"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
But no matter how good the equipment and recording techniques,
the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if the
equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.

You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without qualification --
implies
it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that the better
the
setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the recording
"really" sounds like.


--------
William, you have the habit of quoting the immediately previous post without
attribution. That can be annoying, though not in this case.

Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share at least one
sentiment with 'abbedd': What the recording 'really' sounds like is not of
great importance. I want the music to sound good.

Mr. 'abbedd' and I disagree on specifics, is all.

bl

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message . ..
But no matter how good the equipment and recording
techniques,
the program in recordings will be masked by room issues if
the
equipment is listened to in an untreated room. Guaranteed.

You're overstating the case. "Masked by" -- without
qualification -- implies
it isn't audible at all. Which is not true. It's rather that
the better the
setup (including treatment), the more one can hear what the
recording
"really" sounds like.


Perhaps overstated I agree, but my overstatement complements
the understatement that preceded it. My point is, too often
many people search for sonic reality in a very unbalanced way,
heavy on the equipment and light on acoustics. Had I met just
one person in the past who would have impressed the importance
of acoustics on me I would have spent a lot less money chasing
sonic nirvana purchasing equipment and more time enjoying the
equipment I already had for the last 30 years.

I want to be that voice crying in the wind for some people
chasing sonic nirvana here today. Perhaps even some of those
who are or will be mixing music I want to hear over and over
in the future.


peace
dawg

Reading this thread has caused me to note that I share
at least one sentiment with abbedd: What the recording
"really" sounds like is not of great importance. I want the
music to sound good.

This is an aesthetic issue of profound importance, but I'm so busy that I
don't have time to discuss it at length, except to say that it's been my
experience that, the more-accurately a recording is reproduced, the more one
(or at least, I) enjoy the performance. I don't want the music to "sound
good" -- I want to hear the recording, without "editorial comments" from the
amps, speakers, room, etc.

I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction -- what
the recording "really" sounds like. Room treatment is one element of
high-fidelity reproduction.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 10:04:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:


I might add that abbedd is indeed defending accurate reproduction

Even against an army of trolls equipped with forked tongues and mouth
flung bovine manure

Abbedd
There is only one difference between a madman and me. I am not mad.
Salvador Dali

"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote
in message

One tweek I did that makes reverb in stereo much more
audible was to treat my room acoustically with bass traps,
broadband absorption and diffusers.

Once the room acoustics were in check the reverb in the
recordings became much more a part of the music. Fact is if
the room is blowing back early reflections from your
speakers you are masking the low level detail that provides
the reverb in the recording. Adding after the fact reverb
is not going to fix your room.


peace
dawg

I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my
ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the
recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.

Conversely since I feel the reverb in recordings is first to
be lost in the blowback of an acoustically untreated room it
is only logical to assume that reverb will be one of the first
"WOW sounds" that a listener will benefit from when he
adequately acoustically optimizes his reproduction system.
Listeners can be quoted as saying " I heard this a million
times and I never heard xxxxxxxx before" They will describe
hearing individual sounds that were always there just masked
by the acoustics of the listening room.

This same experience can be obtained in the bass once the room
treatment reaches critical mass, bass instruments become more
tame and musical playing individual notes in there own space.
Impossible in a room with room modes overhanging and
overpowering what is coming out of the speakers.

A professional bass player who listened to Led Zep II a
million times heard it on my system in a treated room and said
about one of the songs " oh that's how it goes". And he heard
it here before treatment.

I hope this helps some people to peruse treating your
listening rooms and perhaps stop wasting time with equipment
upgrades until you get your listening room optimized.


peace
dawg

I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
recording and listening to the best equipment I could get my
ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
listening environment is essential to hearing what is in the
recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added) in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.

Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is
not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the
reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it.

The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the resulting ability to
better appreciate the recording's ambience.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message . ..
I guess what I really want to say is that; I have found
through 35 years of fooling with stereo, PA, playing bass,
recording and listening to the best equipment I could get
my
ears in front of, listening in an acoustically optimized
listening environment is essential to hearing what is in
the
recording. That being said, the reverb (natural or added)
in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.

Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically --
reverberant, this is
not so. The average room's decay time is considerably
shorter than the
reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking
it.

The improvement you hear is to better imaging, and the
resulting ability to
better appreciate the recording's ambience.

Don't particularly know what the "average room" is but now
that I have become aware of what a rooms early reflections
bearing down on me sound like and what a room that does not do
this sounds like. Now I can easily hear and clearly
distinguish the room sound in untreated rooms. Not only in
playback but I can hear my friends room affecting his voice on
recordings he makes in his studio.

If this is what you mean by better appreciating the
recording's ambience then we agree 100%

I dont care to argue semantics with you but I know that to my
ears I can tell the difference in the reverb, bass, inner
detail of imaging and timbre of instruments and effects used
(what type effect, settings of it, where it is returned in the
soundstage) easily in my treated room where before treatment
they were never audible to me in the same way before.

So again I stress that room treatment be addressed by anyone
serious about really hearing what is in the recordings you
play. Make acoustic treatment your next upgrade quest and
don't futz around with adding reverb to recordings that
already have it.


peace
dawg

William Sommerwerck wrote:
the reverb (natural or added) in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.


Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically -- reverberant, this is
not so. The average room's decay time is considerably shorter than the
reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking it.

In terms of pure decibel levels, yes, but I think this is an area where
the brains's perception mechanism plays an important part. If the room's
acoustic is superimposed on the recording's reverb, the brain's auditory
processing get a confused muddle of sound that it knows cannot
coprrespond to a real physical space. Remove the listening room sound,
and if the recorded sound included the natural reverb of a real room,
suddenly you can hear the "shape" of that room and everything becomes
more realistic.

Just a theory, to try to explain DDD's observation.

Anahata

"Anahata" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
the reverb (natural or added) in
recordings, being low level in nature and most audible when
the music program stops, is the first sonic component to
become masked by the reproduction rooms own sound.


Unless the room is unusually -- or pathologically --
reverberant, this is
not so. The average room's decay time is considerably
shorter than the
reverb time of most recordings, and is incapable of masking
it.

In terms of pure decibel levels, yes, but I think this is an
area where the brains's perception mechanism plays an
important part. If the room's acoustic is superimposed on
the recording's reverb, the brain's auditory processing get
a confused muddle of sound that it knows cannot coprrespond
to a real physical space. Remove the listening room sound,
and if the recorded sound included the natural reverb of a
real room, suddenly you can hear the "shape" of that room
and everything becomes more realistic.

Just a theory, to try to explain DDD's observation.

Anahata

Mission accomplished in the best of ways.

thanks

dawg