Acoustic

did you listened to one system in general home and a good environment like studio?

if ok can you describe difference ?

and can i agree that solidstate amplifier's sound will be more integrated and more smooth through good envirunment?

Thanks

 

There are good sounding homes and also bad sounding studios so its not that straight forward. However, a good studio vs. an average home listening room... the difference is amazing IMO.

Bass has no resonance or boom, very smooth, very fast, very extended. There is a lot of detail in everything and all the small sounds stand out clearly. Because most studios go for a flat frequency response the treble will be a bit much for some people but in my experience because the entire audio band is balanced ( a lot of Hi-Fi is recessed around 500-650Hz), it sounds fine to me. Sounds are all very separate, yet the whole presentation is well integrated... does that make sense?

On the other hand, there is generally a lack of atmosphere, unless it is in the actual music. Classical can sound a bit dry and boring, as can voice and acoustic jazz. But, with careful choice of absorption and diffusion you can normally find a perfect mixture if you have a decent size room.

I think you are really asking the difference between an acoustically treated room and a non-treated room. The difference is 'WOW!'.

As for solid-state amps sounding better... well yes the entire system will sound better but the same will be true with a valve amp, you will hear the difference between them just as much. You can reduce harshness and improve integration with acoustic treatment so I suppose it could make a solid-state amp acceptable where it otherwise may not be.

All just in my experience, but I have had quite a lot in this area.

Hope that helps

 

Thanks
I think your answer is perfect

 

I take it that was the answer you wanted to hear! hehe!

The curing harshness thing is more to do with balancing the audio range and perhaps controlling first reflections than anything else. If you need any help just ask.

 

i'm starting to use absorbtion material in back wall and rear walls

 

Most listening environments use Live End Dead End- the speakers sit in the dead end, where you place your absorption, you sit around the middle, and the back and rear walls are diffuse i.e. where the diffusors go- full record/book shelves work quite well.
The rear reflections are later, the first arriving reflections tend to come from the side walls, these tend to be the ones to worry about most unless you have really bad late echoes

 

i start with walls, floor around the speaker for first reflection

 

yes. Absorbing everywhere may not sound nice though, diffusion scatters the sound so placing it behind you shoud give a bigger sound stage extending out beyond the speakers

 

There is research to suggest that diffusers are only really much use if you are around 3meters or more away from them though, otherwise they can increase comb filtering. Best to use them on the ceiling and back wall if its far from you.

 

Depends on the design some are designed to be fairly close range and its not hard to design them to suit your needs

 

What sort would be useful in the near feild then? I think something like the Skyline you need to be about 3m from.

 

It depends on what range your diffusing over, you don't have to have huge gaping wells on all of them. The blocky ones, I forget what they're called, can be used fairly close

 

I use 3 layer
1 cm wood
5 cm compressed yonolit
7 cm foam with zigzag shape

 

Is it working?
Whats yonolit?

 

skylines are available in 4" depth for nearfield, there are a lot more shallow depth diffusers now, as thin as 25mm.

Ive not come across comb filtering from diffusers, what was the situation?

 

My comments were based on an article I read which is actually on the RPG website!

www.rpginc.com/news/library/TechBullDiffCritList.pdf

I will soon find out for myself if it held true in my own room because I did have some Auralex diffusers on my back wall which is actually very close to my listening position and I do seem to have what looks like a bit of comb filtering in my frequency response. I am in the process of making the back wall absorptive and moving the diffusers to the ceiling which is about 1.8m away from my listening position rather than 40cm as the back wall was! We will see how it effects things.

Is the only thing that makes a shallow diffuser more suitable for near-field listening the fact that it won't diffuse such low frequencies? Or perhaps a diffuser with many thin but still deep wells would work better for near-field because the sound will not need such a distance to 'mix' as it will be pretty good as soon as it comes off the diffusive surface. Just thinking out loud here…

 

if you can understand them they are good articles. I think that particular one was written before the SkylineLP and other nearfield units came along, the standard depth is around 230mm for a QRD. Yes i think your right about the depth, it relates to frequency, though the BAD uses its material composition to overcomb the depth issue, as does the skyline. The skylineLP was developed for smaller rooms.

Which auralex ones did you have?(and why)

 

A lot of the credited people in that article were my uni lecturers Trevor Cox and James Angus are diffusor geniuses. Dunno about Lam though, could never understand a word he was saying. Mixed up reverb with revision all the time

 

they might well be clever, but try making the damn things they design!

 

I have Basic QRDs are easy provided you can work a saw, they work well enough. The hardest part is hanging the things