Incredible Listening Room

[leonski]

Jun 17, 2018 13:54:50 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Mapleshade = just another snake oil provider for Audiophooles.

Some of his products are nutty, to be sure,

However, I'd reserve judgement on the OUTCOME until I heard his listening space.    

The room should be judged seperately from the product line. 

Now, if the only listeners are 'fan base' guys, than you don't learn much.   But if a bunch of 'regular' guys can get a seat?  
Than you might be on to something.

[KeithL]

It's what we call an educated guess - based on their descriptions of the room and the materials involved.

While the acoustics of the room will obviously interact with the system you play in it...

And some systems may interact in ways to produce a more pleasing effect than others...

The system will NOT alter the acoustics of the room itself...

Every room has a combination of absorption and reflection.

MOST audio professionals prefer a room that is partly "live" and partly "dead"... although there is a lot of disagreement on the details.
Mapleshade has gone against this "conventional wisdom" and made a room that is entirely live (although the big oversized couch is actually a rather large absorber).

Their room is lined entirely with wood - which is highly reflective. (They also describe it as having "unparalleled liveness" - which is clearly intentional.)

That means that, when you listen to music in that room, you will hear a very large proportion of reflected sound compared to the direct sound coming from the speaker.

If the walls were flat it would sound like a cross between a cave and a gymnasium.

However, by lining the walls with diffusers, they have prevented this problem.

Based on "basic acoustics" - and their description - here's what I would expect...

- their room will be very lively sounding and very efficient (even low-powered amplifiers, and speakers with relatively low outputs, will be able to play quite loudly)

- speakers that are very directional may sound good
   (because they beam most of their sound forward, the first reflection you hear will be from the rear wall behind you; because there is a significant delay there, it won't interfere with your ability to hear where the sound is coming from)
   (once the sound hits the wall behind you and is scattered by the diffuser there, and then bounces from other diffusers, what you'll hear is a sort of soft blur of sound, which will contribute to "the lively sound")

- speakers that have wide dispersion will probably NOT deliver good imaging
   (because a lot of their sound will end up reaching you after bouncing off the walls, in various directions, which all have diffusers on them, so it will all arrive at you in a single blur, which will make it difficult to pick out individual sources)

- musical content that is relatively simple (chamber music, acoustic music, vocals) will sound "airy" and "open"

- musical content that involves lots of instruments and complex mixes may sound very jumbled - especially if you play it loudly

They also mentioned "their approach to omnidirectionality" - which again suggests that their goal was "a wash of airy sound filling the room".

Omnidirectionality is generally the antithesis of sharp imaging.

(As a broad generality, omnidirectional speakers are known for sounding "airy", and for NOT delivering pinpoint imaging.)

Also... I gotta say it... the guys at Mapleshade seem to be obsessed with wood... and specifically maple... as "the best material for everything"...

Without being too cynical, it actually starts to seem as if, given the choice, they'd be playing maple albums, on a maple turntable, using a maple needle, for people sitting on maple folding chairs...

I don't doubt that they could quite possibly have selected system components that work well in that particular room - and tuned them to sound good.

However, to be blunt, overall it really does simply seem a bit odd...

I would also note that, if I were going to audition that room, I would be sure to bring MY favorite music... since I suspect it will strongly favor some types of music over others.

Jun 15, 2018 10:08:23 GMT -5 Loop 7 said:

Jun 15, 2018 9:35:43 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Interesting...

Although, with all that diffusion, and almost no absorption, it would seem to me that it must be incredibly "live" - which normally doesn't bode well for pinpoint imaging.

How is it possible to make that claim without listening to a system in that room?

[Loop 7]

I've read some speaker designers believe a lot of diffusion is always better than a lot of absorption.

[leonski]

Jun 18, 2018 16:36:07 GMT -5 KeithL said:

It's what we call an educated guess - based on their descriptions of the room and the materials involved.

While the acoustics of the room will obviously interact with the system you play in it...

And some systems may interact in ways to produce a more pleasing effect than others...

The system will NOT alter the acoustics of the room itself...

Every room has a combination of absorption and reflection.

MOST audio professionals prefer a room that is partly "live" and partly "dead"... although there is a lot of disagreement on the details.
Mapleshade has gone against this "conventional wisdom" and made a room that is entirely live (although the big oversized couch is actually a rather large absorber).

Their room is lined entirely with wood - which is highly reflective. (They also describe it as having "unparalleled liveness" - which is clearly intentional.)

That means that, when you listen to music in that room, you will hear a very large proportion of reflected sound compared to the direct sound coming from the speaker.

If the walls were flat it would sound like a cross between a cave and a gymnasium.

However, by lining the walls with diffusers, they have prevented this problem.

Based on "basic acoustics" - and their description - here's what I would expect...

- their room will be very lively sounding and very efficient (even low-powered amplifiers, and speakers with relatively low outputs, will be able to play quite loudly)

- speakers that are very directional may sound good
   (because they beam most of their sound forward, the first reflection you hear will be from the rear wall behind you; because there is a significant delay there, it won't interfere with your ability to hear where the sound is coming from)
   (once the sound hits the wall behind you and is scattered by the diffuser there, and then bounces from other diffusers, what you'll hear is a sort of soft blur of sound, which will contribute to "the lively sound")

- speakers that have wide dispersion will probably NOT deliver good imaging
   (because a lot of their sound will end up reaching you after bouncing off the walls, in various directions, which all have diffusers on them, so it will all arrive at you in a single blur, which will make it difficult to pick out individual sources)

- musical content that is relatively simple (chamber music, acoustic music, vocals) will sound "airy" and "open"

- musical content that involves lots of instruments and complex mixes may sound very jumbled - especially if you play it loudly

They also mentioned "their approach to omnidirectionality" - which again suggests that their goal was "a wash of airy sound filling the room".

Omnidirectionality is generally the antithesis of sharp imaging.

(As a broad generality, omnidirectional speakers are known for sounding "airy", and for NOT delivering pinpoint imaging.)

Also... I gotta say it... the guys at Mapleshade seem to be obsessed with wood... and specifically maple... as "the best material for everything"...

Without being too cynical, it actually starts to seem as if, given the choice, they'd be playing maple albums, on a maple turntable, using a maple needle, for people sitting on maple folding chairs...

I don't doubt that they could quite possibly have selected system components that work well in that particular room - and tuned them to sound good.

However, to be blunt, overall it really does simply seem a bit odd...

I would also note that, if I were going to audition that room, I would be sure to bring MY favorite music... since I suspect it will strongly favor some types of music over others.

Jun 15, 2018 10:08:23 GMT -5 Loop 7 said:

How is it possible to make that claim without listening to a system in that room?

One input when dealing with 'diffuse' V 'reflective' rooms.    Once you have diffused the sound the TIME it takes to arrive at your ear would seem to rise.    Once above maybe 10ms, you will hear the louder sound, which is the direct sound from the speakers as predominant.     This is one 'secret' to placing panels.   Get 'em 5' or more from the front wall, so the distance for the backwave is an additional 10' which is about 10ms.   Once you do THAT, many other aspects of setup are easier to deal with.   Like toe, tweeter location and seperation of speakers.  

As for 'favoring some types of music over others'?    I'd suspect that the BIG divide would be STUDIO or LIVE recordings.   Live has a lot of ambience while studio stuff seldom has that live, 'in a space' feeling.
Many years ago I experimented with surround sound.   I used the Dynamo System which was a 'phase' based system, NOT discrete.    By wiring my back channel speakers from + to + on a common ground amp, I was able to get back surround sound.   I wired a PAIR of speakers in SERIES, + to -  to + and - back to the amp.   Later I experimented with wiring the speakers  as + to - to - and + back to the amp.    It made a small difference and was strongly effected by speaker placement.   

But when listening to Studio stuff?   ZIP effect.   Nada.   None.   'Hey! is that thing ON?'     While live recordings put you right in the MIDDLE of the crowd.   

And YES.   'Selected System Components'.     It is after ALL is said and done, a 'system' which brings the ideas of 'weakest link' and 'synergy' into play.   That is the ONE thing I see around here, where
people buy stuff, go thru 'upgrade' cycles and still are not happy.   They are not, IMO engaging in 'system building' but rather a building blocks approach.    IF the room in question does indeed sound
real good, than it's because it's a SYSTEM, and has been tuned and integrated as such.  
I'd LOVE to hear this room, and YES, indeed, bring some of my own favorite stuff to hear.    That Eric Clapton, 'The Blues Breakers' would be just the ticket.    

[bluemeanies]

I don't think any type of audio equipment or ROOM can be judged unless YOU are there to listen for yourself.
I also have read that more diffusion is better than absorption.

[mgbpuff]

I have bought some Mapleshade products - four amp stands with brass footers and a record/equipment stand. Nicely made, but overpriced, and because of that, I don't think that I have any more interest in more Mapleshade thingys.

[KeithL]

I would have to both agree and disagree with you there.

There is a significant amount of science involved. We don't simply build a room that looks nice and then listen to find out if it sounds good or not. We decide how we want that room to sound, then we design it to sound the way we want. And that same exact science allows us to look at the design of a room that already exists and make a reasonably good prediction about how it will sound. The process can be very complex, and involve many factors, so sometimes we make errors. And, yes, because there are so many complex factors, we may sometimes miscalculate, and end up with an unexpectedly good - or unexpectedly bad - result. And, of course, experience helps you get better at judging what a specific design or room treatment will sound like, and different people simply have different ideas about what sort of sound they prefer.

Diffusion, absorption, and even reflection, all have their place.

Too much absorption will make a room sound "dead" - but will probably give you excellent imaging (you hear the recording, with very little added by the room, so leads to a very precise rendition of the recording).

That sort of room works well in situations where "I want to hear the recording and not the room".

But too much diffusion, with no absorption, often leads to a sort of "glare" (their room is purely diffused - except for the giant sound absorber you're sitting on - that couch).

From their description, and their pictures, I have "a pretty good picture in my head" of what their room will sound like... and it's not the sort of sound signature I favor for the sort of music I normally listen to.

However, there's no specific right or wrong here, so it may sound just right to you - or to other folks with different tastes than mine.

I suspect that their room will do well at "adding a bit of air and ambience to intimate recordings" - because you do get all that random diffused contribution from the room.

However, I suspect it will fare less well with big, loud, complex recordings - where it will tend to add too much of the room to the experience.

To use a visual analogy, a room with lots of mirrors, cut glass, and crystal chandeliers can look really awesome by candlelight.... or by the light of small clear glass bulbs in chandeliers.

However, bring in a few major spotlights, or cover the ceiling with fluorescent lighting panels, throw in a few high-wattage halogen torchiers, and you'll quickly end up needing sunglasses.

Jun 19, 2018 7:54:23 GMT -5 bluemeanies said:

I don't think any type of audio equipment or ROOM can be judged unless YOU are there to listen for yourself.
I also have read that more diffusion is better than absorption.

[bluemeanies]

Jun 19, 2018 11:05:58 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I would have to both agree and disagree with you there.

There is a significant amount of science involved. We don't simply build a room that looks nice and then listen to find out if it sounds good or not. We decide how we want that room to sound, then we design it to sound the way we want. And that same exact science allows us to look at the design of a room that already exists and make a reasonably good prediction about how it will sound. The process can be very complex, and involve many factors, so sometimes we make errors. And, yes, because there are so many complex factors, we may sometimes miscalculate, and end up with an unexpectedly good - or unexpectedly bad - result. And, of course, experience helps you get better at judging what a specific design or room treatment will sound like, and different people simply have different ideas about what sort of sound they prefer.

Diffusion, absorption, and even reflection, all have their place.

Too much absorption will make a room sound "dead" - but will probably give you excellent imaging (you hear the recording, with very little added by the room, so leads to a very precise rendition of the recording).

That sort of room works well in situations where "I want to hear the recording and not the room".

But too much diffusion, with no absorption, often leads to a sort of "glare" (their room is purely diffused - except for the giant sound absorber you're sitting on - that couch).

From their description, and their pictures, I have "a pretty good picture in my head" of what their room will sound like... and it's not the sort of sound signature I favor for the sort of music I normally listen to.

However, there's no specific right or wrong here, so it may sound just right to you - or to other folks with different tastes than mine.

I suspect that their room will do well at "adding a bit of air and ambience to intimate recordings" - because you do get all that random diffused contribution from the room.

However, I suspect it will fare less well with big, loud, complex recordings - where it will tend to add too much of the room to the experience.

To use a visual analogy, a room with lots of mirrors, cut glass, and crystal chandeliers can look really awesome by candlelight.... or by the light of small clear glass bulbs in chandeliers.

However, bring in a few major spotlights, or cover the ceiling with fluorescent lighting panels, throw in a few high-wattage halogen torchiers, and you'll quickly end up needing sunglasses.

Jun 19, 2018 7:54:23 GMT -5 bluemeanies said:

I don't think any type of audio equipment or ROOM can be judged unless YOU are there to listen for yourself.
I also have read that more diffusion is better than absorption.

Keith..I agree, BUT I just was stating that without YOU, ME listening to a system first hand can we determine if it is right or wrong to our likening. Too much or too little diffusion or absorption. I am not one to just take someone's else's experience as true for me. We all hear things differently.
Case in point my 803diamonds are only 6"from the side walls but 5' from the back wall. A member on another forum told me MY bass HAD to be BOOMY with that setup when in fact it is not. Not just by what I hear but from several people who have listened to my system in both 2channel and HT.
I attribute the non-existing boomy-ness to the well design cabinet and my 7" thick walls
I hope this clears up my initial post.

[geeqner]

Jun 19, 2018 11:05:58 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I would have to both agree and disagree with you there.

There is a significant amount of science involved. We don't simply build a room that looks nice and then listen to find out if it sounds good or not. We decide how we want that room to sound, then we design it to sound the way we want. And that same exact science allows us to look at the design of a room that already exists and make a reasonably good prediction about how it will sound. The process can be very complex, and involve many factors, so sometimes we make errors. And, yes, because there are so many complex factors, we may sometimes miscalculate, and end up with an unexpectedly good - or unexpectedly bad - result. And, of course, experience helps you get better at judging what a specific design or room treatment will sound like, and different people simply have different ideas about what sort of sound they prefer.

Diffusion, absorption, and even reflection, all have their place.

Too much absorption will make a room sound "dead" - but will probably give you excellent imaging (you hear the recording, with very little added by the room, so leads to a very precise rendition of the recording).

That sort of room works well in situations where "I want to hear the recording and not the room".

But too much diffusion, with no absorption, often leads to a sort of "glare" (their room is purely diffused - except for the giant sound absorber you're sitting on - that couch).

From their description, and their pictures, I have "a pretty good picture in my head" of what their room will sound like... and it's not the sort of sound signature I favor for the sort of music I normally listen to.

However, there's no specific right or wrong here, so it may sound just right to you - or to other folks with different tastes than mine.

I suspect that their room will do well at "adding a bit of air and ambience to intimate recordings" - because you do get all that random diffused contribution from the room.

However, I suspect it will fare less well with big, loud, complex recordings - where it will tend to add too much of the room to the experience.

To use a visual analogy, a room with lots of mirrors, cut glass, and crystal chandeliers can look really awesome by candlelight.... or by the light of small clear glass bulbs in chandeliers.

However, bring in a few major spotlights, or cover the ceiling with fluorescent lighting panels, throw in a few high-wattage halogen torchiers, and you'll quickly end up needing sunglasses.

Jun 19, 2018 7:54:23 GMT -5 bluemeanies said:

Plus, I would add that most Recording Engineers (if they are "worth their salt") probably attempt to optimize their recordings to sound "right", as THEY see it, within a typical customer's listening environment.  Hey, what if I listen to that same recording IN MY CAR (Windows UP / Windows DOWN)?

With the exception of recordings / sources that are created SPECIFICALLY for Testing / Measurement purposes, nearly NOBODY would logically create a recording intended to be listened to within either an Anechoic Chamber or within a Handball Court (nearly purely reverberant).  In either case, any recording produced for either of those cases would sound unnatural when listened to within a normal room.

Kind of makes me wonder if the RIAA has defined an "industry-standard" listening room, which would tend to approximate the average listener's room where they listen to their system?  Also makes me wonder if the "anti-Equalization Purists" (those who believe that the alterations / distortion produced by equalization equipment typically out-weigh the benefits of having such equipment in order to account for differences in room acoustics) have a valid point or not.

Want to REALLY come to grips with this issue - try designing a Sound Reinforcement System for a rural school that has a "CafeGymAtorium"?
(I did that once, and used what I thought was a relatively novel approach to make it "idiot-friendly" to the teachers and non-techies who would need to use it in about four different "Operating Modes".)

Or when it was time to replace the flooring in a Church where I was a member of the Planning Committee in my younger days - the organist convinced us to have carpeting strips installed down the aisles both ways, but to leave a patch of hard floor beneath each of the pews.  This arrangement REALLY brought-out the finesse in the old German-made Pipe Organ!

[leonski]

I have known several recording engineer types. My brother owned a small but well-equipped studio 35+ years ago.
You are right. The final mix might include WHERE it may be listened to. One engineer I knew had some small 6x9 oval speakers for some uses, since
at that point, they were 'typical' automotive speakers. His larger Tannoy speakers were intended for home recordings.

The studio I saw had hard floor UNDER the Baby Grand which provided a live sound. Other parts of the studio were VERY inert and 2 persons standing back to back
might not be able to hear each other without shouting.

[Deleted]

I saw Mapleshade (or someone trying to reproduce diy) on the net mouths ago and thought to myself, "What a stupid idea. At least he'll have plenty of sawdust for his garden."
Pls, don't call me a blockhead for my skepticism.

[405x5]

Jun 15, 2018 2:06:38 GMT -5 leonski said:

www.mapleshadestore.com/listeningroom.php

This is an amazing room which gets equally amazing reviews from those who sit and listen.

A good reason NOT to over 'absorb' 

I felt like an egg in a carton, just looking at those shots.
Working backwards, the Saran Wrap wiring, was the first clear, (no pun intended) of the delusion and absurdity.

Could not get past the visual aspect of the room to even consider what things might be sounding like in there.
Conflicting opinions about a sweet spot being too close to a rear boundary also.

Bill

[brutiarti]

Hope they never have to deal with termites

[vcautokid]

Some of their science if it is is curious. Some of the stuff looks cool. Would I buy it? Nope.

[johnnyd70]

Jul 21, 2018 13:25:36 GMT -5 brutiarti said:

Hope they never have to deal with termites

Om nom nom. 

[leonski]

Jul 21, 2018 13:45:46 GMT -5 vcautokid said:

Some of their science if it is is curious. Some of the stuff looks cool. Would I buy it? Nope.

Never say Never.
It might just sound so 'right' that you'd have to build one of your own.     

After listening?     Nope would be fine.    

[vcautokid]

Uh still no, but thank you for your kind consideration.

[ttocs]

Jun 20, 2018 12:05:54 GMT -5 geeqner said:

Plus, I would add that most Recording Engineers (if they are "worth their salt") probably attempt to optimize their recordings to sound "right", as THEY see it, within a typical customer's listening environment.  Hey, what if I listen to that same recording IN MY CAR (Windows UP / Windows DOWN)?

Jun 20, 2018 14:22:10 GMT -5 leonski said:

I have known several recording engineer types. My brother owned a small but well-equipped studio 35+ years ago.
You are right. The final mix might include WHERE it may be listened to. One engineer I knew had some small 6x9 oval speakers for some uses, since
at that point, they were 'typical' automotive speakers. His larger Tannoy speakers were intended for home recordings.

The studio I saw had hard floor UNDER the Baby Grand which provided a live sound.

I can testify to the claims by both of you. My brother is a music producer and one of his partners was sent a newly produced song, by an artist we all would recognize, for his approval. He and my bro were at a restaurant together and the partner plays the song on his phone, likes it, and signs off on it. His thinking is this is how it's going to be heard - on a phone or other portable device - so that's what it's geared to.

Sorry for the revival, but just came across this and simply had to.