What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[Steve williams]

Not sure I get your question Mike

I owned all my front and back end gear and speakers and did not want to switch. Under what I had to work with without a properly designed room I would be forced to change speakers and as a result both my front and back end gear. I'm not looking to put anything in the room that's not there. I'm looking to tame the room Mike. So what's your point about über gear

 

[PeterA]

i have as much time and money tied up in my room as anyone, and i have to disagree.

while the room is important, it's garbage in, garbage out. the media, signal path, speakers and power gird are more important than the room. the room can only not screw up the information, but it cannot add in what is not there.

and any room can be optimized, even if it's only speaker placement. I'd rather have my media/gear in a modest/ordinary room, than ordinary/modest media/gear in my room.

of course; I've also learned enough from my journey to fix many room issues relatively easily. not all, just most. and so i know the net result for me would be better with the right media/gear. i guess what I'm saying is that learning how to make a room right is as important as having the right room. would my experience transfer to just any room? i don't really know, but I'd guess it mostly would.....as it's primarily having a reference in your head for where you are going.

This reminds me of the relative importance of the source versus speakers debate. Garbage in, garbage out, yes. But reproduced sound reaches its full potential when a great system is properly set up in a great room.

It is trivial to point out that everything matters. What is difficult is determining the relative value of the parts. I learned of the importance of the front end when I upgraded my turntable, arm, and cartridge and was shocked at how much better the system sounded. However, I don't think I would have appreciated the value of that upgrade had it not been for Jim Smith setting up my speakers and listening position in my room prior to the upgrade which allowed me to better appreciate the amount of improvement.

I understand both Frank's and Steve's arguments. Mike knows from his own experience the relative values of his NVS/Durand/Anna/active isolation front end vs. the Evolution Acoustics super speaker back end, just as he knows the value of the whole system versus the importance of the room's evolution. Steve has his own history and set of experiences with switching from digital to analog vs. the big Wilsons and the move to a dedicated and designed room. (Also significant from what I have read is Steve's experimentation with cables, power conditioning and isolation devices, and "simplifying" with ddk's guidance). Frank clearly places priority on the sorting out of electronics. From this, everything else flows.

I think our claims about relative importance of these elements is highly dependent on our own audio journeys and specific experiences with our own systems. For me, it is very fluid and often dependent upon what I will learn next which may change my mind again. It is such a fascinating hobby.

 

[microstrip]

Well if we are giving opinions mine is that the room matters more than anything else. Perhaps if you had a better room you wouldn't always be tinkering

Just my $0.02

Steve,

I do not think so. Although extremely poor rooms can kill a system, on average you can have excellent sound that pleases one's preferences in regular rooms. Although I enjoyed being in several treated rooms with great and fantastic sound, none of them has reached the believability I have seen in some untreated rooms.

And yes, it depends on your preferences, including musical preferences.

BTW, some people are mixing "believability" with "presence" - two related but different thinks. You can have a lot of presence and small believability. They can be there but misbehave ...

 

[FrantzM]

Steve,

I do not think so. Although extremely poor rooms can kill a system, on average you can have excellent sound that pleases one's preferences in regular rooms. Although I enjoyed being in several treated rooms with great and fantastic sound, none of them has reached the believability I have seen in some untreated rooms.

And yes, it depends on your preferences, including musical preferences.

BTW, some people are mixing "believability" with "presence" - two related but different thinks. You can have a lot of presence and small believability. They can be there but misbehave ...

So it is there (Presence) but you don't believe (Believability) ... Wow!

 

[bonzo75]

This reminds me of the relative importance of the source versus speakers debate. Garbage in, garbage out, yes. But reproduced sound reaches its full potential when a great system is properly set up in a great room.

It is trivial to point out that everything matters. What is difficult is determining the relative value of the parts. I learned of the importance of the front end when I upgraded my turntable, arm, and cartridge and was shocked at how much better the system sounded. However, I don't think I would have appreciated the value of that upgrade had it not been for Jim Smith setting up my speakers and listening position in my room prior to the upgrade which allowed me to better appreciate the amount of improvement.

I understand both Frank's and Steve's arguments. Mike knows from his own experience the relative values of his NVS/Durand/Anna/active isolation front end vs. the Evolution Acoustics super speaker back end, just as he knows the value of the whole system versus the importance of the room's evolution. Steve has his own history and set of experiences with switching from digital to analog vs. the big Wilsons and the move to a dedicated and designed room. (Also significant from what I have read is Steve's experimentation with cables, power conditioning and isolation devices, and "simplifying" with ddk's guidance). Frank clearly places priority on the sorting out of electronics. From this, everything else flows.

I think our claims about relative importance of these elements is highly dependent on our own audio journeys and specific experiences with our own systems. For me, it is very fluid and often dependent upon what I will learn next which may change my mind again. It is such a fascinating hobby.

I disagree partially, because I trust Steve's and Mike's experience as experience, I don't see Frank having the same. Also, in terms of electronics, Steve has all Lamm, Mike has all Dart. No mixing and matching of electronics going on there, that could potentially screw up something.

 

[microstrip]

So it is there (Presence) but you don't believe (Believability) ... Wow!

Yes, Frantz. I am using use the word "believability" more in the sense David (DDK) uses it for "natural". You will have to read a little more of the beginning of thread if you want to understand, I am not going to repeat it all again. jkenny and DDK contributions were worth reading, much better than mine.

 

[Steve williams]

My point is that a properly treated room will produce huge benefits and for me it allowed me to use my speakers and electronics without any issue. In fact comparing my first room (which was designed by Art Noxon at ASC) to my present room there is in fact no comparison as my present room was designed from the ground up by an acoustician who took measurements along the way and after completion. My present room even though smaller clearly outperforms my first. In fact after completion of my room and my acoustician returned for final measurements, she called me a few days later after she returned home and ran the measurements through her algorithms and told me she wanted me to move my existing rack 6 inches closer to the back wall. I questioned her as to why (I liked the rack where it was) and she told me that by doing such it would reduce a bothersome room node. I took her advice and for me the rest is history. My room measures smooth across all frequencies with a small roll off at the top end as seen in the M&K curve that people use with room equalization. IMO there is true value in taming one's room. No doubt that one can get really lucky with no room treatment or less than adequate but having experienced my last room and now this one done properly I remain convinced that if not done properly I would never have been able to use my gear which was paramount for me

 

[FrantzM]

Yes, Frantz. I am using use the word "believability" more in the sense David (DDK) uses it for "natural". You will have to read a little more of the beginning of thread if you want to understand, I am not going to repeat it all again. jkenny and DDK contributions were worth reading, much better than mine.

So why not use "natural" and be done? You may have to admit that this is going a little too far ...

 

[bonzo75]

So why not use "natural" and be done? You may have to admit that this is going a little too far ...

Real, Natural, and Believable all >>> Accurate

 

[microstrip]

My point is that a properly treated room will produce huge benefits and for me it allowed me to use my speakers and electronics without any issue. In fact comparing my first room (which was designed by Art Noxon at ASC) to my present room there is in fact no comparison as my present room was designed from the ground up by an acoustician who took measurements along the way and after completion. My present room even though smaller clearly outperforms my first. In fact after completion of my room and my acoustician returned for final measurements, she called me a few days later after she returned home and ran the measurements through her algorithms and told me she wanted me to move my existing rack 6 inches closer to the back wall. I questioned her as to why (I liked the rack where it was) and she told me that by doing such it would reduce a bothersome room mode. I took her advice and for me the rest is history. My room measures smooth across all frequencies with a small roll off at the top end as seen in the M&K curve that people use with room equalization. IMO there is true value in taming one's room. No doubt that one can get really lucky with no room treatment or less than adequate but having experienced my last room and now this one done properly I remain convinced that if not done properly I would never have been able to use my gear which was paramount for me

Steve,

I have no doubt you have a fantastic sound - I hope some day in the future I will be able to appreciate it!

However as you say you built a room for a system - most people will build a system for a room. I understand your system was particularly difficult to integrate in your room - a large speaker with tremendous bass, an amplifier with very low damping and a smaller than expected room - we must congratulate your acoustician for her great work. I can easily imagine that without her help probably you would have had to change your system.

I have some treatment in my room - but just at the front wall, as my room is very long compared to width. It helps things, and when I had box speakers I had to add enormous bass traps. Sometimes I have used slim acoustic treatment in my room just because I lack space to fit more bookshelves filled with books. But changes in the source, for example, were much more rewarding than the acoustic treatment.

IMHO each of our system and rooms is a particular case and we can not have general rules - it is not possible to have a rule stating one is absolutely more important than others. In this hobby everything matters!

 

[microstrip]

So why not use "natural" and be done? You may have to admit that this is going a little too far ...

Because IMHO there is something more in being "natural" than just "believability" ... People wrote long articles during decades, we had people writing threads about it, and you seem to want to gasp it all in one post of mine ... This hobby is an evolution, and IMHO sometimes you seem to want to skip steps.

And no, I can not understand what is "going a little too far".

 

[Rodney Gold]

The more capable the gear , the more important to do the room right.
With a bad room , no goodness shines thru and too much is masked

 

[jkeny]

I'll repeat again what I said before about room Vs electronics bearing in mind that I have not got much experience of room treatments in a home environment (there is a recording studio I have access to & it is particularly dead so not something I would desire for my home either acoustically or visually).

When a room is intelligible for speech it passes my criteria for music. I have never gone into a room & said what a great sounding room (I have said the opposite when a room is full of reflective surfaces which makes it unintelligible for speech)

I have gone into a room & said what a great sounding system that is - which usually refers to the electronics & how much "believability" they reproduce in the acoustic illusion produced by our playback systems.

I've recently been reading about (& listening to example videos) of bending wave speaker technology or distributed mode loudspeakers or BMR loudspeakers & what surprised me in the videos was the naturalness of the sound & the way that it doesn't drop off in perceived amplitude as much as pistonic, longitudinal wave speakers the further away from the speaker one goes. To me this sounds more "natural" & it also signifies that it is the wide dispersion & multitude of reflections that conveys this naturalness, not room treatments which are mostly directed at reducing such reflections or reducing room nodes.

To me the behaviour of these DML speakers is more akin to how a natural instrument being played in a room would fill a room with sound? I don't know where this leaves me in my original premise about electronics being more important to me than rooms? If there are speakers that behave in a room more like a real instrument being played in that room then I'm interested in hearing them & I may well change my opinion.

 

[DaveC]

My point is that a properly treated room will produce huge benefits and for me it allowed me to use my speakers and electronics without any issue. In fact comparing my first room (which was designed by Art Noxon at ASC) to my present room there is in fact no comparison as my present room was designed from the ground up by an acoustician who took measurements along the way and after completion. My present room even though smaller clearly outperforms my first. In fact after completion of my room and my acoustician returned for final measurements, she called me a few days later after she returned home and ran the measurements through her algorithms and told me she wanted me to move my existing rack 6 inches closer to the back wall. I questioned her as to why (I liked the rack where it was) and she told me that by doing such it would reduce a bothersome room node. I took her advice and for me the rest is history. My room measures smooth across all frequencies with a small roll off at the top end as seen in the M&K curve that people use with room equalization. IMO there is true value in taming one's room. No doubt that one can get really lucky with no room treatment or less than adequate but having experienced my last room and now this one done properly I remain convinced that if not done properly I would never have been able to use my gear which was paramount for me

I'd agree, having heard some good rooms it makes the issue clear. You just can't get the same performance without the room, it's simply not possible. Directional speakers where there is more direct sound vs reflected sound can reduce the importance of the room, but with typical dynamic speakers the room is key and the speakers can't perform as intended without the room.

I also think many things discussed in this thread are difficult to accurately communicate and assumptions are being made that may not be true...

 

[jkeny]

I'd agree, having heard some good rooms it makes the issue clear. You just can't get the same performance without the room, it's simply not possible. Directional speakers where there is more direct sound vs reflected sound can reduce the importance of the room, but with typical dynamic speakers the room is key and the speakers can't perform as intended without the room.

I also think many things discussed in this thread are difficult to accurately communicate and assumptions are being made that may not be true...

Dave, what's your opinion on DML speakers where they are very much non-directional (horizontal dispersion of 160 degrees or so & similar vertical non-directivity) & yet their interaction with the room seems diminished?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Thus .. someone, listening to speaker A though speaker B on a video likely encoded with mp3 (which they will tell you cannot reproduce any nuance) is able to discern the qualities of speaker A through Speaker B... We are getting to a point in this thread (and others) where we are exploding the limits of believability.
Carry on , it is getting unbelievably humorous.

 

[Steve williams]

Hi

Thus .. someone, listening to speaker A though speaker B on a video likely encoded with mp3 (which they will tell you cannot reproduce any nuance) is able to discern the qualities of speaker A through Speaker B... We are getting to a point in this thread (and others) where we are exploding the limits of believability.
Carry on , it is getting unbelievably humorous.

+1

 

[FrantzM]

I'd agree, having heard some good rooms it makes the issue clear. You just can't get the same performance without the room, it's simply not possible. Directional speakers where there is more direct sound vs reflected sound can reduce the importance of the room, but with typical dynamic speakers the room is key and the speakers can't perform as intended without the room.

I also think many things discussed in this thread are difficult to accurately communicate and assumptions are being made that may not be true...

+1

and however much we want to debate the issue those are facts. Since we have shown an increasing tendency to dispute facts I am sure many will claim the contrary but modest equipment in good rooms trump great equipment in inadequate rooms.. Any Audio show will provide with tons of proof if you needed any

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think you are both (Mike and Steve) correct.

Between a great system in an average room, and an average system in a great room, I personally would take the great system in an average room.

I think the room is very important, and that a great, treated room can elevate any level of system.

 

[DaveC]

+1

and however much we want to debate the issue those are facts. Since we have shown an increasing tendency to dispute facts I am sure many will claim the contrary but modest equipment in good rooms trump great equipment in inadequate rooms.. Any Audio show will provide with tons of proof if you needed any

I think there's alot of confusion here because attributes of the room may be mistakenly applied to the speaker.

For example, slow/bloated bass is often a result of room decay times and modal issues which cause overhang, it's very common for people to think this is a problem with the speaker, especially if it happens to involve a horn since a few bad designs have made people think it's impossible to combine a woofer with a horn, but it's just not the case. I mean, JBL M2 anyone?

For dynamic speakers, it's just not possible to get an immersive 3-dimensional soundstage and fine detail without the room cooperating.