[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_]]

"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