Why experts disagree with Paul over absorption

Paul's a big advocate with diffusion and that doesn't always agree with everyone, especially the "experts".

[mrkitewine]

One thing to always remember about professionals - being a professional does not mean you are right, it just means you get paid for whatever you do.

[fredpitcher]

I have a 10’X16’ room and the speakers are too close to the side walls. I noticed echo off the walls. I got a set of absorption panels on my side walls next to the speakers and that solved my problem. The music sounds so much better.

[kamunsan]

Very well spoken, Paul has pointed out the difference in objective of listening music, acoustic professionals look for the numbers like RT-60 hoping to bring it down as low as possible to 0.2sec at different spots in a studio, but we don't need that tight requirement for our lively music enjoyment

[googleantispy]

For /smaller/ rooms, it's hard to beat the classic LEDE (Live end/dead end) approach where yes, indeed, the speakers go into a dead end. Putting speakers into properly built & aligned soffits is a big step forward as well. The objectives here are removing those detail-smearing early reflections and cabinet diffractions/movements. How well all this works also depends on what happens at the back wall live end -- targeted diffusion, various LF traps, even a touch of ideally focused reflection can impart pleasant sonic wonder. When all is done properly things such as vocals seem as if you could reach out and feel the contours of the singer's face. Pin-point imaging left to right, front to back, and even up and down (classical music ensembles properly mic'd) is possible. The speaker wall simply disappears and you're looking/hearing into the original concert hall with whatever dimensions it happens to be.

I've built two such spaces, each rather amazing, with multiple people astonished at what they hear. Because of the imaging, one listener kept getting up to examine the speaker end, wondering where I'd hidden the center channel speaker (no such beast), then claimed I'd lied about *not* having a center channel! Some audiophile rooms make me a little crazy because of how much resolution/detail is smeared away -- often wonderful impact and spectral balance but lacking in the imaging and detail I'm used to. If you have the real-estate, a much larger room can be successful without the treatments noted (reflection issues are far enough out in time so that they're less damaging). But, still, I'd want to do much careful listening before mixing in such rooms. "Mixing to a target environment" is a nice idea, but without the best resolution and room balance from the get-go this can be a moving target. Give me a properly treated room with a good monitor chain and I can mix/master for *any* final delivery -- because I know exactly what's going on.

[deanwhiteley]

Since switching from mainly listening to headphones to now spending the majority of my time listening on a 2 channel system I now realise just how important the room interaction is and how it can affect the sound I’m hearing. The differences I hear in my room with speaker placement alone are huge.

[yvesboutin]

Hi !! You touch the crux of the problem when you said ' mixing studios are steriles and I don't want that in my living room '. Too much of a good thing can be detrimental, like it is the case with acoustic treatment. If there obvious resonance problem in your listening room, then of course we should make a concious effort to damp it. In my living room, I did it with furnitures, plants and also a nice big rug because of the hardwood floor. It is now working quite fine without having to invest thousands in acoustic treatment. Thanks Paul !!

[baruchdor]

hi all:


As someone who deals with room acoustics professionally both in the studio and in professional or home listening rooms, in the end we have to think about what the goal is that we want to achieve... and indeed the goals are different and they all have different limitations

My goal for example is to always try to ideally combine the objective and subjective side of the room's acoustics and the final result in relation to the listener

If I simplify the matter when I design acoustics for a listening room only, the only thing that really matters to me is the subjective side of the listener (from a psychoacoustic point of view) the changes will be made from an objective point of view and I will try to adapt as much as possible to what the specific listener hears (different people have specific demands and desires as well as they really hear in terms of Technically a little different (topic in itself)

The subject of psychoacoustics is a subject in itself and one can talk about it for many hours...

When we plan a mixing room it is different from a dedicated mastering room because the purpose is slightly different

For example, a mixing room will be designed almost exclusively according to the objective result as much as possible and I will give less weight (but very important) to the psychoacoustic side and the preferences of the person himself

Because we are all human and are usually quite similar in our preferences, when planning each room acoustically, there will usually be a balance between absorption and diffusion of the sound in the room, as well as a large acceptance of the objective and subjective side of the "correct" result

If you have specific questions on the subject, I will be happy to try to answer them😁

[mmgee]

Doesn’t matter what anybody else says, it’s all about what you like 👍

[stephensr]

Most rooms need help in the bass response. To control bass you need mass and lots of it. Large panels that are atleast a foot thick. Most rooms that you need to live in don't have space for that. The only available space is often the front wall behind the speakers. The catch 22 is you really want dispersion there instead. It opens the sound stage and adds depth. For dispersion to work you also need distance from the listening position so it's ideal. Many companies make thick bass traps with dispersion on the fronts

[davidrippy]

Paul that was a truly outstanding explanation...

[saint]

Great take. Would say differently.
"Sterile" studio playback exposes the recording chain. HiFi playback exposes the source.
Happy New Year!

[senorsalami]

studios and professional audio environments are completely different from home listening, i work in many studios, very different set of requirements to your house or listening room

[aweidenhammer]

GIK recommended diffusers on the front wall for my setup.

[bruceaitken]

The ultimate acoustic absorption results in an anechoic chamber - if you've ever been inside one of those, with the door closed, you'll know why you don't want your living room to be like that. It's a deeply weird feeling and a great relief to leave. A normal silent room is lovely but an anechoic chamber feels quite unnatural - a totally dead room.

That said I've never experienced a good 2 channel system in such a space - perhaps it is the perfect hifi experience but I like a room I can also enjoy when the audio is off.

[uhfch]

The way my room is set up, I prefer no sound absorption on the back wall. My speakers are extremely revealing, and the back wall provides just enough slap reverb to color the sound perfectly. No two rooms require the same treatment.

[Tsxtasy]

I recently went overboard on acoustic absorption panels. ~85% coverage. Corners, front wall, ceiling, first reflection, side walls behind the listening position, no coffee table, extra rug over the carpet.

It’s fantastic, but definitely too much. I’ve decided that it really needs to be diffusers behind the speakers on the front wall

[costelloandsilke]

Pro audio, domestic audio acoustics - the goal is the same. You want to hear the system and not the room. Decent studio control rooms obliterate most domestic listening spaces - but some domestic listeners are waking up to that. There is no percentage in audio equipment manufacturers telling people that they need to spend money on room treatment - not least because it costs a fraction of what equipment costs. For clarity, studio control rooms are an entirely different environment to the actual recording spaces.

[cunawarit]

Acoustics, as a branch of physics, deals with the behavior of waves in gases, solids, and liquids. Through mathematics, we can predict and understand these interactions with remarkable precision. While an audiophile like Paul may not delve into the technical details of wave propagation and reflection as a physicist would, they bring an equally valuable perspective—an intuitive sense of what sounds most enjoyable to them.

Paul captured this distinction well, emphasizing that the objectives of audiophiles and studio professionals are fundamentally different. Studio engineers aim to ensure that the recorded sound is as accurate as possible, often relying on acoustically controlled environments or monitor headphones to achieve this. By contrast, audiophiles focus on creating a listening experience that feels vibrant and emotionally engaging, tailored to their personal tastes.

Paul suggests that mastering rooms for studios like Octave Records could benefit from setups that mimic audiophile environments, even if this means less-than-ideal acoustics. His argument is rooted in the idea that mastering should reflect the listening conditions of end consumers. While intriguing, I find this perspective questionable. The primary purpose of a mastering studio is to provide a neutral, controlled space that eliminates room-induced coloration. This ensures that the mix translates accurately across diverse playback systems and environments.

Introducing reflective surfaces, as Paul advocates, might enrich the sound within a specific room, but it introduces variability. A mix that sounds beautiful in one reflective environment might lose its magic—or worse, sound imbalanced—in another. By tailoring the mix to the unique characteristics of a specific room, there’s a risk of creating a product that doesn’t hold up universally. The “perfect” sound in that room could be the result of reflections aligning in just the right way—a serendipity that won’t exist elsewhere.

Ultimately, the sterile, acoustically optimized studio setup is not a limitation but a necessity. It provides a reliable foundation for crafting mixes that sound great in as many settings as possible. While reflective surfaces and audiophile-style setups can offer insights into how a mix might sound in a real-world scenario, they should complement the mastering process, not define it. By minimizing variables, studio professionals preserve the integrity of the recording, ensuring it resonates with audiences everywhere.

[liran]

thats a BIG "Failed", Paul, LOL😄

[frerikdejong]

I am working on a daily basis in different recording studios and different postproduction studios (these are not necessarily equal) and running a label for classical music. Mixing and mastering a recording only for audiophiles creates a very small audience and saying ‘I don’t care how my recording sounds on earbuds’ is frankly said, quite arrogant. You want to have your recording translate on every system, to have the musicians represented on cheap and expensive playback systems. That’s your goal as an engineer 😊 And that’s why you need an uncolored monitoring system in the studio that you understand and trust. It’s just that simple.