material anywhere to be seen; etc, etc, etc.
While maybe that profile does not fit the typical WBF reader/member, my guess is that for the general high end population, it still does.
Mike,
I agree with you. Most of the best systems I have listened to were playing in untreated rooms and sounded excellent. Before I get a dedicated office/listening room I also had excellent sound in untreated rooms, although they had plenty of solid furniture and carpets.
IMHO, many of the poor sounding systems are not due to a bad room, but to bad placement of speakers. With some imagination and permission to move your speakers and furniture it is much easier to get good sound! But surely my experience is limited to a few friends listening rooms.
Yeah all those with grand pianos/etc should just buy a basic piano for their rooms due to it being wasted
Glad I never spent a fortune on a harp all those years ago
Ok cheekiness now off.
But it is interesting how audiophiles are the focus, when there are as many if not more musicians (including amateurs) with very expensive classical instruments at home, in untreated rooms.
Now not disagreeing how rooms influence certain characteristics of sound, but one should keep it in perspective how real instruments are used (ignoring very specific halls-studios) by the majority of people.
Do they say their instrument sucks and might as well use cheapest available when played at home?
From my limited experience of knowing a few from LSO, brass band musicians, pianist, the answer is no.
Just throwing it out as a food for thought, with a sprinkling of spice and cheekiness
Cheers
Orb
Glad I never spent a fortune on a harp all those years ago
Ok cheekiness now off.
But it is interesting how audiophiles are the focus, when there are as many if not more musicians (including amateurs) with very expensive classical instruments at home, in untreated rooms.
Now not disagreeing how rooms influence certain characteristics of sound, but one should keep it in perspective how real instruments are used (ignoring very specific halls-studios) by the majority of people.
Do they say their instrument sucks and might as well use cheapest available when played at home?
From my limited experience of knowing a few from LSO, brass band musicians, pianist, the answer is no.
Just throwing it out as a food for thought, with a sprinkling of spice and cheekiness
Cheers
Orb
We own a Steinway baby grand which we have in our living room with a vaulted ceiling. My kids also practice, flute, guitar and saxophone in that room. It sounds better and more realistic than in my dedicated music room!
My stereo room does not have state of the art treatments and I would place it on the 'it doesn't suck' scale of things.
I'm amazed on a daily basis by the physical nature of live acoustic music versus reproduced...even in Mike L's and Bruce B's amazing rooms.
My stereo room does not have state of the art treatments and I would place it on the 'it doesn't suck' scale of things.
I'm amazed on a daily basis by the physical nature of live acoustic music versus reproduced...even in Mike L's and Bruce B's amazing rooms.
We own a Steinway baby grand which we have in our living room with a vaulted ceiling. My kids also practice, flute, guitar and saxophone in that room. It sounds better and more realistic than in my dedicated music room!
My stereo room does not have state of the art treatments and I would place it on the 'it doesn't suck' scale of things.
I'm amazed on a daily basis by the physical nature of live acoustic music versus reproduced...even in Mike L's and Bruce B's amazing rooms.
Apples and oranges. Live instruments sound good in very lively spaces. We seem to understand all the reflections and enjoy them. Playback systems, not so much.
Tim
Tim, you're right on the money. You know what's coming, the listening room is irrelevant IF the system is working properly: in the same way a live instrument will always sound the real deal no matter where it's played, so will good reproduction. The key point you made is "understand the reflections and enjoy them". That's exactly what should happen with an audio system, and the fact that you don't is, and here it comes, too much irritating distortion mixed in with the sound. As Mike and Roger and others have said, you don't appreciate how much muck "normal" systems eject into the listening space until you hear one that doesn't do it. So, if too much unwanted sound, then an option is to treat the room to minimise the audible impact of such ...
Frank
What the real thing has is the ability to go loud without distortion. Most domestic systems can't do this, well crafted pro setups can: I'm certain if if someone who really knew his stuff set up a professional playback in your room he would have no trouble knocking the real saxophone off the stage. I'm not talking hideously distorted loud, but genuine, clean volume replay ...
Frank
Not even close in my experience and opinion. Had you said "slightly less important" -- then maybe.
Irrelevant --- not a shot !!!!!
+1 to Tim. My wife is downstairs practicing her baby (5'10") grand for tonight's service. It is not for show, it replaced her upright many years ago and she plays it often. It's in a small, live room and sounds great. The room is the opposite of the one I use to reproduce recordings of it. Apples and oranges...
I admit giving it to her as a birthday present got me a lot of trumpet chits, allowing me to add to my horn collection.
I admit giving it to her as a birthday present got me a lot of trumpet chits, allowing me to add to my horn collection.
i'm generally fine with close-miked acoustic in a lively space...but not acoustic records with significant ambient space/noise of their own...the former sounds more like a direcet instrument into your living room. The other has one acoustic reverb fighting with the one in the living room and it does not work as well for me.
Speaking for myself, if i am listening to 2 sets of reverb (one recorded and one in the room itself), that does not work as well for me, as in a [properly] damped room where i can focus on the recorded reverb a little better. close-miked is different. well set up, i dont care if its damped or lively cathedral-ceiling room.
Similar threads
Members online
- redscouser
- hogen
- Jhellow
- Adelmor
- VPN
- Andreas510
- RCanelas
- Gamlas
- Bbock
- Bushikai
- igrek
- poonbean
- l3uzz
- UncleE
- sandervdp
- Robert Young
- Mike
- audioblazer
- Urbinator
- andromedaaudio
- hchilly
- lamechops
- jfr
- wbfhet
- Argonaut
- s_c
- Tabl10s
- rafale
- audiobomber
- cykin
- brad225
- Simon Moon
- daveoo
- Geoffkait
- AudioAbe
- Scaena1
- AudioHR
- ecwl
- Bobvin
- Porsche
- Tremayne
- Nsxturbo
- Mike Lavigne
- MortenB
- dbeau
- MarcelNL
- @mattsal101
- jadis
- Mark212121
- GroovySauce
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |