Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary? (Read 91261 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #75 –
Quote from: krabapple on
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.

It was abundantly clear from the beginning he's not reading any of the articles, nor has any interest, since they are blind tests. It doesn't matter what the Studio participants believe they prefer in Tooles, McGill etc tests, since that does not affect the results. Believers will always dismiss the results as not applicable to them, or just plain wrong.
As a studiophile, he "knows" what he prefers, belief and sighted biases etc be damned.
Typical audiophile twilight zone stuff with zero cognizance.
As I've said all along, these are rhetorical questions, don't expect any valid scientific evidence in support of "treatments", just "I prefer Chinese food, therefore Chinese food works".

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #76 –
I think my posting history on this site (and every other forum I'm a member of) proves that I understand and appreciate blind testing, so there's absolutely no need for your repeated baseless insults and name-calling.

I have in fact read the paper (althought I must apologize for erroneously stating that Floyd Toole authored it, his work is merely referred to in it). As you mention, it is often assumed that "critical" listeners need treated rooms, whereas the test showed that a little less than half of them actually preferred an untreated room, and the level differences in the blind test were quite consistent between the different setups. I'd say that's inconclusive at best. Yes, it's a nail in the coffin of "everyone must have a treated room!", but it's not an outright condemnation of room treatments as a whole.

Tt does show that using rooms similar to what you would find in a normal home is not necessarily a detriment to the quality of the final mix, but conversely it also shows that room treatments are not a detriment either.

E: I also noticed that Bang & Olufsen are affiliated with the paper, which was what made my decision to purchase it, as I used to work there.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #77 –
Your belief that you prefer "treated" rooms is irrelevant to the topic of their efficacy.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Tt does show that using rooms similar to what you would find in a normal home is not necessarily a detriment to the quality of the final mix, but conversely it also shows that room treatments are not a detriment either.

But what studiophiles never mention is that is can be detrimental. From your authority
Quote
Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial
When mixing music you need to hear everything as clearly as possible. If music or dialog is obscured by reflections and other room anomalies, mixes you think sound good may not sound so good later, or in your car, or on other systems. When reflections are allowed, moving your head even an inch or two changes the tonality as shown in THIS article. When listening without early reflections, imaging and frequency response are more stable versus position, making it easier to nail down a pleasing mix.
Over time mix engineers learn to appreciate things that affect clarity, and avoiding early reflections is one of these things.

Dr Toole + all the researchers he references, the stereo LR phantom center image created has lots of lobing interference:
Quote
This coloration cannot be ignored in a situation where the direct sound is strong. Early reflections from different directions tend to fill the interference dip, making the spectrum more pleasantly neutral......Not to be ignored in any situation in which reflected sounds have been removed is the fact that the acoustical crosstalk that plagues stereo phantom images is present in its naked ugliness, without any compensation from reflected sounds

Another paper by Vickers:
Quote
Yet another reason we do not consciously notice these comb filter notches is that room reflections and reverberation from all directions, while creating new cancellations of their own, nevertheless tend to smooth out the magnitude responses, filling in some of the missing information.
As mentioned, early reflections perceptually fuse with the direct sound, adding more useful energy and increasing the intelligibility of speech [19]. The ability of room reflections to fill in the phantom center notches may be another reason for the improved intelligibility.

It does not matter what you, Ethan and other studiophiles believe you prefer. What matters is scientific evidence that these products do improve perceptually what they are touted to do. In terms of (real) stereo clarity, it may be the exact  opposite of what you believe/espouse for lateral "treatments".


Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #78 –
Yet it may also be completely correct. Toole et. al. are not the ultimate authorities on the matter, and the discussed papers are not final evidence either way. While they may be compelling, they may also be flawed, have poorly designed tests and are (as everything else) subject to random chance and variation.

For instance, I found the test task to be rather simplistic, consisting of adjusting the volume level of 3 samples from a piece of classical music consisting of soprano voice and orchestra while in rooms randomly fitted with one set of either absorbing, diffusing or reflective panels. First off, this is rather far from a normal mixing/mastering workflow, or alternatively, it's the laziest and best-paid job in the world in relation to actual effort (which it isn't).

Secondly, only one genre of music was tested, consisting of natural human voice and acoustic instruments. How about music with completely different spectral content and 'busier' overall sound, synthesizers, square waves, electric guitars and so on?

You can't just say than Ethan et. al. are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong based on just this paper and a few others. Nothing has been conclusively proven or disproven, but there is definitely basis for further research and testing. The room treatment products may very well do exactly what they claim to do, but the human ear+brain may also very well be able to subconsciously account for the presence (or lack) of early reflections etc. and still be able to properly assess the overall sound of the recording and create a good result.

And I'll note than Ethan specifically mentions his great respect for Toole and the vast majority of his work, despite disagreeing with him on the subject of early reflections.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #80 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Toole et. al. are not the ultimate authorities on the matter

They present valid evidence, controlled blind test results, with references. Which despite your denials, you obviously reject.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
it may also be completely correct.

Valid evidence?
Studiophiles endlessly chanting their sighted beliefs on every forum, doesn't count on this one, sorry.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #81 –
Quote from: greynol on
No but at least it is evidence, as opposed to...


True, it is evidence that points in a specific direction.

AJ seems hell-bent on twisting everything I write into a complete denial of Toole et. al., but it really isn't. It's certainly opened my eyes to some important points. But while the evidence is very interesting, there is a lot left out of it. That is absolutely not evidence of the opposite hypothesis (that room treatments are the only salvation), but I think the evidence is not exactly 100% solid and that it is too early to proclaim anything with certainty. More research is obviously needed.

Wild assumptions not based in factual evidence should obviously not be trusted blindly, but neither should very limited-scope tests with extremely small numbers of test subjects and test variations.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.

And please note that I recommended Ethan because I found what he had to say compelling and convincing. Now after reading these papers, maybe not quite as much. But one should also keep in mind regarding Toole and others, that JBL once somehow found speaker phase to be completely irrelevant. Researchers and the papers they produce are not infallible. I am not dismissing the work of Toole and the authors of the McGill paper, but every bit of evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #82 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.

Well, we've had 4 pages of crazy dance moves, frantic hand waving and the old fallback of negative proof/absolutes, etc.
But as predicted, zero valid evidence. None. It is not the task of skeptical people to "disprove" the efficacy of "treatments".
The burden of proof, falls squarely on you/your ilk.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.

Regarding valid evidence for the efficacy of "treatments" other than "million dollar studios do it, you should too!" (my fave) and daydreams about "'accuracy and hearing what the producers heard", etc, etc.?
Like what?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #83 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.

Based on my experience with Ethan's involvement in scientific discussions I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm curious about what a few select people have to say on the subject by have not yet posted here, though with the exception of one or two individuals, I'm sure they've seen it but have not decided to say anything and I strongly suspect it is because it wouldn't meet the bar set by the AES paper, as imperfect as it may be.

In a way I'm happy beek decided to say something, as it really gets to the essence of the typical level of discourse on the topic as AJ and I see it.  The only difference between what he's saying and what others have said is the lack of ego, bluster and puffery.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #84 –
E: Removed junk, because no one seems to care.

Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.

Regarding valid evidence for the efficacy of "treatments" other than "million dollar studios do it, you should too!" (my fave) and daydreams about "'accuracy and hearing what the producers heard", etc, etc.?
Like what?


I was referring mostly to his videos on audio myths etc., which I have found quite enlightening. So by extrapolation, since those are factual, I trust that there is the same degree of factual information in his other videos/writing.

Honestly, I think we're in agreement on mostly everything here, but the confrontational tone of conversation is getting in the way. I am not disparaging the McGill paper (or the work of Floyd Toole), but I do think it is rather unfortunately limited in its scope. It's not iron-clad proof, but I'll definitely accept it as a solid point against room treatments as they are commonly recommended. And as counter-proof doesn't seem to be forthcoming, that probably counts as another point.

And to keep greynol happy, I'll try to use more neutral language in future recommendations, as I cannot edit the original post and the OP was probably scared away long ago.

E2: And by referring to AJ's post, we can answer the current thread title question: Why are room treatment so often considered necessary? Because the big million-dollar studios use them, of course. But why do they do that? Beats me.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #85 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
And to keep greynol happy, I'll try to use more neutral language in future recommendations, as I cannot edit the original post and the OP was probably scared away long ago.

It wasn't just you.  The fact that you are willing to discuss says something about your interest in advancing a topic as opposed to littering the forum with links and shirking all accountability by running away.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #86 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: krabapple on
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.

It was abundantly clear from the beginning he's not reading any of the articles, nor has any interest, since they are blind tests. It doesn't matter what the Studio participants believe they prefer in Tooles, McGill etc tests, since that does not affect the results. Believers will always dismiss the results as not applicable to them, or just plain wrong.
As a studiophile, he "knows" what he prefers, belief and sighted biases etc be damned.
Typical audiophile twilight zone stuff with zero cognizance.
As I've said all along, these are rhetorical questions, don't expect any valid scientific evidence in support of "treatments", just "I prefer Chinese food, therefore Chinese food works".

cheers,

AJ


This article makes  nice companion to the McGill one (especially as the 'task' that the McGill study gave to its subjects was mixing).  It notes how preference for reflections differs between mixing and mastering engineers.


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17241.
Preferences of Critical Listening Environments Among Sound Engineers
SAKARI TERVO, PERTTU LAUKKANEN, , JUKKA PA¨ TYNEN, AND TAPIO LOKKI,

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #87 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
You can't just say than Ethan et. al. are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong based on just this paper and a few others. Nothing has been conclusively proven or disproven, but there is definitely basis for further research and testing.


Indeed...as Floyd Toole not too long ago (June 2014)  wrote:

Quote
At frequencies above the transition or
Schroeder frequency (about 300 Hz in
domestic and control room spaces) the
choices for addressing first reflections are:
• Absorb the sound completely, not partially,
at the specific angle of incidence
that applies (very thick, low-density
fibrous tangle).
• Attenuate the sound by a uniform
amount (a good diffuser?).
• Reflect the sound (a hard flat surface).
The last option might not sound like
acoustical treatment, but to two ears and
a brain that are well adapted to listening
in rooms, it is the best choice in some
situations. Obviously, there are many
opportunities for serious research.


italics and bolding mine

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17338

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #88 –
Sorry, I'm TOTALLY LOST!

AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?

I think I may have started this discussion in another thread where someone was asking about monitors for producing music and I said something like, "Acoustics are are equally important..."

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #89 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Sorry, I'm TOTALLY LOST!

AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?

I think I may have started this discussion in another thread where someone was asking about monitors for producing music and I said something like, "Acoustics are are equally important..."


This thread is an offshoot of a gear recommendation thread where I (among other advice) said to get in touch with Ethan Winer regarding room acoustics and possibly recommendations for room treatment. AJ disagrees quite strongly with Ethan's, shall we say "more subjective" approach to room treatment, and despite what you may gather from this thread, I fully understand why. There are some decent papers out there (some of which have been linked in this thread), that back up the "less is more" approach, in that room treatment products are probably overused and over-enthusiastically prescribed as a must-have for a good listening room. I just like to make the point that the existence of some proof does not give 100% certainty.

Somewhere in the process, I think we managed to scare away the original poster, which is a shame.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #90 –
I for one am awfully glad that the topic of room acoustics is receiving some "mainstream" attention these days. There's what seems like an endless supply of acoustically awful rooms - in fact, what's optically fashionable these days is just about aiming for the worst possible acoustics, between the hard floors and sparse furniture. Not to forget big window surfaces (typically on just one side of the listening space). And don't even get me started about how stuff is built on the outside. What do you expect when walls are running in parallel for many, many meters at significant height? Yup, an echo-y mess. It's infuriating. Architects should be required to take a basic course in acoustics IMO - common sense level stuff would often do. [/soapbox]

Of course something like bass traps should never be blindly recommend before taking house construction into account, and/or looking at decay (CSD) measurements, which meanwhile are being conducted on an encouragingly regular basis. It's always good if you can get away with conventional furniture and interior decoration items that serve some other purpose - but if you happen to be stuck with something like your average basement home cinema, there's only so much you can do about the bass. Converting the room into an irregular pentagonal shape with non-parallel floor and ceiling tends not to be an option either.  (And I agree something like that would be a bit of a nightmare to build.)

BTW, is there any age statistic for preferences in room treatment? I reckon a lot of younger people who have grown up with good headphones (that would be about 35yo and under) would lean towards the "treated" end while results for the previous generation are likely to be less clear, but it would be good to see my gut feeling backed up in numbers.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #91 –
Quote from: stephan_g on
There's what seems like an endless supply of acoustically awful rooms - in fact, what's optically fashionable these days is just about aiming for the worst possible acoustics, between the hard floors and sparse furniture. Not to forget big window surfaces (typically on just one side of the listening space).


For some of the most blatant examples of this, take a look at Bang & Olufsen's promotional photos.



It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit. And that's a $50K setup, for just the speakers.

It's the same here:



I love Scandinavian minimalism, but it has some serious drawbacks. And I can tell you from personal experience that Bang & Olufsen's actual listening rooms and demo setups look nothing like that.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #92 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete,

Those grey surfaces are surely sheets covering bass traps.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
glass

Thouse white surfaces to the left must be paper, Japanese style. (Denmark doesn't get that cold in the winter ...)

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
and hardwood

Uh-oh. Now I am running out of excuses. Need more of those footstools.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #93 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?

Yes

Quote from: DVDdoug on
I said something like

Valid evidence for the efficacy of this approach? Cost effectiveness vs _?
Are any studiophiles aware of things like Harmans perceptually based optimization EQ (Arcos/Synthesis) being measurably non-flat below 1khz and why that would be?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #94 –
Quote from: krabapple on
This article makes  nice companion to the McGill one (especially as the 'task' that the McGill study gave to its subjects was mixing).  It notes how preference for reflections differs between mixing and mastering engineers.

I'll download it later, but it seems to be a simulated approach much like KEFs Eureka/Archimedes project way back.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #95 –
Quote from: stephan_g on
it would be good to see my gut feeling backed up in numbers.

Actually, that was purportedly the purpose of the thread, actual valid perceptual evidence per HA TOS rules.
Not what you "see" with your ears or speculate about "CSD" etc.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #96 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit.

You have awesome eyeball hearing. Any valid perceptual data per HA TOS?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #97 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit.

You have awesome eyeball hearing. Any valid perceptual data per HA TOS?


Give it a rest. Invoking TOS and demanding a double blind test of everything is pointless when the room in question is blatantly constructed from some of the most reflective building materials around. It will probably sound OK at low volumes, but turn it up to a decent level where echo and reverberation starts to really happen, and it's going to fall apart quickly. This is not something subtle that needs to be ferreted out through lengthy tests, this is several orders of magnitude removed from that. We're talking absolute base-level textbook Acoustics 101 stuff.

Or even better, give me a single good reason why that particular room is not a ridiculous echo-y mess. That said, it could be interesting to use that room for playing back church organ recordings, if you could find some that didn't have the (proper) reverberation from a church etc. already on the recording.

(Hint: It's at the Bang & Olufsen headquarters in Struer, Denmark. I've been there, and the acoustics are terrible. They never demo their speakers in rooms that are anything like that.)

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #98 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Give it a rest.

No audiophile. Go back to school, take logic, learn about red herrings and burden of proof, etc, learn to read, then check out the TOS here at HA, mentioned early in the thread for its purpose.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
the Bang & Olufsen headquarters in Struer, Denmark. I've been there, and the acoustics are terrible.

You saw this, you heard that, you're "insulted" for being an audiophile.... 
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #99 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
E2: And by referring to AJ's post, we can answer the current thread title question: Why are room treatment so often considered necessary? Because the big million-dollar studios use them, of course. But why do they do that? Beats me.


Room treatments are band aids. Listening rooms are supposed to be designed to have the function of room treatments inherently built in.

There appear to be some designers who can actually build rooms that fully exploit the audio gear housed therein without visible room treatments.

In the case of recording studios, the room treatments are often part of the marketing of the room. A well-designed room with no visible treatments (which is possible if not desirable) would not impress the visiting firemen and therefore not be as commercially attractive.