As the measurements clearly show, there is no difference at all in loudness. I recommend you to do some tests on that website I posted. Abx testing is the only way to get a valid result because it eliminates any biases. Also we have to make sure to compare the same sources for an apple to apple comparison.
Regarding acoustic treatment, of course it depends how far you want to go with this. But for an accurate response, we should look at everything below the Schroeder frequency first, which is were room modes dominate. This means a lot of heavy, big basstraps. First reflections should also be treated. Rear wall is important too, to prevent slapback which results in comb filtering. In the end no room is perfect but those guidelines help to let us get the most out of it. You can measure your room with Room eq Wizard btw, it is a nice free tool that gives all the insights of the room response, it is very useful.
Measurements are objective and fact based. They are also consistent and reproduceable. Our ears are unfortunately far from that. The measurements that I posted clearly show there is no difference in loudness between the 2 files. If you did perceive a difference in loudness, something else must be going on. Did you compare exactly the same files, or were it maybe different masters? Did you abx test it to eliminate your own bias? You are very welcome to post some concrete examples, I would be very happy to study them.
Although the word implies differently, basstraps don’t really ‘trap bass’. They do even out the response though, as well as reducing decay which smears out audio and can lead to a phenomena called one note bass. Both are always very welcome effects for critical listening. Here’s a graph that shows that:
Soundproofing is something totally different than acoustic treatment. The first focuses on leaking as less energy as possible to outside, the latter is used to optimize sonic performance in any room. Really totally different things
Although in a mastering studio basstraps are definitely not optionally, all rooms where full-range audio is a priority can an will benefit from decent treatment. The sound will improve drastically. It makes it easier to pick-up small details, or level and panning differences.
Can you provide some examples where you think there us a massive improvement? Just a few seconds of both, from the same timestamps, would be enough. Also, have you abx tested it or did you know which was the lossy and lossless versions? In the latter, it is not unlikely that bias played a big role here. This is just how us humans’ brains work. The only thing we can do about that is acknowledge it and try to eliminate it as much as possible. Abx testing would be a good example of that.
This is an interesting discussion, but please try to keep it more concrete and fact based. There is a lot of misinformation being spread online, a lot of it can easily be debunked with some testing. But a lot of people read such things and just assume it is correct because ‘it was on the internet’. A bit more critical thinking would help a lot.
Anecdotic experiences are just that, we can’t draw any useful conclusions from them. Until now you only provided anecdotical information. As my test earlier clearly shows making a lossless track lossy doesn’t change anything about the loudness. That would be concrete evidence that cannot be denied. Please upload some concrete examples yourself, it would contribute a lot to your point of view. To measure is to know. If there are indeed any differences, we can then zoom in further on it. But without this, I believe it is a bit pointless to keep going in circles. We need the data, so please post something concrete.
Btw, converting lossless audio to lossy will usually lead to higher peaks, as also shown in the measurements I posted. If anything, it would make more sense that a user has to lower the recording level when actually using lossy audio, rather than the other way around, to compensate for the higher peaks, in case the recording is so (dangerously) close to the ceiling of 0dBFS.
You’re talking about soundproofing. Not sound treatment.
Regarding treatment, your room is full of reflections. And that results in comb filtering. Which makes critical listening impossible, because certain frequencies will cancel each other out, and when you move your head by and inch, they will be audible again, and other frequencies will cancel. To put it very blunt, your room is worthless to conclude anything about lossy vs lossless.
Much is done with 10cm slabs of insulation to absorb sound, and uneven surfaces to difract sound, so you dont get standing nodes. The problem here is that low frequencies will not be absorbs by a flat absorber panel with 10cm or even 20cm rockwool in it. The longer the wavelength the thicker your absorber needs to be. To handle this we build something like “bass traps”, which are more or less absorbers which stand chamfered in the corners of your room: there they will absorb bass bouncing around the room, and result in less cancelation of bass. Bass traps may trap standing waves. But result in a cleaner and possibly louder bass…
Regarding measurements, they show you what the problem is that you are hearing. I can hear all sorts of things sounding “bad”, but measements, when properly done can show you the real problem. For example, you may experiences peaks in the frequency range and start dabbling with EQ, while the real problem was comb filtering, resulting from a time/phase problem. Proper measurements show you this, so you know which driver you’ll have to delay, or which room node you have to tackle. Today there are speaker systems on the market who have a flat phase response. Flat frequency response is actually a result of this. if you have a smooth phase response you have a better impulse response too, which result in much more “in your face” experience with transient sounds like percussion. With a bad impulse response the high part of a snare will be earlier than the low part, with a good impulse response they will arrive together (well, at the same time as the live acoustic version). Frequency response alone doesn’t quantify this part of acoustics…
Anyway, this,is more or less the same story as @Kwarkgebak’s. Nice to have another audio nerd here on the forum
Great informative post, with multiple nice additions to what I already mentioned Acoustics is definitely underrated. But once you’ve had a well treated room, you never want to go back again.
Oh, and PS: if you want a good example how room acoustics can ruin a superb soundsystem, go to a random concert in the “Sportpaleis” in Antwerp: given the size of these concerts, their will always be a line array of one of the 5 top brands in pro audio land (Adamson, Martin Audio, D&B, L’acoustics, Meyer), setup by a small platoon of very well trained audio engineers. Still, every concert there sounds like ****. (Im sure some other pop concert halls have the same problem)
Now go to an outdoor concert like Werchter or Tomorrowland. Same line array. Same crew. Much, much, much better sound…. Room acoustics ladies and gentlemen, are absent outdoors…
Yeah have the bass traps in corners an also the 100mm rockwool slaps place around the room.
But they was for when was producing music they do nothing an I mean nothing once the bigger sound system was installed.
In this room now I don’t need them as not making mixing an mastering decisions am playing back music that already been mixed a mastered via beatport streaming.
