Which is best - A DBT to test subjectivity.

[ellisdj]

Fair comment.

Can you give a percentage for the rooms treatment? 1-2% or better?

Good one There was a great video on you tube - I think a polish guy / professional fully treated out a customers room with GIK Panels and diffusors etc showing before and after measurements. I mean Fully treated - the measurements were not grossly different but I bet it sounded a Lot different I went looking for it the other day especially for but couldnt find it - anyone seen this and can help??

Funny the same guy did videos of a very small room playing music treated vs untreated - thats also an interesting video if anyone can find it.

 

[cheeseboy]

Best not to argue CB.

Some people have infalible hearing that is not even remotely troubled by the psycoacoustic issues that affect the rest of humanity. In fact it is so good that it can tell you what is wrong with a system or a test methodology without actually being present!

In my experience such certainty in these matters comes only from the truly uninformed. Why bother learning about test methodology, the difference betweem A/B and A/B/X testing or even getting involved in properly conducted blind testing when you 'know' you are right?

you were right, should have listened. Can't talk to somebody who doesn't even understand the simple concept of preference and in that respect there is no "wrong" system. Oh well, remind me to listen to you next time

 

[ellisdj]

Robin - your in Luck I have found them

Video One - fully treated room as mentioned - with graphs - you cna even hear the difference in his voice before and after, also look at howe much goes on the back wall

Video Two - showing the difference in SQ between untreated and treated room - Graphical evidence as well

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

 

[ellisdj]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

Now there you go again. Firstly (you really aren't good with %'s) an arbitrary 30-40% now. 1-2% for my pathetic attempt at bass traps. 30-40% for this 'dilly's treated room. Still waiting for your figures on the room in this thread. And don't get me started on how you interpret a 33/33/33 split.

But it seems you still want to convince me of something. I GET IT. ROOM TREATMENT IS IMPORTANT. I know my efforts are nowhere near a "well treated room". My main concern is your lack of understanding of maths (but I don't send links to educate you as you seem to insist on doing) and the repeated fact that none of this is relevant to the OP.

 

[davedotco]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

Now there you go again. Firstly (you really aren't good with %'s) an arbitrary 30-40% now. 1-2% for my pathetic attempt at bass traps. 30-40% for this 'dilly's treated room. Still waiting for your figures on the room in this thread. And don't get me started on how you interpret a 33/33/33 split.

But it seems you still want to convince me of something. I GET IT. ROOM TREATMENT IS IMPORTANT. I know my efforts are nowhere near a "well treated room". My main concern is your lack of understanding of maths (but I don't send links to educate you as you seem to insist on doing) and the repeated fact that none of this is relevant to the OP.

You are attempting to argue with someone who has no idea about scientific method, no concept of logical argument and no mathematical skills whatsoever. There is no understanding of what the experiment is trying to show, how and why it was carried out in that manner and what the results tell us.

 

[ellisdj]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

Now there you go again. Firstly (you really aren't good with %'s) an arbitrary 30-40% now. 1-2% for my pathetic attempt at bass traps. 30-40% for this 'dilly's treated room. Still waiting for your figures on the room in this thread. And don't get me started on how you interpret a 33/33/33 split.

But it seems you still want to convince me of something. I GET IT. ROOM TREATMENT IS IMPORTANT. I know my efforts are nowhere near a "well treated room". My main concern is your lack of understanding of maths (but I don't send links to educate you as you seem to insist on doing) and the repeated fact that none of this is relevant to the OP.

Sorry Robin - to clarify for you (i should have said this ages ago - you think I am just being an ass) Freq Response Measurements

The Freq reponse with no negative room interaction would be pretty flat without all the humps, bumps and big troughs similar to anachecic but I doubt ever as smooth as that. But you would expect more as designed by the manufacturer

Put the speaker in a room and the result is country miles from that

If you consider 100% improvement being a treatment where the speaker produces a freq response exactly as manufactured - a perfect result

So if you look at the before to after for what the acoustics professional has done in that room - For all that treatment it ends up with much fewer bumps and the troughs are significantly reduced - but in terms of bringing the respone to the 100% target it probably is only about 30% of getting there.

Maybe that is 100% of what can be achieved in realms of the products for sale - either way when you consider that amount iof treatment compared to small diy bass paneels hopefully you can see what I was trying to say - if you measured yours it could be such a small difference that may not even show up when measured as "significant" but made a big difference. This is why you should measure and see and show me. We always argue but I can help you, if you dont always disagree with me for the sake of it

 

[ellisdj]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

Now there you go again. Firstly (you really aren't good with %'s) an arbitrary 30-40% now. 1-2% for my pathetic attempt at bass traps. 30-40% for this 'dilly's treated room. Still waiting for your figures on the room in this thread. And don't get me started on how you interpret a 33/33/33 split.

But it seems you still want to convince me of something. I GET IT. ROOM TREATMENT IS IMPORTANT. I know my efforts are nowhere near a "well treated room". My main concern is your lack of understanding of maths (but I don't send links to educate you as you seem to insist on doing) and the repeated fact that none of this is relevant to the OP.

You are attempting to argue with someone who has no idea about scientific method, no concept of logical argument and no mathematical skills whatsoever. There is no understanding of what the experiment is trying to show, how and why it was carried out in that manner and what the results tell us.

I love you too - minus all those skills I still know how to great sound in a home environmen. For all my flaws thats still one big positive I have

 

[davedotco]

I have no idea why you wish to convince anybody (least me, an vocal advocate), of the importance of room treatment???

Suggest you stop treating me like an idiot and defend your position - some other guns blazing.

Its not the importance I am tying to show you with these - its look at how much went in to make the measured difference that it did - probably only about 30 - 40% very tops difference measured. unlimited amount of SQ improvement from that

So you factor that in compared to what you have done and my 1-2% difference is actually making more sense.

The first video biggest difference was the reverb / waterfall measurement - there was a huge difference in that much higher than 40% there - holding my hands up to that

Now there you go again. Firstly (you really aren't good with %'s) an arbitrary 30-40% now. 1-2% for my pathetic attempt at bass traps. 30-40% for this 'dilly's treated room. Still waiting for your figures on the room in this thread. And don't get me started on how you interpret a 33/33/33 split.

But it seems you still want to convince me of something. I GET IT. ROOM TREATMENT IS IMPORTANT. I know my efforts are nowhere near a "well treated room". My main concern is your lack of understanding of maths (but I don't send links to educate you as you seem to insist on doing) and the repeated fact that none of this is relevant to the OP.

You are attempting to argue with someone who has no idea about scientific method, no concept of logical argument and no mathematical skills whatsoever. There is no understanding of what the experiment is trying to show, how and why it was carried out in that manner and what the results tell us.

I love you too - minus all those skills I still know how to great sound in a home environmen. For all my flaws thats still one big positive I have

We are all well aware of how great your system is, how well treated a room you have, after all, you tell us often enough.

It is the same, tired old argument that people resort to all the time, my ears/system/room setup is better than your ears/system/room setup so I can hear things that you can't. You have absolutely no grasp of reality.

 

[pauln]

DDC - have you been practising with your hammer while you've been away?

(He keeps hitting those nails square on their heads, for those who don't get it.)

 

[tonky]

.

 

[davedotco]

DDC - have you been practising with your hammer while you've been away?

(He keeps hitting those nails square on their heads, for those who don't get it.)

Just further reading of "Zen and the art of hi-fi system building".

Actually I spent a large part of the spring on the Pacific coast of central america observing boobies.

If you are interested, some boobies here.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Hi guys

I've managed to expalin the figures at last so I have to admit edj was right all along.

1/3 of the sample easily detected the difference in systems. They are intelligent, reasonable audiophiles who's credentials are impecible and their opinions 100% accurate. The other 1/3 are idiots because they can't make their minds up. They can't tell the difference between a half decent hifi system and an old wax cylinder recording. These idiots should have cotton wool superglued to their ears. The other 1/3 are complete idiots and should be removed not only from these figures but indeed from the Earth.

Hence ALL participants (eligible by virtue of their sanity) agree that the expensive system sounds far better than the other (providing ofcourse they listen in a room with 100% room treatment and the mains output costs more than a family car).

Thank goodness I was able to explain the results in a scientific and mathematically accurate way.

 

[ellisdj]

Hi guys

I've managed to expalin the figures at last so I have to admit edj was right all along.

1/3 of the sample easily detected the difference in systems. They are intelligent, reasonable audiophiles who's credentials are impecible and their opinions 100% accurate. The other 1/3 are idiots because they can't make their minds up. They can't tell the difference between a half decent hifi system and an old wax cylinder recording. These idiots should have cotton wool superglued to their ears. The other 1/3 are complete idiots and should be removed not only from these figures but indeed from the Earth.

Hence ALL participants (eligible by virtue of their sanity) agree that the expensive system sounds far better than the other (providing ofcourse they listen in a room with 100% room treatment and the mains output costs more than a family car).

Thank goodness I was able to explain the results in a scientific and mathematically accurate way.

Whats that rant in response to - its no relevance to anything - except an attempt at belittling me - failed one if you ask me.

You have not understood what I have said earlier clearly - you probably do not know what you are looking at for a freq response graph so you turn to this type of response in retaliation to being wrong and bitter for what I have said and now possibly proved about your DIY panels. I could have explained it to you and helped you as I said - but you want to try and belittle me in return. That makes me think you are bitter and not a very nice person at the same time.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

As a physics & maths graduate I feel the need to correct obvious errors and I am quite familiar with frequency response curves. Bitter? I never go to the pub and I think my friends may consider me a nice person. However, enough of this irrelevance. What do we think about the blind test? Seems a random distribution to me.

 

[ellisdj]

I know you have been getting at that - a third a third a third etc - you think I am silly but I am not. I accept that result - however I dont believe all kit sounds the same - there are things I feel would have skewed the results of that test - but also know that the price difference should make it a 90 / 10 result, not 33/33 etc. So my conclusion is what I already know is that a change in box doesnt always bring the SQ up reflective of the price tag - if other factors are holding it back. A vist to an audio show demonstrates this everytime

My wife is a maths graduate 1st class with a masters in maths also - she wouldnt have a clue what an audio freq curve reading is showing for a room - so sorry to get that wrong, There is tons to it I dont know, I wish someone would help me take it to the next level.

You said you couldnt interpret the REW results you got, so again sorry to be wrong with the assumption you wasnt sure on the freq response graph - your reponses make me act in a way I dont like being - there is no need to be sarcastic or insulting to each other - but these topics fuels passionate fires quite clearly

 

[Thompsonuxb]

As a physics & maths graduate I feel the need to correct obvious errors and I am quite familiar with frequency response curves. Bitter? I never go to the pub and I think my friends may consider me a nice person. However, enough of this irrelevance. What do we think about the blind test? Seems a random distribution to me.

P122off!...... Doubt you have 2 o'levels to rub together.... :ROFL:

You guys crack me up.....graduate my eye.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Ellisdj..... Seriously man don't take these guys too serious.

To give you an idea of there mental insecurities refer to that 'belly rubbing' thread raised by Steve1979 the other day.

Lol......just read it, what those passing through must think of this forums population.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

As a physics & maths graduate I feel the need to correct obvious errors and I am quite familiar with frequency response curves. Bitter? I never go to the pub and I think my friends may consider me a nice person. However, enough of this irrelevance. What do we think about the blind test? Seems a random distribution to me.

P122off!...... Doubt you have 2 o'levels to rub together.... :ROFL:

You guys crack me up.....graduate my eye.

Hopefully said in jest - it wasn't a brag but an indication that I did understand simple maths and physics.

Someone I know has BSc. Cert.Ed.Advanced Dip.(Comp. Ed). - no one you would know.

As I said - what do we think about the blind test?

 

[Native_bon]

Why is every test always disapproved of, as if something was always done wrong. Most of the speakers promoted here or most mags dn't do it for me. I dnt care if everyone says its the best to buy. If it does not do it for me, it does not do it for me, period. Well, thats just me. One thing I have noticed over the years, Hifi is also a prestige thing, & many show off with what they got. Many criticize what they have not even listened to. Throw in good marketing, & you get a recipe for a very confused cook.

Then when people like a cheap system.. oh something most be wrong somewhere. *nea* *nea*

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Fair doos ellisdj.

I would clarify that although I understand the fundamentals of waterfalls etc., (by no means an expert), what I didn't understand, in a practical way, how to interpret the results in order to make a change. Specifically, a measurement showed a peak at around 70hz which I tried to correct with the sub eq settings. Beyond that I didn't know what to do - except ofcourse to buy bass traps targetted at this kind of frequency. It was a while back now and unwilling to add further treatment I guess I found no further use for measurements.

Sorry to go way off topic (again).

 

[ellisdj]

How big is the peak?

To get big a peak down at 70hz down with traps you would have to go big - GIK Monsters or Soffits for that low (not right for me to say whats inside them) -- also the traps need to be put in the right place.

Easiest way to check is use rew sim - put in your dimensions and listening position and speaker positions (as subs) - it will show your freq response about 90% accurate so you can then increase the absoption number for each wall / ceiling to see what has the most effect in that range - I am guessing it will be the rear wall but I dont know - I have a similar problem at a very simialr freq - my peak is about 30db a ridiculous peak.

This is where I went wrong, I didnt do REW Sim first.

Easier way is with EQ - however basic parametric systems such as YPAO in Yamaha amps that I have seen are pretty useless as it limits the filter bandwith and frequency. i.e. you want to pull 70 down but you have to pull 63 down to try and pull 70 down. This is as good as useless as 63 might be perfect. I had the same problem with MCCAC in a Pioneer.

I think you might be better off with a Better bass eq solution - there are quite a lot now but to incorporate that into using your system in pure direct mode will take some thought. You can test tehh effectiveness with REW - this is a useful tool to have.

EDIT - Sorry I thought I read that you use the receiver eq - how does the sub eq work? Do you have full manual control - i.e. any filter / any q etc??

You can use REW EQ facility - set the target response - it will then give you the filters to enter into your sub depending on what type of eq it has built in depends on what you select under EQ - if in doubt use the Generic Option. This is roughly how I do it (I insert the filters manually into Meridian MRC system) and I am yet to find a better way to do it than REW EQ.