Lyngdorf discussion

My take on this: I think you have read some of the AES papers on RP and there you will see that RP calculates the correction (inverse) filters based on a *smoothed* (psychoacoustic) frequency response from the focus position, but so that the filter limits are determined by the room measurements.
I got the best results making ALL measurements in the focus point, so the rest of the room does not limit the focus position correction. I need the best sound at the MLP and don't care about the sound elsewhere in the room.
 
I got the best results making ALL measurements in the focus point, so the rest of the room does not limit the focus position correction. I need the best sound at the MLP and don't care about the sound elsewhere in the room.


Pretty sure that's completely flawed. The purpose for all over the place measurements isn't so it sounds good all over the place, it's so it can build a 3d model of your room and apply correction for the room. What you've effectively done is told it you live in a canoe.
 
You just repeat marketing legends. AES paper explains what RP does and how. 3D model...

I'm pretty sure what Peter Lyngdorf and his team designed and then passed on how to set it up wasn't marketing - if it was it wouldn't work. You are the only person here doing all the measurements in one place, think about that for a second.
 
I got the best results making ALL measurements in the focus point, so the rest of the room does not limit the focus position correction. I need the best sound at the MLP and don't care about the sound elsewhere in the room.
Sorry, but that’s just wrong. The measuring points are not to make the sound good at those locations?! It’s designed to measure the impact of the complete room and build up the correction filters. I am surprised though that the room knowledge would grow to 90% if you always measure in the same position. In any case it’s just wrong use of the technology.
 
I'm pretty sure what Peter Lyngdorf and his team designed and then passed on how to set it up wasn't marketing - if it was it wouldn't work. You are the only person here doing all the measurements in one place, think about that for a second.
1) P. Lyngdorf and his team design is scientifically explained in the paper. I believe the paper written by professionals for professionals more than marketing leaflets.
2) I tried this system all possible ways. And I've chosen the best way soundwise. The paper helped a lot.
3) Yes, I'm the only one, so what? I just don't care about Global correction, I always listen at the same place. And I got the best result for this place by such measurements. I do not claim that Lyngdorf rules are wrong and do not invite everybody follow my way.
 
1) P. Lyngdorf and his team design is scientifically explained in the paper. I believe the paper written by professionals for professionals more than marketing leaflets.
2) I tried this system all possible ways. And I've chosen the best way soundwise. The paper helped a lot.
3) Yes, I'm the only one, so what? I just don't care about Global correction, I always listen at the same place. And I got the best result for this place by such measurements. I do not claim that Lyngdorf rules are wrong and do not invite everybody follow my way.


Lyngdorf created a room correction to be specifically set up a certain way - a somewhat unorthodox way, compared to most other brands - Peter Lyngdorf goes on about why he did this in multiple interviews.

How to set up room correction for any device is not marketing.. how are you making this leap? Do you see people using any other room correction saying this stuff? Somehow you've got the inside track and the hot takes on how it really should be.. it's beggars belief. Do you have anything to show us so we can understand why you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Again, taking measurements from multiple points in the room is not to solely serve the global setting and by your own words you are claiming they are wrong - please email literally anyone there to see if they agree with you.

Also, if you think Lyngdorf are some sort of evil big pharma type company with a big marketing machine you couldn't be more wrong - they are literally 'buy it.. don't buy it.. whatever' have you ever spoken to any of them??
 
It's a pity you don't read posts you answer to.

No, I read them just fine. But good dodge on not addressing any of my or others counterpoints. You've ended up contradicting yourself by saying Lyngdorf aren't wrong yet also declare it as 'marketing legends' and then go on to ignore my (and others) rebuttal of your claims.

Set it up whatever way your like, you're a lone man on a desert island in this regard. Email Lyngdorf with your findings.
 
Theory is theory, but you can't argue with results.

NDLO says he tried it their way and his way, and his way worked better.
 
Theory is theory, but you can't argue with results.

NDLO says he tried it their way and his way, and his way worked better.

What results? Subjective claims with no evidence are just that.
 
What results? Subjective claims with no evidence are just that.

Yes, the results are in question if they're based on objective measures.

But how many RP devotees have done that, and certainly RP would rank near the bottom of RC systems with its ragged measured post-EQ response.

The results are not in question if they're based on the user's preference.
 
The results are in question if they're based on objective measures (how many RP devotees have done that?), and certainly RP would rank near the bottom of RC systems with its ragged post-EQ response.

The results are not in question if they're based on the user's preference.

There aren't any results tho, just hearsay. Let me ask you this, are you now going to try the same thing? Do you think anyone else is going to? Or does it sound like something that goes against all the RP documentation which is apparently 'marketing'
 
There aren't any results tho, just hearsay. Let me ask you this, are you now going to try the same thing? Do you think anyone else is going to? Or does it sound like something that goes against all the RP documentation which is apparently 'marketing'


What results (not mfgr advice or theories) are there that support your position?

Again, RP's measured results look like poo.

Is your position that theories and measurements are more important than how it sounds?

Do you think NDLO should use recommended procedures when he gets sound that he likes better when he does it differently?

Would *you* do that?
 
RoomPerfect took years to develop and there are over 50 elements protected by the patent. 20 years ago, Peter would be setting up room correction systems at shows and often it would take him all night to get the results he was happy with.

He started by taking a measurement at the main listening position but found this didn’t capture the room or the speakers with any accuracy. Move the mic an inch and you can get a very different measurement of higher frequencies.

This is why their unique measurement process was developed. If you don’t use it, you will definitely get worse results from RoomPerfect. If you like it then use it ,but I can 100% guarantee it will give measurably and sonically inferior results than using the process Lyngdorf recommends.

The initial measurement with the mic firing at the speakers, from the main listening position aims to capture the sound of the speakers and the characteristics of the room. This is because you would expect someone’s voice or a loudspeaker to sound different in say a bedroom or a bathroom because the rooms are different sizes and have different acoustics. As such its vital the system understand both the sound of your speakers and of your room.

This measurements allow RoomPerfect to create a target curve that s unique to your speakers in your room. Whatever frequency response your speakers have, RoomPerfect is unique in preserving it.

The second thing that’s very different with RoomPerfect measurements process is that you then measure across the full width, length and height of the room. If you room was 20m long, you should take a measurement say 18m from your speakers. All of your room’s acoustics impact on sound quality at every point in the room. Without understanding all of your room, you cannot get the best results at the main listening position or anywhere else.

Please use the system as Lyngdorf recommends, they know what they are doing and if it gave better results with all measurements taken at the same position, they would say so.

If you haven't watched the video posted early in the thread by Peter, you really should.
 
What results (not mfgr advice or theories) are there that support your position?

Again, RP's measured results look like poo.

Is your position that theories and measurements are more important than how it sounds?

Do you think NDLO should use recommended procedures when he gets sound that he likes better when he does it differently?

Would *you* do that?

I've my own measurements on this thread and I didn't make the claim. Didn't look like poo either.. not sure what you're basing this against.? I just saw some of my results vs a Dirac sweep that looked very similar.. or is Dirac poo.. I think you're out in the weeds a bit with this.

My position is that Room Perfect has an unorthodox way in which it is set up and run, to turn around and then say I did it completely different with no evidence to suggest it's better is a subjective claim, period.

I think he can do what he likes, I've already said that.

Are you going to do the same experiment? Maybe you can show similar?
 
Nothing I've said contradicts or disputes anything you guys or Lyngdorf says.

Wait, actually it does - please point me to a measured RP response that has a semblance of being smooth or flat.
 
I got the best results making ALL measurements in the focus point, so the rest of the room does not limit the focus position correction. I need the best sound at the MLP and don't care about the sound elsewhere in the room.
How much Room Knowledge do you get when doing all measurements at the same point? I didn't think it was possible to reach 90% when doing it that way.
 
Are you going to do the same experiment? Maybe you can show similar?


In answer to that, no.

I care about more than one fixed listening position, and I find running RP too tedious to do it for the sake of academic interest.
 
Nothing I've said contradicts or disputes anything you guys or Lyngdorf says.

Wait, actually it does - please point me to a measured RP response that has a semblance of being smooth or flat.


I said my graphs are on this thread. The ones from Gecko are as well or in this forum. Your claim was that room perfect scored sub par post EQ in REW.

So when you find all these Lyngdorf users with bad graphs how are you going to show that:

1. They are sub par results
2. They are sub par results compared to X number of RC systems in the same set up and room.
3. How the differences (if any) correlates into what you hear in a blind test.

You did say a few weeks back something about not using REW, that you don't tinker and that you need professional help. I would also go back to my comment that it's getting into the weeds a bit here and reinforce the claim that using RP in a single position is completely flawed.

You've tried to take the premise off course. Even after other people openly disagreeing.

But since you don't care about any of this academic interest and aren't willing to recreate anything it makes it all redundant.
 
You've tried to take the premise off course. Even after other people openly disagreeing.


I certainly did not.

My original point was that user sound preference trumps theory, which neither you nor Rob deny.

Yet you both went on about theory and other's results which support it, and which I don't argue with.

As for me searching through 10k posts to find graphs, no thanks.
 
Last edited:
I certainly did not.

My original point was that user sound preference trumps theory, which neither you nor Rob deny.

Yet you both went on about theory and other's results which support it, and which I don't argue with.

As for me searching through this 10k posts to find graphs, no thanks.


Sure, if you want to grind it into it's finest semantic paste then any preference even to the point of delusion trumps theory.

However if I think it's shaky logic, bad practice and flawed I can at least give solid reasons that come down heavily on my side and I think 99.9% of the users here would agree. This isn't about like a little more sub in your bass or atmos in your heights or whether you don't conform to a very neutral tonality. It's like buying a car and driving it in first gear.

But feel free to jump in with your graphs to show me this bad RP, REW stuff post EQ and since this would be academic, I guess to make it fair you'd have to follow fair criteria that I've listed above.

Or not... I mean I did at least ask NDLO if he could show me so I could understand and did point out why his views on the global setting wasn't correct as did @scoc
 
...I can at least give solid reasons that come down heavily on my side and I think 99.9% of the users here would agree.

It's really very simple - NDLO is the .1%, and the rest is irrelevant.

I'm sure everyone is getting bored with this, so that's the last I'll say about it.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom