Nedenfor er et fint innlegg på ASR om målinger, preferanser, nyttefunksjoner, nøytralitet («fidelity») og romkurver (direktelenke:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...atment-goldensound.45104/page-83#post-1635191).
Jeg klippet inn innlegget i sin helhet fordi diskusjonen han (Andrej) har med seg selv er systematisk og lett å følge.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have been following this thread, on and off, from the beginning, and I have been frustrated because I see some valid points in most of otherwise disagreeing posts. I have seen comparisons to video, where there are standards that use measurements and out perception to evaluate the fidelity of the image (whether to the original scene, or the input to the device, whatever the device might be, akin to what is done to electronic components here. Or loudspeakers.). However, when it comes to sound reproduction in spaces, the objective function changes from fidelity to preference.
As a scientist, I have spent my hole professional life optimizing functions, in my case building acoustic models for ASR. It has become so ingrained, that everything in my life has become an optimization of some function, and I set all of the parameters for what is "optimal". To me. Not in any global sense. I approach audio in the same way.
In case of optimizing fidelity with loudspeaker reproduction, then the obvious solution is to use the largest anechoic chamber you can find. For personal preference, I have read of many reports where that is not true. Having had the opportunity to do such a listening test in what was for many decades the largest anechoic chamber in the world (where i was testins some of my early speaker builds), I have to admit that it was the "cleanest" sound that I have ever heard (sort of like headphone listening, but the orchestra was not inside my head), once you get past bouncing on chicken wire in a totally alien acoustic environment. (We are biassed by our constant exposure to background noise and input signal having time delayed correlated and equalized copies of itself, reduced in amplitude, added to it.) I was very much impressed by the change in perception when comparing the anechoic chamber with my family room with typical furnishings. Which one was better? As usal, it depends on your objective function. However, whichever way one leans in this debate, it took a while to get used to the new acoustic environment, which is a real obstacle to start with. I cannot recall details, it was 30-35 years ago, all I remember is the overall euphoria with my discovery. @j_j , did you ever go there for a listen? Any memories of how you liked it?
I very much like and support the scientific approach, even when applied to preference. However when it comes to preference, and science, it is rare that science will try to explain the preference for anybody but either the majority, or the average listeners. And when it comes to MY preference, only MY objective function matters. Which brings me to the current debate. I may well be a 1 percent-er (or 1 pro-miller
) as my preferences do not appear to be universal. The problem with properly treated rooms is that they are relatively rare, in the sense that majority of us are not exposed to them. I have been to dozens of homes explicitly to listen to sound systems, and only one was professionally designed, and it was the best sound I had ever heard (but not the best speakers, if I remember correctly). At the same time, I wanted to find out what MY preference was regarding the addition of sound absorption material, at first reflections and beyond. I was building a new dedicated media room (20.5 x 28 x 9.25+1in joists), and, with studs and joists exposed, almost no furniture - a few easy chairs, and my best system at the time (Quad ESL63 + subs, but mny other more conventional speakers as well), I started listening. As you can imagine, it started horrible. Adding a few 2 x 4 ft rock wool panels, 5.5 in thick, helped a lot. Adding some more, helped more. It took over a month, with gradual additions, and getting accustomed to the new sound, but I ended up covering all the walls and most of the ceiling, with double thickness at the first ceiling reflection. To be covered by fabric in due course. By many accounts, this was idiotic. On the other hand, it kept MY objective function value going up.
As always, life is a comproimse - there are recordings that this kind of room gives great clarity and transports you to the recording venue. However, on the other hand, there was this recording of a small orchestra where the instruments were close-miked, and the sound was very unnatural without the room additions - like they were outdoors and at least 6 feet apart from each other. In multiple houses, each of which had several listening rooms (normal living room furniture, or treated rooms, but with much less drastically), this was by far my favorite listening space. And many others shared that opinion, unusual acoustics be damned
Great for movies or stereo, and coctail parties in particular with 20 conversations in parallel, and nobody shouting to be heard. With just a two of you, it helps if you face each other
Preferences are funny things, I'll give you two examples. Since I have already brought my old colleague @j_j into the conversation, I was showing off a recording by Victoria Mulova (if I remember it correctly) which I liked, but he did not like it at all, as it was miked too closely. I, having gotten used to my daughter playing the violin in the same room, must have been craving that sound! We were both right!
The second was when an audio acquaintance came for a listen in one of the mildly treated rooms, equalized to be flat 20-20kHz, he expressed his dismay saying that there was no bass, and all the high frequencies were far too pronounced. I showed the measurements, and him, being a smart and industrious individual, proceeded to install REW and a calibrated microphone. He had a major peak in the bass, over 10dB, and about 6 db drop in the high frequencies. Consequently he bought a Behringer DEQ2496, but having also read about all the mods and inferior sound, he proceeded to determine that the ceramic capacitors were the culprit, and replaced those. He was happy with the Behringer, but ultimately did not equalize his system to be more accurate - he liked it just fine the way it was (perhaps because he got used to it and whoever said that familiarity breeds contempt was not an audiophile
I think that it would be very useful for most of us to look for a well treated room (look for extremes, like the room I like), get comfortable in it, accustomed to it, and then compare. It may surprise you. Or not. As I said, personal preference is a funny thing, and there is no right or wrong. But science may well be able to explain why and how such preference.
This is just my personal experience. Please do not try to interpret it as an imperative to follow in any way shape or form.
Since this is a thread about the video, not having seen it, such opinions are worthless to me - mine is the only one that counts
I think of it (maybe generously) as somebody's attempt to find an optimum in his objective function, and who am I to criticize his aesthetic sense, choice in music or where on the anechoic chamber to highly reverberant room spectrum he lies. Internet is so full of opinions (and as an audiophile acquaintance once said, a large collection of opinions is in fact, a fact:facepalm:, I do not expect any more, and when I find it, and I find a lot of it in these pages, I am pleasantly surprised, and infinitely grateful. Thank you all!
Sorry for being long winded. Have to run now!
