My never ending HT..

[Maxxwire]

---

On 2005-11-07 20:24, OnlyESPlease wrote:
Wallew- I would only think about that if there is no basement underneath, or your sunken living room could sink again with all of that weight.

---

That would be a sinking feeling all right!

~Maxx~

[TritonMan]

---

On 2005-11-07 13:27, wallew wrote:
TritonMan & Maxx,
This has given me an evil idea. 

The wife and I are looking at another house (above) that has a sunken living room.  It will be perfect for a home theater, given it's dimensions (long & wide with only three windows on the right side).  I told the wife 'no problem' with raising the floor back up to 'normal' levels.

I could mass load the whole floor.  Make sure the subfloor is not touching the walls when I raise it and before putting the subfloor in add a ton or two of sand.  BOOM, instant mass load on the floor of the HT!  OR will by adding the subfloor detract from all the sand in place?

YOU GUYS ROCK!  Another idea to 'store away'...

---

That is a great idea. Would really enhance the sound tremendously. Lotta work but the end result would be more than worth it.

You want to try and "seperate" the 2 floors. SOmehow make the second floor suspended.

[TritonMan]

---

On 2005-11-07 20:24, OnlyESPlease wrote:
Wallew- I would only think about that if there is no basement underneath, or your sunken living room could sink again with all of that weight.

---

Good point. Would need to do some serious structural research to see if that is even feasible.

[wallew]

---

On 2005-11-07 20:24, OnlyESPlease wrote:
Wallew- I would only think about that if there is no basement underneath, or your sunken living room could sink again with all of that weight.

---

OnlyESPlease,
Yes you are correct.  But I have a structural engineer that I have already used once when I removed a load bearing wall in my current house.  He gave me the thumbs up to my idea plus specific info on what beam width/length that I would need to install to support the span I was removing.  That worked out quite well, so IF we purchase this home, I will be going back to him for several reasons.

I want to 'mass load' the floor in the living room (aka HT for us) and partiallly remove at least one wall, perhaps two...

Plus the basement that is under the living room has a steel I-beam that runs the length of the basement.  I could just add I-beam stringers to that and let him tell me if that would be all I'd need to do, other than reinforcing the subfloor to handle the extra weight. 

Just waiting to see if the current owner of the new house will drop his price a little.  IF he does this, we are going to make a contingency offer.  Or a regular offer, depending upon what owner wants.  Then rent this house.  We will see.

[Maxxwire]

Jim- There is a commom misconception among Audiophiles that Resonance is evil and must be totally eliminated from an Audio system at all cost.

I strongly urge you to read the 4 page article containing Mike Vans Evers' thoughts on Resonance Modification-

http://www.stereotimes.com/comm0200a.shtm

As Mike explains it is not the eradication of Resonance, but the Tuning of Resonance that brings our Audio equipment to its highest potential performance level.

As I have said many times before here on the Forum Resonance Tuning has provided me with the most substantial improvements in the sound quality of my Audio system that I have experienced in the last 25 years and the methods I used were inspired by the writings of Mike Vans Evers concerning Resonance Modification
and not the eliminating of those Resonances.

~Maxx~

[Maxxwire]

How can we eliminate the negative effects of Resonance on our Audio and Video equipment so that it can peform exactly the way that it was designed to?

The first natural reaction would be to call Resonance the enemy and try to totally eliminate it, but can that ever be totally achieved here on Earth?

According to Mike Vans Evers who in the following article explains that in order to get our equipment to be free from the nagative effects of Resonance and sound neutral again we must spread the Resonance out evenly over the entire spectrum-


THE GORY DETAILS

"Or How Can There Be Too Much Detail?"

by: Mike Vans Evers


How can there be too much "detail?" The answer is easy: When the recording, mastering, or playback equipment puts in more detail than the sound-of-the-musicians-playing had in the first place.


That was a very brief answer. To see where the answer came from, we''ll have to do some exploring. In my previous work The Art & Science of Audio System Tuning," I developed two axioms and a corollary which formed the basis for the rest of the paper.


AXIOM #1: Because of the tunneling effect and piezoelectric and triboelectric properties, wire is microphonic. As a result, energy from a mechanical resonance affects the flow of electrical energy through a conductor in such a way as to audibly emphasize the notes and overtones that coincide with the frequency of that resonance. If we change the way a conductor (wire or PC traces) vibrates and/or resonates, we change the way it sounds. Thus, in a sense, wire can be thought of as a "mechanical" tone control.


AXIOM #2: The "Resonance Response" of an audio system is always a major factor in its musicality.

The most musically neutral systems will have their resonances spread out evenly with no clumps or gaps in their distribution...just as the best listening rooms have an even distribution of standing waves.


An even distribution of resonances establishes a level playing field for all of music's notes and overtones, allows the proper harmonic balance of the music to be preserved, and maximizes listening enjoyment.


Corollary No.1: No products are universal; just because a signal-path component or an "accessory" sounds good in one place, it does NOT mean it will sound good everywhere.
These axioms are a lens that we can use in finding the answer to not just this particular question, but also to many of the other perplexing questions in audio today.
Audio equipment is supposed to be designed to have as little contribution from the electronics as possible.


This goal has, for the most part, actually been met. Disputes arise when the acoustic properties of electronics are mistakenly thought to result from variations in electric and electronic circuit topologies. At the level of today''s electronic design, sonic differences are just as often the result of mechanical resonances as they are from circuit variations. (Axiom #1 in action.)


A second lens which will increase our resolving power is the concept of teamwork. In the many arenas of life, it usually takes teamwork to win.


When fighting for sonic "truth," this is especially true. Many players have to work together in the proper balance if the goal is to be met. In this case, the team goal is sonic "truth," or neutrality.


The players in the sonic "truth" team include: Midrange Purity, Natural Warmth, Bass Extension & Weight, 3-Dimensionality, and Details & Nuances. If the balance shifts from the team goal to the glorification of any one team member, sonic "truth" is lost. (Axiom #2 in action.)


There is a common desire to hear all the "detail" that resides in an audio recording. It''s a fair and understandable goal.


We struggle and fight to acquire the proper equipment and recordings that will take us ever closer to the holy grail of "being there," and detail & nuance is a starting player in this conflict. However, there are a few details about "detail" that aren''t commonly known or understood.


The first follows from an understanding of the acoustic nature of electronics. Yes, electronics are supposed to be neutral and not contribute to the sound of a system...too bad this is completely and unequivocally incorrect.


Why? Because wire is a mechanical tone control; if you change how it vibrates by coupling a new resonance to it, you change how it sounds. In previous writings I have used this as my main working premise. Some will reject it because currently it is without measurements to back it up. However, this premise has shown itself to be an accurate predictor of effects, and because of this it is scientific...a lack of measurements does not mean it does not exist, it does mean we don''t know everything about how to measure it.


By merely changing the thickness or material of any part of a product, its sound has to change; several well regarded equipment manufacturers have confided that prototypes do not sound like the production version--even if they use the same electronic parts and circuit. But!! Not everyone will be able to hear the difference. Not everyone who plays golf makes par, and fewer still make birdies. Listening is every bit as much of a skill as is playing golf, and there are excellent as well as poor golfers and listeners.


The second detail is a consequence of the first the sound from a recording is a composite of:


1) the electrical and acoustic sound of the artist''s music, and

2) the electrical and acoustic sound of the recording equipment.


Luckily, the electrical sound of most modern recording (and playback) systems are quite neutral. This leaves the acoustic contribution of the equipment, which is a result of the sum total of its mechanical resonances. What an acoustic instrument is made from and how it is made determines its sound; as a result of my hands-on research, I believe it''s much the same in the case of electronics.


Regular light is a chaotic mix of photons heading in many different directions. It takes a concerted effort to make them line up in a straight line like those in a laser beam. The mechanical resonances in an audio system are as chaotic as the photons in regular light; it takes effort to make them line up into an even distribution so that the effects from these resonances are equal for every note in the music that we wish to enjoy.


When the distribution is not even, we have sound that is not neutral. But, this lack of neutrality can still be enjoyable, depending on the amount and direction of the shift from neutrality and the listening tastes or philosophy of the listener. An over emphasis of one sonic area is all too often realized by well meaning manufacturers, dealers, and consumers because the acoustic nature of audio equipment is poorly recognized.


Midrange enthusiasts will prefer a system that has either more mechanical resonances in the midrange, or a smoother distribution of midrange resonances than it has to have (for them) in the bass or treble regions, and so on. In the same way, those who prize detail above all else will often have a system whose sound is unnaturally detailed because they aren''t aware of this particular audio pitfall. In the fight to get "all the detail off the recording," they build, recommend, or buy equipment that may be flat electrically, but has an unequal distribution of mechanical resonances, i.e. too many in the "detail" region of the audio spectrum (upper midrange to treble.) They have fallen into the trap of believing that audio equipment is neutral because they believe that it is what the measurements mean.


The sonic details inherent in a recording can be only be correctly portrayed when there is a balance to the spread of the mechanical resonances in an audio listening system: they must be distributed equally. The fight is not for the common goal of more and more detail, for that way ultimately creates imbalance and defeats the concept of neutrality. The fight for neutrality is only won when balance is achieved between all the starting players: detail & nuances, midrange purity, natural warmth, bass extension & weight, and


3-dimensionality.
It is very easy to achieve more "detail" in playback than the source had in the beginning. Just use detailed electronics, high-definition speakers, analytic wire accessories, brass or ceramic cone feet and glass/metal equipment stands in an under-damped room. (It''ll run you out of the room in 5 minutes or less with all that "detail.") In the end it comes down to what you are fighting for, sonic "truth" or your preferred version. Either way is perfectly correct from an individualistic standpoint...the sticky part comes in knowing which is which.

Mike Vans Evers
...................

~Maxx~

[wallew]

3-dimensionality.
It is very easy to achieve more "detail" in playback than the source had in the beginning. Just use detailed electronics, high-definition speakers, analytic wire accessories, brass or ceramic cone feet and glass/metal equipment stands in an under-damped room. (It''ll run you out of the room in 5 minutes or less with all that "detail.") In the end it comes down to what you are fighting for, sonic "truth" or your preferred version. Either way is perfectly correct from an individualistic standpoint...the sticky part comes in knowing which is which.

---


Maxx,
Thx.  I really liked what Mike Van Evers has to say.  I've wondered how much resonance raising the 'sunken' living room will cause.  That's why I liked the idea of some mass loading of the subfloor under all that space.  I will be raising the floor level four to six inches, to make the 'sunken' part back to the 'normal' height of the rest of the house. 

I'm confident that if I don't do anything, all that trapped space will act as some form of amplification to the sound in that room.  Whereas a couple hundred pounds of sand, say an inch or so on the subfloor, will hopefully subdue some of that amplification.  Or would some other sound absorbtion work better?

jim

[Maxxwire]

Jim- In your situation sand certainly sounds like the easiest and most inexpensive damping material to apply. Do make sure that you use ultra clean sand though!

That said, how you Resonance Modify the individual pieces of equipment and speakers will still be crucial to the sound of the system.

The Resonance Modification of speakers is especially important. I heard a pair of $40,000 B&W Nautilus speakers a while back and even though they were engineered to be the most accurate speakers ever made the designers had enough insight to mount each of the speakers on an energy sinc comprised of a 150 lb block of Granite to make sure these speakers performed their best no matter what the Resonance charicteristics of the room they were playing in were.

Realistically speaking I use 30 lb Granite energy sincs under each of my speakers which represents about 2/3 of the weight of the speakers themselves. I tried both rigid coupling and decoupling the Mass Loaded speakers and decided that in my case decoupling with Hybrid Sorbothane achieved results that were more congruent with my overall sonic goals.

I know that you have quite a collection of speakers so I'm using that as an example, but each piece of equipment will eventually need to be Resonance Tuned individually that is MFSS (Modify For System Synergy).

I have 22 pieces of equipment plus speakers in my Hi Rez Audio system and each of them is tuned using an individually custom designed method of coupling or decoupling which is unique to the piece and is different than any of the other pieces.

I have found that if the Resonance Tuning is removed from any one piece the sound of the entire system suffers as a result. The Resonance Tuning of every individual piece is important no matter how humble a role it plays.

Yes, its a lot of work, but the sonic rewards are worth it and can not be obtained any other way than the hard way.

~Maxx~

[clickntypeaddict]

Nice, I like table under the screen it adds a nice touch.