Room acoustics and the lack of equalizer is the culprit for all bad sound

[stereoman]

It is the standing waves and reflections that spoil almost every Hi Fi system in our rooms. The most difficult is to position stereo speakers due to the standing waves and reflections. Lacking of precise equalizer in modern systems and not implementing super tweeters or wide dispersion tweeters alongside, double the problem. Agree ?

 

[insider9]

Room acoustics is the major issue anywhere for playback. For replay it's not the EQ that's the issue but lack of treatment. For live music lots of EQ is done.

It's not difficult to position speakers at all. It is the fact most are not willing to do it properly due to living arrangements.

 

[stereoman]

Room acoustics is the major issue anywhere for playback. For replay it's not the EQ that's the issue but lack of treatment. For live music lots of EQ is done.

It's not difficult to position speakers at all. It is the fact most are not willing to do it properly due to living arrangements.

Very good answer...that is right, plus the fact that you can avoid all room treatments and simply find the best acoustical spot for the speakers - that in fact will be almost always against any normal placement design norms. Indeed the problem lies with the playback not so much with live sound.

 

[daytona600]

You always here your room not your speakers room treatment can make a huge difference £500 can treat normal size room

Acoustical Room Kits Archives - GIK Acoustics Europe

If you’re looking for a package that addresses room acoustic issues and fits within your budget, GIK Acoustics offers Room Kits that take the guess work out of the process. Below are a few kits that will help you get started, yet still give you the flexibility to add more GIK Acoustics products...

gikacoustics.co.uk

Modern Digital EQ is very advanced these days

.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dat0Ytw-iy4

 

[MeanandGreen]

I agree room acoustics are the biggest downfall of every playback system.

I’m sure 99% of audiophile problems are room related rather than gear related.

 

[davidf]

The need for digital EQ can be minimised by choosing the right speaker for the room in the first instance. Some speakers are more focused and controlled in their dispersion, and don’t throw high frequencies around the room like a lot of speakers. If the bass issues are quite low down the frequency range, a smaller speaker can sometimes avoid exaggerating the issues to an extent. The more you get right from a set up and system choice point of view, the less you need to alter the sound using digital EQ - from an outright sound quality point of view, some room treatment is more ideal in order to preserve signal integrity.
I’m an advocate of digital EQ for subwoofers in home theatre systems, but minimal EQ application to the rest of the frequency range.

If a violinist sets up in a room somewhere for an event, do we then EQ him to make him sound as good as possible? Does the lack of digital EQ make the violin no longer sound like a violin? A violin will always sound like a violin regardless of the acoustics where it is played.

 

[Dom]

But a violinist can sound more interesting with an EQ.

 

[Samd]

But a violinist can sound more interesting with an EQ.

..would need a bit of fiddling though

 

[Dom]

I didn't say it would be easy.

 

[davidf]

But a violinist can sound more interesting with an EQ.

But does it need it? if someone is in front of you playing a piano, you know it’s a piano, it sounds like a piano, and you may or may not be hearing a bit of the venue too, but if you EQ it for your listening position, it can then sound odd for other people seated elsewhere. And that’s one thing that gets my goat about EQ. Some claim their EQ system can learn the whole room, and make the whole room sound perfect. How can it. That’s impossible. It’s a false claim that cannot be proven. You cannot EQ a pair of speakers to sound as good as they can in the corner of the room, and also in the main seating position - a speaker cannot send out two different frequency responses for two different places. It can send out an average to get the two areas sounding better, but it’s then a compromise. I think people ”accept” too much of what is said about and claimed for digital EQ.

 

[stereoman]

Acoustics as said earlier plays much more dramatic role in playback systems. Live real time playing - like playing on a guitar amp or violin - will anyway sound good enough. So acoustics for playback is the biggest audio obstacle.

The second biggest drawback is the lack of pure "radio" sound in Hi Fi systems. What I mean is this. I have been through tens of Hi Fi systems with various speakers etc. I can take any 20 pound crappy DAB radio and any song on it will sound better than from Hi Fi system let alone hooking up radio to the Hi Fi. The reason is that radio stations use mainly professional sound compressors and expanders what makes tunes extremely melodious and upbeat. Have you noticed that your favourite song almost always sounds very good on a radio ? That is it. The radio sound reproduction is "never" implemented in Hi Fi systems what makes our Hi Fi mostly dull and lifeless.

 

[Jimboo]

Utter bollocks. God knows what crap you have been buying for years but seriously get a grip.

 

[stereoman]

Utter bollocks. God knows what crap you have been buying for years but seriously get a grip.

You're welcome to disagree.... I can assure you I have been listening to proper stuff.

 

[Jimboo]

Are you talking about radios or hi fi?

 

[stereoman]

Are you talking about radios or hi fi?

I'm talking about sound..

 

[Jimboo]

Then you need hifi not dab.
River deep mountain high was produced to sound good on a transistor radio.
Playing never mind the bollocks on hi- Res using ten grands worth of hifi kinda defeats the idea and sound of the album.
Hifi is open to all kinds of abuse , cables a couple of inches thick , three grand amplifiers or ten grand turntables making bad recordings sound good (apparently).
There has to be something there in the first place to hear.Dab radio and their sound I think are wav files and are therefore c.d quality. You are just hearing what you can buy from your local record store.
Hi Fi is snake oil central. It is and always will be better than your radio sound.

 

[davidf]

Radio broadcasts will have been compressed prior to broadcast, and then the carrying system will have its way with the signal too.

 

[stereoman]

Radio broadcasts will have been compressed prior to broadcast, and then the carrying system will have its way with the signal too.

Excactly...and therefore the sound will be put into loudness in its whole spectrum...advantage is the sound scale that will be really good in this case.

 

[davidf]

Excatly...and therefore the sound will be put into loudness in its whole spectrum...advantage is the sound scale that will be really good in this case.

Usually end up with loud quiet bits and quieter loud bits...

 

[Jimboo]

Excactly...and therefore the sound will be put into loudness in its whole spectrum...advantage is the sound scale that will be really good in this case.

Eh?

 

[davidf]

Eh?

Compression. Radio lacks dynamics anyway, but usually boosts quieter parts to be more in line with the louder parts.

 

[Dom]

Nasty compression. When making music a compressor is really useful for reducing the dynamic range. Then boosting the overall level. I think an expander does the exact opposite. A noise gate is a type of expander. Seriously went over my head.

 

[Mr. C Nation]

Stereoman. You've been listening to hardware. Try listening to music.

 

[Mr. C Nation]

Hi-Fi is Snake Oil Central - At last! Someone said it! And it's true! 👍 Jimboo

As I mentioned in another thread, recording studios, in which I have spent 100's of hours, test a rough mix of a take on a pair of 'near field monitors'. For many years all the studios I went to used Yamaha N10s. These were never considered 'hi-fi' by the 'hi-fi' magazines. But they were the real world